Jump to content

Talk:Painted turtle/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

any more on the evolutionary background of turtles?

I know I asked about this before, but want to try once more. And I just read Starkey and realize that there isn't some perfectly understood evolutionary history of the testudines. But is there any more known about like what was there before the picta? Obviously there was probably some progenitor of sliders and cooters and picta. But is there something named like for humans there is austrolopithicus or whatever? Don't give it to me if it's too junky or too much in debate, but I just want to check and see if there is a little more on the "fossil story". Like if I went to earlier than the 15 million, is there some species that is the obvious fore-runner? Just coming up as I do this rewrite.TCO (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I covered it pretty well, based on the last time I tried squeezing you, and the ref even covers right point, but of course if you come up with a little more dope than that would be great. I'm not too hopeful as even Starkey who advocates an evolution based classification seems to say turtle branching is not well known. But anyhow, if you get anything, should be easy to plug in.TCO (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
What you wrote is great, and I'll continue to search. If I find anything you'll get a note on your talkpage.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorta what we already discuss:http://www.jstor.org/pss/3889448.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't see it.  :(TCO (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
My fault (put the period and two hyphens too close to the URL): http://www.jstor.org/pss/3889448
--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
We are on the same wavelength or coming up with same stuff in searches. Yeah, I think it's important enough to add that paper as a ref. Bishop and Shmidt (1931) also had a glacial hypothesis, but I think Bleakney was the one wrt hybridizing. So would leave as written, change 1950s to 58 and then right after the comma goes the paper.
P.s. I have been reading Starkey. It is actually a pretty decent paper for surveying who went before. I really don't like his thing though, from the more I read. He comes from a school of thought that says there's no such thing as a subspecies so voila, he nukes the other subspecies. That's not a result of DNA, it's a result of his view of what makes a species. Same with his thing with dorsalis. He doesn't believe in subspecies so voila it must be a full species. But even if it is most different, it still intergrades fine. But the good thing is he wrote the paper so clearly, you can learn from it even if you don't agree. There is also some chromosomal DNA stuff that HAT guy talked about, and I have seen comments from people about them working on it in other sites and stuff, but haven't really seen the published paper. Not sure if not out, or I just haven't seen it.TCO (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we're gonna have to pick and choose which viewpoints to mention in the article. Starkey is a little opinion heavy at times but his paper does contain some good information. I think we have enough content to be honest.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we are clean. P.s. Notice that Rhodin is a 2003 coauthor...TCO (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Maybe someday we'll be the next 'Starkey/Rhodin' duo. ;-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I added a pretty good source on the exact issue of the forerunner and branching of the picta and relatives. From 1982 and very detailed and on that topic. Backs up the "don't know". Also, Starkey and Ernst seem to also, although you have to read in a little more on them. I think '82 source nails it and nothing we've seen since contravenes it.TCO (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone having major concerns with anything related to that section now. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ref generator question

Just reading back through our archives. Noticed comment about ref generator: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php I have been using the cite toolbar, which I think uses the most common system of cite templates. Just took a look back, NYM, and you recommend that website tool and it looks a lot better (much larger text). Do you know if it gives the same result, same format? We didn't have any issues right? Also, is this the mechanism by how you can just enter an ISBN and it does the whole book reference? Someone told me there was a tool for that.TCO (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never used the cite toolbar but I would assume they produce different citations (but I think we're fine). I use the toolserver for everything (I find it the most helpful one, but others don't). And I don't know if it does the ISBN thing, that would be really cool though!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I just uploaded a reference using that Magnus tool. Very nice. The one difference, that I see, is in the date formatting. When I use Magnus, I get same format as you. On the other tool, even though automated and I just clicked "today", I was getting that other format. TCO (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
That explains a lot. Haha...and if you ever find out about that ISBN thing, let me (and the rest of the crew) know because that would save everyone a lot of time.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Got an answere here for the ISBN tool (little more, too) [1]

going through the old talk

I just got curious and was rereading the huge discussions on talk that we had. Some good stuff in there. Maybe a couple tweaks on article and also some ideas for new articles. (if you wonder why the odd things coming up in talk or little nits).

P.s. Love the new banner on there. Sail, turtle, sail!TCO (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's great that someone's keep us all interested with (maybe not so) new material.  ;-) Aaah...I'm just giving you a hard time. The article is in unbelievable shape in my opinion; it's just up to me to check the formatting of the rest of the references (I promise, will be done by tonight). And, thank you, I love that picture as well. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Publisher Italicization

For some references, the publisher is italicized, while for others it isn't. I don't know which one is more correct, but I feel like these should be consistent (will go through and change once I found out which is better).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, is it just journals that get italicize? Well, I've been going through the refs and they look pretty good, I'm not quite done though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. Pages for references 137 and 138?
  2. For ref 119, may wanna check the page range again (did we really use all 40+ pages!?)
  3. Ref 93 has a copyright date at the bottom (2011)
  4. Ref 111 also has a copyright date (2011)

1. For journal references, we should NOT list a publisher. This is regardless of if you have a url to find it on the web. That's really just an alternate way of finding it. But what governs is the hard copy paper, like if you walk into a science library and pull the bound copies down. The real citation is the author name, volume, year, page, number. Just use a publisher if you are listing a book (very much needed as books come out with identical titles all the time) or if you are listing a website itself. Other than that, I have no idea on the italicization and if there is a discrepancy is this perhaps a result of clashing cite templates (toolbar, versus Magnus?) Or is it a result of the format of "cite book" and "cite web" being different?

P.s. you are hitting cite journal when a journal, cite book when a book, and cite web when a pure website, right? Think it important to use the right one, not just cite web anything. It doesn't matter if we access it online, what matters is the hardcopy.

P.s.s. I might be totally misreading things and not even addressing your question. I didn't even know what to look at. Can you call out an example? Por favor?

2. 137 is 8-9 (watch out for ndash!  :)) and 138 is p 15. (Good upgrades. you are pushing me!  :)) BTW, I don't want to conflict with you, but now that I look at the refs want to just add a word on subspecies (tiny tweak on wording, but makes it match the states a little better also and gives a little more meat to the reader.)

3. Make it 3-7, please. Watch the ndash!

Keep kicking ass!

(ec) 4-5. Let me look. Not sure what your point is? We had an error that you fixed or that I am not filling out fields right?

TCO (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

4-5: I think it is fine, NYM. The info has not changed. The website just has some automatic thing to upgrade the copyright, given we are in a new year now. I think the accessdate is what is bibliographically governing. I would leave it as is. Obviously, the website could change, but that can happen with any website, any time and is just why citing a real PAPER source is superior (like a real journal). But the citation with the December accessed at is fine. Serious.TCO (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

91 and 92, look a little goofy how the info is repeated. I wonder if this is from using "cite news" instead of cite web. That is a pretty old ref, by the way. Makes me wonder if we have the issue elseshwere though.TCO (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
So many things to say, here goes. Thanks for clearing up the journal/publisher thing. I have been using cite journal, so we're good there. And you got my comment right, for example, why is the publisher in #61 italicized? I will watch the ndashes and don't worry about edit-conflicts, you go ahead and edit. The copyright dates should be included is all I was getting at (assume that's what some of the confusion was about?). --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this what you use for ndashes  - (may have to view in edit mode)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Kinda seeing a few other things that look off to me. Key is to actually look at the references in "view" and imagine someone had a hard copy and that was it, as the citation. Then, does it make sense or not, could the find the info, is it like something that is traceable. I will go through and either make some comments or fixes. I definitely don't want this to feel like tugging you in different directions from the reviewer. I think he and I are pretty aligned. TCO (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you and him were fixing problems left and right! And don't worry about where you 'pull' me: I'll go anywhere so long as it betters the article.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

1. No sweat man, you know so much more than I did at age 18, it's not funny. you are doing great. I don't know it all either. One can always learn. That said, I've written 10 real science papers (like Starkey's but not in biology) and done a thesis and all that. And it was before cite templates and the like. The bad side of the templates, versus manually doing it, is you start to lose touch with the output and just plug stuff in and sometimes lose a connection to the end product. Don't get me wrong, I think templates are the way to go for sure, but also important to understand the principles and not have it be a black box. I will probably list about 10 refs where I see issues (I can help fix some as well), but want it to be something where you understand the reason for the changes, so that it's stable, so new refs are clean, so you are that much more of a stud on the next article, yadayada. And if I don't know the exact rule, I'll admit it and we'll double check.

2. NO! Don't put the copyright of that webpage you looked at right after the New Year into the cite template. That's a rathole we don't want to go into. That's the reason we have "accessed at" as a field. The source we used was the one from DEC. Seriously, talk it out if still doesn't feel right, but that is not something where we need to come back every year and update it. to really update it, we would not just have to update the number, but actually reread the page (and update the accessed on date). Don't go down there. OUR reference was the one from the accessed on date, whatever our eyes saw on THAT DATE (in essence the wayback machine would govern, which is why paper sources are superior, but it's fine, we are upfront with that it is a website, we admit the flaw). We don't need a date for websites other than accessed on. The only time, I would add one is if it's like a website that basically is just displaying a newspaper or a magazine or some annual report (in which case, use the called out date on that document, and NOT what is down at the bottom, which changes every time some webdesigner updates the logos on top of the page.)

3. I use the button in wikimarkup, for ndash (and nbsp thingie) below the save page. I can not visually see the difference, so don't know what is what, so just overwrite one's I'm worried about. If you have it memorized and find it faster, just type the code. It will be fine either way.

4. Let me fix text (nonrefe thing) first while in my head, then I will work through the refs. This is not going to take forever, but to get the article to shine, and go back to that guy squared away, we ARE going to have to take it up another notch. I think it's fine though. Not hearing anything else to work on and might as well make it perfect. There are some real old (in composition) refs in there and a lot of people sticking them in. And even though we thought we were clean, we really weren't.

TCO (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fix what you gotta fix. I won't add those dates (but I may have done it for other ones, I'll check). And thanks, I'll try the ndash button out (didn't even know there was one). We'll figure all this out, get it polished, and ask our guy if he can give it a once over. The review is going surprisingly slow (I don't know if that's bad or good though...).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(From above) REf 61 Missoulian looks fine. There is no publisher listed. That is cite news, and Missoulian is the name of the newspaper. would not normally list the publisher of a newspaper. It is good.TCO (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Music to my ears.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

TCO reflist check

Based on what you've been doing, NYM, and what foo pointed out, I went and did a pass through myself. It's pretty decent, although not the 100% clean was hoping. maybe not that much work, but I just want to use the opportunity to kind of raise my game on this sort of thing. Here's my list, referring to name as well, but off of this diff if we change some numbering: [2]

  • First, I'd like to hold off on the "starting at". That really wasn't why I picked those sentences to show a start. And if you look at the cite WP directions, they don't say that's why you pick a quote. I picked the strongest sentence, but not nescesarily the start of a passage. Also, that guy is such a good dude, I think if we take a strain on all the rest of it and explain our reasons, he will be cool with how we do it even if we didn't follow his wish. If not, we can just change it then. So leave til last.
  • "WCSU" (3, 19, 54)**This is not that great a source, just reliability-wise. We really have an incredibly well reffed article. And we didn't get it flagged by the reviewer. I'm not taking the attitude of never using this stuff. Think you have to use refs of different quality and all will not be Ernst or Gamble. This is basically a student and professor put together project. Not sure it is really that much better than WP. I'm NOT saying to get rid of it. Just, think we should take a look at all the places we used it and if possible add an Ernst (or whoever) ref that supports the thought as well. Maybe we used this cause it was simpler or more direct, about something that you had to read in with Ernst or the like. But just would feel better if we could back up as much as possible of the claims with another ref (probably can a lot). If there is some claim that depends on this source only, we should look at what it is. Can probably keep it. Not saying to trash it. but let's doa a check.
OK, I read through and we are fine. Everything she says seems to be orthodox and I see how she helped us in three sections. for repro, we are heavy on her, but Ernst is in there as while. The stuff we have on taxonomy and synomnyms in the infobox is pretty vanilla and matches a source I just came by. I didn't expect any issues, but just felt I should check our usage after making that remark.TCO (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Right, I used that source early on. It had some good info that some of my other sources didn't, but now we have all the sources in the world (thanks to your toiling).  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The project is called the Herpetology Species Page. should be in the cite somehow. Also, think just listing the person as a publisher looks funny and is not exact, think we should add her current affiliation in parentheses (Western Connecticut State University Biological and Environmental Sciences Department), maybe comboine with Herpetology Species PAges also. Would still make it clear, publisher is not the school, but help give some more description, not just a name. And it's not just me trying to make the thing look more upright, it's actually a better citation. Like if the website went down, people would have a little more contact for the publisher, not just one of the 300 million people in the US. Also, while it does seem she has ported this between schools once, profs are usually at a school for a long time and I expect she missed tenure at Yale and will be at WCSU for a while...plus in any case, if she left the department might keep it up.
      • I looked into the guidance [3] and what I'm going to do is keep all that you have here, but add HSP as the "work" (it fits that definition and is important info), and I will keep Pinou as the publisher but add her affiliation in parens. going in now...TCO (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That said, if you wanted to junk this ref and could replace with valid Ernst or the like, would not bug me a bit. Bt not pushing you to get rid of your baby. (I have a couple junky ones too, I know. Sometimes you have to.)
I think this source is mildly okay to use. It's secondary level stuff and they even cite Ernst. If you want it gone than, as you would say, "viola," but I think we should ask our reference guy first if it really needs replacing.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, lets keep it. Just need to fix the name then. And I will just feel better doing a passthrough to see if there is anything controversial relying on her (but I bet we are fine).
Well, maybe I'm giving that source more credit than it deserves. We'll see what some other reviewers say about it (thanks for bringing it up now, otherwise we may have been blindsided at FAC and forced to hastly take it out).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I came across one that has a lot of the synonomy stuff if we need a backup. Will get link on talk at least. I'm fine with the sourcing. If we have to change will be a medium level bit of work. Ernst covers a lot of repro, but we may need to search related to a few factoids. As the Turtle Project High Commander, I do recommend going out and looking at Conant and at a few field guides some time, just will help as you go species to species and overall with your being able to evaluation consistency and things like that. Your university can get them by ILL if their collections don't hold them. It's not about asking you to pay for books. Just would be good to look at the Pepsi and RC Cola a little (since we have Coke well sampled).
I hope they don't ask for a change. If I thought it was really wrong, rather than not awesme, would just push for us to fix it on own, like I do with other things. I think it meets the Wiki standards, but then they do say to try to have some better refs as well. I think we do that. If they pushed for an upgrade, I would go along though. (Not like on the org, where I took some of the guidance and explained on other why we stuck with our version.) On one like this I would just put on the boots and start shovelling.TCO (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone does come along and say something, I'll do the fixes; it was my inclusion/fault. I really think we're okay though (and we're giving the references in general serious attention, which is good).  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 20 Herpetology Program. We should call out the institution. This is a case, where these are full time paid scientists in a quasi governmental instutition. It's not some professor's lab group or (gack) class project. More like Fish and Game Department. Saying the program is really less helpful than saying the institition (like saying Sonar Division, doesn't help you, but saying USS Nautilus and you know the ship.) Saying both is even better of course. but Herp Program on it's own, and I have no idea what the heck that is (may be hundreds in world).
  • 23 Field Guide. Looks like a book. We should have ISBN and publisher. Search it.
I was 90% done with Magnusifying this ref (even reading the Amazon preview, not avail in Google, for the page number), but this is not a good reference to have here. His guide is for looking at turtles in Ontario only (even says this is the apperance of the turtles in Ontario) and then the description of the color makes no sense when later under subspecies we say they can be red (and we've seen some pictures from the PNW where they are very red). I'm just going to nuke this ref and look for a better reference.TCO (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Done, fixed.
Good, I was going to say something about that source (tried to use it before, someone at FAC for Bog said it was unreliable), glad you caught it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 39 Wright. OK that we had the publisher here. I would definitely not bother with a periodical that is in Science Citation, like Gamble's stuff. Could probably have gotten away without it here too, but it's fine. For the museum periodicals its borderline. Certainly would do it if it were a newsleter or had some name that might be prone to bein used by more than one mag (Insight mag for instance). that said, Smithsonian does not need the publisher listed (or Natural History) even though from a museum.
  • 44 Degenhardt. "pp" means plural pages. We should use "p" here. Not sure if this is from template or manual error. HAve seen it before cropping up. I think this is a flaw in Magnus's tool.
  • 53 Algonquin. Why do we here (And a few elswhere) have archive from original? Also, 53 and 75 are repeats.
I condensed the two lists (good catch). I've heard it's always good to include the old archives of a webpage, not sure why, but I left it in for now (is there a reason we shouldn't?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know on the archiving. Wasn't critical. Just figured we could learn something. I guess if those people keep dawdling, we could do it for the rest of the web only stuff (not journals of course, but like WCSU or HAT).
It's very cool, just wondered if you could teach me how to do it and also link to where it explains when more important to do. Wasn't criticizing and I know it is not black and white. Just want to learn. Half the fun of this stuff is getting better at it.TCO (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, I have no earthly idea. SunCreator did those few, I would ask him. Sorry! --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 69 Jackson 15 in parens is from doing date wrong
  • Gervais 89 and Gamble tech report (I need to check how to cite a report properly). Question in.
I got my question answered over at the citation talk page. There is a specific template for tech reports but it clashes with the rest of what we are using (different format). Probably best to use cite journal (definitely not cite web, I was wrong there.) Publisher would be the institution (I think in this case the sponsoring institution). We might want report for in parens, but I need to figure that out.TCO (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 91 and 92, SAR, look fine. Not sure what my issue was.
  • 97 and 98 as cited by Gervais should use same wording as others and have some Gervais link or full cite. Or go secondary.
Nailed it...I think. Let me know if formatting checks out (btw, citation number is now one lower because I condensed those other two... apologies).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks awesome. You read my mind. Don't worry, there's a few more refs coming for bellii in SW and also COSEWIC, and one glacial one. I'll keep us over 150.  ;)
We shouldn't have the url twice on those two refs (both urls go to the Gervais paper, not the listed paper. Also as long as we are wainting, we might want to just glance at the refs (if online) and then we can get rid of the as cited by.TCO (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense, we could simply cite the actual journal. The way we have them is, as far as I can tell, acceptable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 103 Barnes, convert to cite journal and give nl name.
Is that a journal? Looks almost like a newspaper (which, if it were, would also require a change). And what's 'nl?'--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. Newsletter. I would use journal. I think we tend to use that for pretty much and magazine like periodical, not just formal journals. I would leave news for real newspapers. If you dig around on that page, you can find the name of the newsletter and the archives and all.
  • 118 and 32) Senneke. Need to figure out if "article" should be noted and in what template field. I was misusing form and work at one time. form is probably OK (need to check on that too, though). May just want to delete the word article.
Took out the word " article " for ref 117 (formerly 118). You're right, don't think we needed it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Page for ref 137 (Hunting Regulations), did you say 15? I can't find a page 15. I made the change in the article already, you can just replace the number when you find it (just letting you know).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. It was 79. 15 was pdf. P.s. I know I messed up, but just sharing. Lots of time, just doing a search with picta or painted in the "find" will get you to the right page. A good trick.TCO (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and don't worry about it, it was a painless switch.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I am totally cool if you guys have a reason to cite the strongest quote to allow location of the information using web sources! Well founded editorial decisions over rule my interdisciplinary (I'm hums/soc-sci) drive by review of your work. Keep up the great work! If you have a good reason to tell me to go jump in the lake on the FAC, please do so :) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Fifelfoo! We've taken what you said and fleshed it out (into this big mess you see above), I feel like we're getting the hang of it. Are there any outliers we may have missed?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
-)TCO (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Scratching the Chihuahua itch

FYI, there is a litle bit of a correction I need to make in Chihuahua sentence. Let me get it all squared away first. Sorry taking a while. don't worry, not writing some long Capture-like section. May need to add a sentence though. big thing is the refs, have been digging back into old papers. I will probably need to add a sentence on glacial as well and maybe on etymology/discovery. All very minor and no big revisions, but there were some subtleties when I dug into it. Just putting this here to put myself on report. Rather figure it all out and update at once, too. TCO (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good my friend. In the absence of reviewers, the polishing continues. ;-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What we need to get done...

List of to do. Head is really woozy, having a hard time going after this. Hope I'm not brain cancer. Any help appreciated (with the article, not my head) :(

what's left:

*rest of the refs (just nl, I think and a nl is MORE like a periodical than a newspaper, realio trulio!)

What exactly needs to be done here...reformatting?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • add page 9 for added ref wrt intergrading (stunning review of all the papers on intergrading, great ref for the reader, better than what we had)
    • add page 11-14 (13 esp good) to support the synonmey citations of WCSU (can leave WCSU, just add this one). If there are some tiny differences in the content, you can handle it with an nb ("sources differ slightly, presented version is ref WCSU") of course, if get an insight to tweak the content that's fine too.
Sorry, I ask too many questions...which BC sentence (British Columbia?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • upgrade bellii distribtuion discussion (will be good, less reptition of the species, more real detail...and the blue bubbles are fascinating to the reader, pulled us in a lot)
Added: "In Arizona, the painted turtle is native to the area surrounding Lyman Lake (Apache County) however, it has also been introduced to waterways near Phoenix.[45]"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • sent. on NM distrib locations (crosses state, but primarily resitriced to two parallel N_S rivers, the X and the Y,) ref: [4]
Added: "Distribution in New Mexico follows the Rio Grande and the Pecos River, two waterways that run in a north-south direction through the state.[44]"--You're the copy-editor, so feel free to reword.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • rewrite Chihauha, delete comment about only studied in 1931, "two locations on the Sant Maria", note the closed basin and wikilink the concept, add these two refs, change link for Galeana (but not for Chih) to link to Spanish wiki. Wilmer W Tanner 1987, Smith and Taylor 1950
    • add this ref to cover whole para [5]
  • Add this ref, [6] then
    • add a sentence to taxonomy describing how BS were first to set as 4 subspecies, disallowed the Teselian intergrade species and that formerly lots of debate and confusion on species versus subspecis. Then break para with etymology as getting too long.
    • Add an "nb" and this ref, to the 1958 Bleakely discussion, saying that BS also alluded to glacial theories of subsp evolition, but with less detail.
This is all great. I'll bang out this list tomorrow (it's about 2:00 a.m. as I'm writing this comment), let me handle it all, I feel like I've been slacking on this article with all that's been going on over at WP Turtles. I was going to say something about the map (no shading in some states that have noted painted turtle populations), I'll get that done quickly. Great work TCO, and I hope you don't have brain cancer (or any other cancer for that matter).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Take over man, I trust you!

P.s. I think the map is OK. It matches everythin I know and I don't think we should show pet releases. But what you think best...TCO (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the only things we NEED to get done for FA are fixing that one nl reference, and removing the false claim about 1931 and Bishop and smchmidt. I will do the latter. All the other stuff can be done afterwards as just making someghing great, even greater.TCO (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe one from the rest of the list, would just be to get that PHD thesis p 13 in as a backup for all the synonomy WCSU refs. Then we've got that thing backstopped in all three sections we use it.TCO (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You're doing great, NYM. I will put an editor eye against it, too. Just get something in. Appreciate your filling in my clipped thoughts. Full speed ahead! TCO (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Question, for this ref (http://www.marshall.edu/etd/masters/mann-melissa-2007-ma.pdf), could you point out where/what you want things added ("intergrading" as in hybridization? And, are you sure you got the page numbers right? For instance, Page 13 is just a picture.) I'll keep trucking my friend.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've generated the ref for Sherman Bishop source: <ref> {{cite book | last1 = Bishop | first1 = Sherman | title = Collected reprints, Volume 1 | year = 1920 | location = Cornell University | pages = | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=9sNJAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA189&lpg=RA1-PA189&dq=Painted+turtles+of+the+genus+Chrysemys,+by+Sherman+C.+Bishop+and+F.+J.+W.+Schmidt.&source=bl&ots=SBrC1thR1R&sig=21-H8PEf4IRQgbjL4haFYOGdJvs&hl=en&ei=X2wkTbPNFISKlwfLiJTaAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=twopage&q&f=false | accessdate = 2011-01-06}}</ref>, but I cannot seem to find the information you're talking about. If you could just give me page numbers, I could put the information in.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me get caught up on all the stuff going down. Trying to buck Mall up. Hope it is not seen as being a busybody, oh well.

1. Umm...sorry about the page, but maybe check pdf number or do find function. It's in first chapter for sure (her thesis itself is pretty focused on just one area, it's the intro stuff that is gold)

Here's the reference I generated: <ref> {{cite book | last1 = Mann | first1 = Melissa | title = A Taxonomic Study of the Morphological Variation and Intergradation of Chrysemys picta (Schneider) (Emydidae, Testudines) in West Virginia | publisher = s | date = May 2007 | year = 2007 | pages = 20 | url = http://www.marshall.edu/etd/masters/mann-melissa-2007-ma.pdf | accessdate = 2011-01-07}}</ref>. Just wanted to plop it here first because I'm unsure of a couple things (I left publisher blank, don't think the school is the publisher, also, I got page 20 for the integrating bit). I think it would go best after this phrase: "The western and southern subspecies met in Missouri and hybridized to produce the midland painted turtles..."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2. On Arizona, let's move the pet comment (southern Arizona) to the pet intro section after the end of all the other stuff. Let's be really clean on that division. (thought better).

Fixed. Good thinking.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

3. there's a sentnece in conservation where we talk about BC endgangered and special concern with like 5, soon to be 6 refs. that's were I want the nb magic.

Another "nailed it...I think," check it over, make sure it's kosher.  ;-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Yeah, I think where we have the Vermont ref for intergrades. I see this as a stronger (more general) ref on same topic.

5. The newsletter thing should be listed as a journal and the name of the newsletter should be used (check archives page and it lists them). It's in our ref TCO list. Last one to cross off. Number is there.

Here's what I got: <ref> {{cite journal | title = On the Ground: The Oregon Conservation Strategy at Work | journal = Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) | date = 2010-02 | first = Meg | last = Kenagy| id = | url = http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/news/2010/2010_february.asp | accessdate = 2011-01-07}}</ref>. That was one of the more difficult sources to cite, I think I got it right though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

6. I can do Bishop and Schmidt. Thanks for the code. Paper is a pain to read, took me 2 times. He doesn't really do a good job of saying "this is the sitation" and "here is how we change it", but if you read it over, he does assert subspecies of what were species before. And other papers credit him with originating the 4 in one concept also (forget which, but probably Starkey or some others). the glacial thing is buried too, but if you read the paper from end to end, he definitely says it somewhere. Will reread it! TCO (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

7. For Tanner and the Smith and Taylor, I googled and got pdfs of their papers on the net, but not sure how to do the url (goes right to a pdf, not a webpage.)

I will try to work on as well. Be slow as head still hurting. Doc said anything serious very unlikely. Some wierd bug, like a cold but more in the brain, not in the throat. Probably need new glasses too. This site has small print.

Great, thank you for all the clarification. To be honest, I was kind of lost...I'm clear now though. And I totally know what you're going through (with the small print). I also wear glasses and for the first few months of wiki-use I had the worst headache: searching through html codes was visually/mentally exhausting.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I hope it is just that. My sister had a brain blood vessel burst once. Anyhoo...keep up the progress.TCO (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep up the good work. Sorry my brain is malfunctioning at such an important time. Talked to my other doc sis and she says its not the blood vessel my sis had, or eyes, though. Wants me back in the doc tomorrow for bloodwork and maybe go see a neuro. It's not like I feel stupid, analytical ability and experience still very good. But my speed, especially to work, is low. Somehow giving direction is easier, although still hard. Took a nap, but still dull and sleepy. P.s. you missed a "been" in Mexico sentence. P.s.s. You may need to buckle down, google-fu those refs I gave (if you want them), scan them for the info, etc. Probably "good for you", but of course not at all critical. I think really the newsletter lacking periodical name is the only "flaw". They are really cool papers though. Can read about those guys driving around Mexico and all. That river is really neat. Take a look on the Chihuaha article for the geography. It's in an enclosed basin, sorta like the River Jordan
ref 5 looks good. Way to dig, man.TCO (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Great! That only took me what...a week to do!? But I crossed it off, good riddens. And I truly hope you feel better. Don't die on me in the middle of an FA push!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No publisher for a thesis. Put it where the Vermont reference 39 is. should cover whole concept of intergrading, NOT that one place you said. You will have to bundle the four refs into an nb or cut one of the other refs (3 is sort of the magic number for looking like we are overciting. I don't think you really need an explanatory sentence in the note, unless you feel moved to explain the difference in the refs. Can just say See references.[][][][]. Or just ditch one of the other refs. Man, I am hurting...:(TCO (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was giving pdf numbers. Page 2 of the thesis has a list of ALL the intergrade papers. That's why it's such an awesome cite. Page 6 has the synonym stuff to back up WCSU.TCO (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read more on citing thesises, I would add publisher = (thesis) Marshall University TCO (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I cleared a lot of things up, Mann source is in there three times now (read it further, it's awesome, killer find). Threw in a few more ref things. Will include this publisher bit right now. Oh, and go to sleep, take a couple days off, whatever you gotta do. Health over wiki any day.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You are doing so great. Like how you got three things out of the thesis. This could be a trick for us to consider in the future. Although her topic is very narrow (intergrades in one region) her nessecity to do a lit review of the broader issue pays off for us (basically she has a lit review). Something to use as a trick later. I'm going to rest. I'm kind of bored, but my head still hurts and thinking lying down would get more blood into it)TCO (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Navy dolphin is in u wiki watching you work via his watch list
Goodnight man. And that is a gem of a source. I'm gonna add all the species synonyms tomorrow (nothing else I've seen has this). Feel better.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And it has an awesome map (only the second one to break it up by subspecies), but it seems to cut off all of the western range (maybe because it focuses on West Virginia).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your lead change. It is more accurate. Can't sleep.TCO (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, maybe that's what the person meant by "magazine-ish," I don't know. The wording of that one sentence just stuck out to me.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it was a deft sentence. And I think magaziney is good.  ;) Just that we only know of one business touting the livestyle. So it was wrong. Yours is more fair.TCO (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Mine is wrong too than, I made it plural. Magaziney is good, but if other people latch onto that one dude's opinion, we may have to reword a few sentences (not a big deal).  :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Plural is correct. You are fine. There are only two, but that is a plural. And that's just an aspect of the affection. Is also HAT and the non-profit group doing conservation. I think it's cool. You made it more honest. TCO (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just working through some of the grammar

The following seemed to be worded awkwardly:

  • "Warmer climates produce higher relative densities among populations, and for given populations, warm weather periods drive temporary increases."--Wording

Change it to whatever conveys the information. I had something before that read a little smoother, but was more ambigious over what the mathematical-logical relationship was. So I just tried to be explicit. Do your best. There's actually a fair amount of complexity in that sentence.

Changed, my only beef was that the second half appeared to repeat the first half (correct me if I'm wrong).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Good cut.TCO (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Also, lake and river turtles have to make longer linear trips to access equivalent amounts of foraging space.[54]"--Should be under movement?

Cut the whole sentence. I don't have a good ref to back it up. Leave the stuff about the shallows (that is backed up, I know). The creatures need shallow water. Essentially that is their true habitat. Gamble and others call it out. The stuff about foraging can go. (It's probably true, per Operations research theories, but I can't prove it.)TCO (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember this one now, backed by the 1994 Ernst book. It's fine where it is, disregard.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Book store trip

Stopped in at Barnes and Noble to see what they had. Didn't buy anthying but a report:

-they did not have any almanac by Conant (I think it is old), but he was a co-author on a meager feild guide that was in store.

-Ernst was in their system but not in store. They did not have sales numbers (I was curios on how well it sells).

What they had on turtles:

Pets:

  • Turtles for Dummies (pretty good and detailed actually, could be a resource for a pet turtles article, or even ours if I wanted to cite pad, but the Barrons one should be fine, conclusions are same).
  • Barron's little book on turtles. So I've touched it and Google booked it.

Field guides:

  • thin Conant et al guide. Very limited info, but covering a lot of species.
  • beautiful Audobon Society field guide for all NAM reptiles. Plate pictures are extremely good for identification (large, clear, use disctintive subspecies examples (bright red line on the southerm, scutes alignment on the eastern). But no plastron pics and missing a pic of the midland. Range map was excellent. Showed the two river valleys in NM, every little spec in AZ or MEx, etc. But was missing subspecies breakouts. Text was very professional and well done, but still contstrained by lengtht to a page.

Science book:

  • Turtles of the Southeast by Gibbons. It's OK, beautiful pics. But covers a lot of species and not that much depth. Other versions for lizards of Southeast, etc.
Yeah, I checked this book out of my school library, you're right, not that much info (classic "Don't Judge a Book by It's Cover" scenario).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not buy any of them, but could if needed. Really I think we have better sources in general. Just checking and thinking.TCO (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pet store trip

Big Pets unlimited. Next to book store.

They did not have any turtles and did not carry them often. One Russian tortoise. very cute looking. She picked it up and it wriggled its legs and such. $110 was the price.TCO (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

tried using ISBN thing, didn't work

I tried doing the Western field guide, but it did not work for me.TCO (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks for getting back to me on that.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

going to ER, may be out a little while

No drama, sorry. Just don't let those hyenas mess with our article or there will be hell to pay when the male lion returns. (insert cute image)TCO (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yes Mufasa.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Back home. Got a cat scan and nothing came up bad. Still feeling worse and worse, though. See a specialist Monday. Take care. Won't have much capacity to work. Sucks as cutting out reading and writing cuts out almost everything I fill my time with. Hope I'm better soon.TCO (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bullets

We've established that User:56tyvfg88yju is an alternate account, however, an established editor agrees to an extent that the bulleted lists are a distraction. Let's brainstorm (perhaps not the most sensitive word choice, sorry TCO) a cleaner way to do this (it shouldn't be too hard really...no change in content).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Option 1. Just take the bullets off and the bolding off and make them regular paragraphs. If they look to short, develop the thoughts further with more information, or just live with some short paras.

Option 2. cram them all four at header down into a single paragraph (will be too long most places, I think). Will need to cut.

Option 3. Make some sort of formal subspecies subsections with more equals signs(the bulleting and bolding is just a non-line break section header). It doesn't really change anything, and takes more room, but it will appease the "what I'm used to on wiki" types. You could then break the bellii range bullet into two paras. Also, as with (1) could develop the thoughts further (you know research more, go into more detail, ask yourself what a reader would want to know and then go find it, not just Ernst-forward but reader-back, like we did with bellii range, do some google scholar searches, etc. there is a lot of primary info out there, just build them up.)

Option 4. combine all the subspecies info and have some sort of subspecies sections at the end (will be a nightmare I think, but 'storming).

Get Malleus to help you whip it into wiki-conformity. He's sharp and has a good ear and knows the game, too. I'm smart and experienced, but my head is really, really hurting now. Plus, I think I'm busting my ass trying to help out and its not really fitting into wiki. Maybe because they are wrong or maybe me. But I'm not even really learning (only people like Mall and Tony1 seem to be what I look up to on that stuff.)

You are going to need to drive it how you want it man. Good luck.TCO (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work, I'll keep this ship headed in the right direction, thank you so much for all your help. I truly do hope you feel better man. Best of luck, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you don't have to unbold Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(embedded_lists)#Appropriate_use. IMHO the article looks better without the bullets. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah they look fine without the bullets. And you can even get back some image alternnating now!  ;) And at least the whole exercise drove consistent order as well as parallel structure.
Bolding would be a nice touch as it kinda brings out a little pop and helps the reader as a pseudo section break (very normal style of writing report in military and corporate America). Because there is no real narrative structure, helps the reader decide what he wants to read and go to it (imagine someone being more interested in the turtles from their region for instance).TCO (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with bolding, did other have a problem with it though? And I am DONE! with worrying about alternating images.  :-P--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Give it a shot. I think it helps the reader. We covered all 4 subspecies within the article (rather than gawdwaful stubs), which was the way to go. Easier to process the information together in context. But a little bolding could help him navigate.TCO (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Done my friend. It does look good.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Digging the "be bold" bolding. Even helps with Habitat. (to guide the reader who is interested only in southern turtles as he lives in New Orleans, for instance)
Right, don't think anyone would argue that over at FAC.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You can play with layout. Have to do some other tweaks, I bet. I think in general the right images are a little friendlier in terms of section breaks and even pseudo section breaks (bolding). And future text addition and such. Tony1 is going to try to get something so the craze for alternation is limited a little (nothing wrong with it, but not the almost mandatory myth).
I think it looks pretty good as is...no? We all sort of spent a lot of time on it. And that's good news; I see where people are coming from (it can be distracting if too many are on one side), but to worry about it as much as we had to was ridiculous.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bishop and Schmidt

I loaded the content and the reference. It's 1931, not 1920, etc. If you're confused tread the paper. Twice. Not sure why url and title is glitching. go troupbleshoot.

I like it, be ready to explain who Bishop and Smith are though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The reference is sufficient. Honest. Their names are on the paper. It's normal usage. Calling them biologists would be redundant and wordy. And the whole section has a thread of different people making classification changes. It fits fine.TCO (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
What could be value added would be if we searched and wikilinked any of the names that have articles (might be some). Also, if we decided to redlink some (I don't know about all, but some of these guys were giants in herp world). That said, it is just fine to say, X and Y did such and such [ref with X and Y].TCO (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, because I have another name I might drop.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Name dropped (Samuel McDowell).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Only thing missing now is that 1987 expedition for Chihuahua. go hunt it down, read it, search for picta, understand it and reference it. Sorry, I am really hurting and it will be good for you to go search and read.TCO (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I got this one, give me a day.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Chihuahua expedition

I was kind of joking about it at first, but I think this would be a sweet student project and very publishable. Not cover of Science, but definitely reputable specialty journal. It's a cool oddity, where exactly is picta in Chi and are they still there, that drew us in and would interest others.

The two previous expedictions were trapping for all manner of reptiles, not dedicated to picta, so the surveys are pretty sketchy. You could do the inverse, trap on purpose for picta (using knowledge of their habits, basking trap versus hoop, at a time of the year when basking needed, etc.) Obviously incidental finds of other species would also be publishable.

The area has a fascinating hydrography (see image) with the closed basin with multiple rivers in it. Would be good to really know if any of the other isolated rivers have the pica. Also, some of the rivers have been diverted for irrigation and do not flow to lakes any more. So the picta might even be extirpated in Mexico at this time. Throw in your general knowledge of the species, knowledge of the previous work, some stuff about pressure in Oregon and BC, and the grant proposal practically writes itself. Not a doubt in my mind you can't get money jumping out of a government funder to pay for your jeep trip into the desert. It's got all the cross discipline and relevance to real world jazz they love (and even the undergrad angle). I know how their minds work.  ;)

And it would be a romantic trip. Just reading about those guys back then having cowboys fetch them reptiles and such was fascinating. I think that place is still very remote. "West of the Pecos" literally and figuratively.

Spanish ability would fit in beautifully to help the work. Plus the methods (collection, measurement, etc.) would be pretty simple. Not requiring being an electron microscopist or DNA scientist or some such (although some samples fetched home could be doled out). There are obvious things to think of to flesh it out or get more papers out of it (trap in NM and compare specimens, compare current specimes to any of the old expeditions (Field Museum may have the 1931 samples), etc.).

I'm sure you could get some teacher at school to PI the project if needed. Or contact Gamble or Gervais or what have you.

TCO (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Very cool! I actually have one of the biggest turtle enthusiasts right here at my school Ann Somers. She's written papers about the box turtle and bog turtle (!). I've acutally spoken to her before about this class that she designed. Her and a few select students go to Costa Rica and do sea turtle research (didn't get into the class this year...being a freshman and all). Perhaps she would be the perfect candidate to talk to about this. But a grant to do the work myself would also be nice. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
See if she's interested and do it as a summer project (get some funding, make a little money). Even if she doesn't want to go, she could advise you (looks kind and gentle). If she won't go, you could ask Gamble. Would be helpful to have an experienced collecter (and that is his strong suit). Plus, he looks like a man of action. Helpful if those Treasure of the Sierra Madre bandits come after you. But of course important to collaborate with you trust and can be friendly with.  ;) TCO (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
She's an absolute doll to be around.  :-) [No, I'm not kissing ass, she's not looking over my shoulder] I'll see what my summer's like, it definitely intrigues me and would be a big help to these turtles!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Smooch! (kidding). Getting serious again, I really see how this could be a nice theme. Painted turtles of the Guzman basin or the like. Has been a lot of funded work on the fishes in there. Can talk about the hydrology, find out where they really are. There's even another "closed basin" river from NM (not shown in map). And the comparison to species in the Rio Grande and that other river would be interesting (for instance have they been isolated long enough for differences, sort of like map turtles). Even though they are close, the basins are NOT connected. Pet releasese may mess the pretty study up, but then you can report that!TCO (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

wish Wiki had one citation format called out

Same one all articles, same in templates, manual, tools, etc. Even when we are trying to be consistent, we end up with glitches because of Magnus versus toolbar or things like that. If there were one presrcribed style, everyone could learn it. I've written in many journals and they were all different, but they were the same WITHIN the journal. And it didn't bother me a bit to use one or the other. I just followed format.TCO (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I know your pain. Reference formatting seems to be the biggest hold-up on the wiki. It's difficult to learn as is, without multiple formats being acceptable at the same time. We're getting there with this article though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

49-51

49 and 50 look like dupes (different editions of same source, probably same info in latest version). 51 has a stray paren and also lost its url.TCO (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like 50 and 51 are citing the same source (did I make one and you the other?). In any case, I'll combine and make sure the URL is there (and the "987-..." ISBN). Thanks for catching. 49 looks okay, no (or did you fix it already)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually left the other ISBN, condensed them all the same though. :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I probably didn't notice the difference. I would just go with the 96 one, since it has all the info for each comment and also had a google books availability to view. (ec, whatevah!)
P.s. Ask Mall, but I think going with a style of combining two subspecies into a para to "make it look right length" is not right approach. Go with all together or all separate. The paragraph is the unit of thought, the most important one according to White. So for paras try to make sure that everything ties together. Unless you have some comparison or contract, or some reason to link two species with each other (and you don't), it's a bad idea to just glom together like that. Just leave them as short paras, it will be fine. It's not the end of the world to have an occasional short para for a logical reason. If it really kills you, then develop the thought further. But I really think it will be fine. They probably won't even be "that" short. Most had at least two sentences, which is a very legit para. And even the ones that were single sentence were pretty long sentences with a lot of info in them. Having them in bullets kind of made that look less like short paras, but honest, it will be fine to have a few that are short. They're not that bad and better than glomming for no reason.TCO (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm with TCO re paragraph length. There's nothing wrong per se with short paragraphs. Don't combine them just to make them longer if they logically really ought to be separate paragraphs. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54,
It's no wonder I don't write for a living! I'm okay with separate paragraphs, they don't look half bad.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC) 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Man, it's not some "super arty verbal" thing like poetry or the like. And you can do it. It's just logical organization. Like companies and platoons and squads in the military. Or departments in a division in a school at college. Throwing in some breaks is better than having a wall of text, sure. But even better if your breaks show some sort of logical relationships, a heirarchy or a sequence. Each para should have a unifying thought. It could be analysis (breaking a larger object down into details), commentary, elaboration, narrative (an event in a sequence), what have you. But it should be clear what the squads, platoons and companies are. Reading in general is a strenuous task. And then for a technical topic even harder. So if you can just think of the reader and make thought structure "easy" it's that much more likely he will get into the topic itself. P.s. I broke all the 2 and 2s into 4s. The one habitat one is fine to leave unified. It's short enough and I don't see any reason to try to develop thoughts further.TCO (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right of course...think of the reader. It's almost so easy it's hard. I'll continue to hone my skills, and I'm so lucky to have you slap me on the hand with a ruler when I mess up! (Jokes, you explain things rather than lash out at me.)  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Doing both really drives the lessons home. (Whack! "You will write unified paragraphs." Wack!) Just kidding... Yeah, it should be easy for the reader, but it is "hard" for us. He gets the benefit of our hard work. Not even "hard" in concepts, but does take a little bit of awareness to try to learn rules of construction, and helpful to understand the "why"s of some of the rules, not just thinking of them as arbitrary. And then "taking a strain" in the composition process. You're doing so stellar though.TCO (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Why, thank you.  :-) And I see, our effort produces what people will read, it's up to us to get it right. And keep me in line!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Stray paren and missing url still present. Would fix but that is tough for me. May need to reload the whol ref (I think I rewrote over a template with fields and changing the type and that's why the url was hosed.) I would do but hurting again.TCO (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.TCO (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I see now, looks much better.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

linking herpetologist's names

Bishop had a pre-existing wiki page so I linked.

Schmidt seems like an interesting fellow and died in a fire with his notes. A lot of these naturalists would collect for years and years before publishing some huge monographs. Don't know if he deserves a page but here is his obituary: [7].

McDowell?

Samuel B. McDowell. Pretty obscure person (I tried everywhere to find some of his work, but here's a link to another language wiki [[8]]).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah no push. He has a cool snake named after him though.TCO (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Beautiful snake.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It was neatly filling the screen when I first loaded, but didn't want to scare you.TCO (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Haha, I'm not going to lie, it jolted me at first (especially since I was looking very closely at the screen to find you're new comment).  :-P NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Would not redlink Gervais or Gamble or Simon or Starkey. We should double-check for existing pages just to be anal.TCO (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Karl Patterson Schmidt. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
His brother.TCO (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Smith and Taylor each have wikipages, linked.TCO (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wilmer W Tanner has a French wiki page, we should wikilink to, when we make that ref. Or just make a new page, by translating that one.

(Also Smith and Tanner are both alive and worth consulting before a Chihuahua expedition, just for any insights.)TCO (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"buccal floor" whiskey tango foxtrot?

This is probably pretty remote and I can't really process it now, but thought I would share. Comparison of buccal floors by Tanner (came upon in ref search). Chrysemys is mentioned a little. TCO (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

turtle crossing signs from S.H.E.L.L. (Ontario)

Got a late email back from this group regarding a photo request (my earlier was in "junk", I guess this argues for doing followups!) She seems amenable to sharing licencing of her sign designs (I would still have to educate her on all that, standard stuff. She was not even aware that they held copyright as they said it would be too expensive, I think she was referring to registered copyright). Sent a couple of sign designs themselves. Could be useful in general for turtle (or even road) projects if we go through the stuff of getting it into Commons. For this article, still really prefer an "action" sign. And I preferred the BC sign as it was a region where we discussed conservation in article, plus it was being used for picta, not for Blanding or some such. But anyhoo...just sharing.

Another interesting note is she says that they have 700 signs up, but none on provincial highways, as the province does not see turtles as a danger to traffic. Can kinda understand how the province might clamp down on "sign clutter" and prioritize signs that really affect traffic. Just an interesting factoid if we did an article on turtle signs.

Can I show them here in talk, before getting permissions? (how?) The look like a styalized top down view of a turtle. with French and english calling out seasons. Can google them. I converted them to png, I think someone said that was better than jpeg. Lot of work to get an image.  :( TCO (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It really is a pain to get some images up on commons. I'm intrigued, wonder what the signs look like (I don't know how you would get them here without uploading them). I love this: "the province does not see turtles as a danger to traffic." The signs are for protecting turtles, not motorists!! *Facepalm.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. But I can see the rationale from the traffic engineer point of view. It is a driver distraction: the more signs you have, the less any individual one stands out. I'm not on either side, just I understand the POV, when told, but would not have known it was an issue ahead of time.

See here for the signTCO (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I could understand that. Sort of hard to see that image, but I think I see a turtle on there! :-P NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
A Message to Garcia or "GIYF". There are bigger images out on the Internet, somewhere.... (apologies in advance for sarcasm...)TCO (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What's wikispecies?

And does it affect us? [9] TCO (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too sure myself, but I don't think so. (I think it's just taxonomic classification [10]).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Got the Tanner ref in

Sorry for taking your fun, Metsfan. You can still read the paper though. I tried to do all the fancy french wiki page linking and endash and all that. but upgrade if I goofed. It was one of these links that go right to a pdf, so I tracked down a page that held the pdf instead.

P.s. There is some sort of sample number (or maybe notebook number) in the article. If you really do go do the expedition, you could go look at that sample, for comparison.TCO (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Great inclusion, two things though. Since we only use it once, wouldn't it be best to include the exact page number instead of the page range? Also, how are we formatting dates that are only the month and year for our references. For example, notice how current reference #35 (Lee-Sasser) says "(December 2007)" and #12 (Hoffman) says "(March 1978)" while others like #27 (Cohen) says (1992-10) and the one just added, #52 (Tanner) says "(1987-07)." Personally, I like the numbers, not the words, because it matches our "Date Retrieved" formatting. Other than that, it looks great.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with single page, if you really want to change. I donno, I've never done that with journal articles in all my science pubs. And the front part of the article discusses relevant stuff like where they trapped and where not, what the objectives were, etc. So that stuff is relevant (not just the result, but the methods). (which is why you should read the paper!) And most people citing journals would cite the range, so I think it's a little bit better to keep the range in case there is ever any question like how often a paper is reffeed, etc. (Like if you were requesting a copy of the article from ILL.) I wonder if there is some way to do both. A field? Or maybe put the specific page number in parens with the quote. I would just leave it based on my experience but I don't care. We do have the quote, plus the thing is searchable as a pdf (works).

Okay, I'm cool with having the range, so long as everyone else is (I was just thinking if I was the reader, it might be easier to access the information if the exact page was given).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't beleive it is normal practice for reasons mentioned and based on my academic experience. But am open to learning more.TCO (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I just looked at a bunch of stule guides and they all say page range. I would just roll with that. Understand where you are coming from, but I think people want to call out the whole article so it's clear the ref and if someone goes to the bound volumes to photocopy it. There may be some style guide that supports giving a specific page from a periodical's article (and would still want the range shown), but I've never seen it in practice or recommended. You could research it I guess.TCO (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds solid. I've been asked to give ranges by other people as well, we'll roll with it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably needs a ref name. Please fix.

I like the numbers also. Problems come up because of the toolbars and Magnus and template and all that. And even templates don't say that they are using AP or whatever. Maybe, just go and fix all.  :( TCO (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't link to the French wiki, since it is in French. Red link it, don't link it at all or create the page likely as a simple stub. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"...if a topic does not have its own page in the English Wikipedia, but has in another language version of Wikipedia, then linking to that is useful, from a page that mentions the topic..." from [11]. I agree that a page would be better and have got that process started (see help desk). If you can help make it happen, then just change the link to the new page. My head hurts and it takes me like 5 times as long to do things (and if you beleive that, I;ve got a bridge for ya...but seriously...make the page and then change the link. But it is fine until that happens.)TCO (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Right, I've been changing them, I think I got them all (may want to check the dashes).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Interwiki links are acceptable in the sense they are allowed in articles but they are not good styling, especially when you have an editor already saying the article is not 'polished'. By the way there is no problem with red-linking and no problem linking to stub articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't much like them either, red-links or stubs are better in my opinion. I just threw in the Dutch version of Samuel B. McDowell for ideas.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lately

"Lately, it appears to be moving eastward, especially in Pennsylvania." - What after 5pm? WP:RELTIME Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually 7pm.  ;-) I reworded, thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
When you get old, the years fly like days. And the turtles march on! Yeah, that was a little akward. Is fine more clipped, or we could say "In recent years" or the like. Not sure how the source expressed the thought. Agree with crit.TCO (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Content point: Watch out for midlands creeping in and miscegenating with the eastern stock. I have seen more and more papers on this. A lot of Ernst's work in PA was on intergrades. And they are pretty deep into the northeast as well (e.g. most of state of Vermont is). They talk about getting representative (I guess "stereotypical") samples from eastern New York.TCO (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Another TCO ref review

I read through our refs again. This is so frustrating. Even when we are all on the same team trying to do the same thing, we end up with these glitches, sometimes tool dependant. I am more and more leary of the templates and tools. They are OK if you go back and check afterwards. But they tend to lead to a "black box" mentality of not thinking about the output. Not just with inexperienced users, but even people like me that are used to being anal about refs. I have started a semi-serious proposal to get this whole site on one ref system. Even an "optin" standard. This is just so hard, we don't even have good documentation of the style that the templates are supposed to put out (for instance if I wanted to mimic it manually). This is part of the black box issue. And I'm not putting down the valiant toolmakers, citation policy experts or any of us. But this is so much more frustrating than submitting to a "real journal" where you just read their "Notice to Authors" and follow the format (whatever it is, they all differe a little but have similar philosophy and are all workable). *Stamps foot* (insert angry animal pic)

21, 44, 106, 132, and 150 all have strange blank spots. Not sure where they came from (Magnus tool, something one of us is doing)? We should just figure it out so we can correct it and avoid it. I don't remember seeing them before so wonder if it could be from some of the ref revision work going on.

I don't see strange blank spots. Can you explain more? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
At the end of the blue. I have a note in to the template experts to on their talk.TCO (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Still don't follow. Do you mean there is something missing from the end of the link? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Blank space (like 2 to 3 space bar hits) after the blued link and before the next item. Only occurs on select refs, as numbered above. Do you really not see that? I am on IE, so could be a browser thing. Although we need to function with IE, is most common browser of readers.TCO (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Looking with IE version 8.0.6 and looks fine. Perhaps I am not knowing what to look for but I cannot find anything unusual. Could it be you mean the line wrapping where one line is short because the next word is quite long and doesn't fit in the space and hence it goes onto the next line? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It's gone now. Was not line wrapping. Maybe it was the pdf icon not displaying. Well never mind! TCO (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool. I thought about the pdf icon but dismissed it because you gave five refs and it's used on a lot more then that. Anyway it's sorted now. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

52: I fixed the name to be the ORIGINAL journal name. That was my goof, website archives are labeled with current name of journal but of course pdf or paper copies show old. Was worrying me, so I went and researched it. Supposed to use original name. Just sharing as learning. Also, I could swear there was another where I did that before, but can't remember or find it. I think will be OK.  ;)

77-78: journals should be in title case (It's like the name of a newspaper or an organization).

I've fixed/fixing 78 as no doubt that was my original mistake. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
77 is done also. Used Google to find original name. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

139: I will fiddle with this one. Would like it to be unitalics and in parens. Similar to technical reports. Not sure how to do as templates for web and journal are different and I used a little trick to get the other ones to display right (there is not a good template for reports). Will try to fix it.TCO (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. TCO (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Four inch regulation

Found a link so putting it here in case it of any use Salmonellosis#Four-Inch_Regulation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The RES article talks about it a fair amount too. I thought we had it reffed. I put in the law and all that. We had some previous wiki refs that were glitched, but I fixed them.TCO (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tanner article up, please help it (just widdle)

I got the French article translated and we are piping to our version. Threw some refs down as it is a BLP, but if someone could (please) format at least the first two and throw a few inlines, I would appreciate it. So page stays stable. (French version was unreffed). BTW, there were a bunch of links that came in from snakes...TCO (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wilmer Tanner nice article TCO. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks man. I got a barnstar. Was not expecting that. Pretty good for a former perma-ban troll. Maybe all this picta work paid off in being able to build new articles. Hmm....TCO (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You've gotten several barnstars lately!! Keep up the good work and you'll be an admin in no time.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No way man. I would really feel obligated to behave then. (Serious.)TCO (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Check out how it is developing. Looks pretty respectable to link to, now. Have a picture of the man with the tiger and all. P.s I really think there is a physical sample of picta at BYU, so if you collect, you could compare his old sample to one that you get. Would be really cool if you can find the turtles in some of the other dead-end rivers in that Guzman basin, also.

TCO (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I submitted the pic for FP. Could use help (SunCreator?) with the captioning (code was kicking my butt). Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wilmer W. TannerTCO (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Not submitted a featured picture myself so new territory. Looks you you got it right. Superb photo by the way, took me a while to realize the tiger is not alive! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks man. Very kind to say so. I pleaded newbieness and someone helped me. I had a stray "pipe" and it glitched code.TCO (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It really is a nice picture. I'll look over what makes a picture "featured" and likely throw in a support.  :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It got picked up to be the LEAD for Taxidermy in like an hour or so. Kinda neat in that I never would have thought it would be useful elsewhere, but the advantage of Commons is people can find stuff for things you never expected!TCO (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We neeed nonbreaking dash, not nonbreaking space

There is some code to prevent line wrap. Malleus would know or, get over to MOS talk and they can advise you. I kinda wonser what use the ndash is, if we have to add even more code to make it not break. Plus the cite template really ought to handle that for us, very automatable task and sort of thing template should do to take off writer's hands.TCO (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

I've been having nothing but problems with these dashes. Many of the publication dates I reformatted (examples include numbers 70, 77, 35, 18, and 12) have the wrong dashes. I don't yet know how to correct this and Sasata brought it up over on the FAC page.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I know, I saw ya working on it. I really think the hyphen versus ndash thing is overdone, but it's like been argued a million times and Tony1 loves it. Just figure out how to comply. Jet over to MOS and ask a question in talk. Probably at number MOS. Be good for ya. Even if the rule is trivial, it's another page that's good to check for lots of things.TCO (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll figure it out soon enough. Thanks.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you think is the problem here. The dates should use normal unspaced hyphens, as in "2011-01-11". I've taken the spurious nbsps out of refs #70 and 77, but I didn't see any others that need fixing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I took multiple dashes out as well (all my erroneous inclusions). We're just having a rough go of it Malleus, dashes in this article have been swapped in and out to no end it seems. We may be okay now though, but I'm not quite sure. Thanks for having a look.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we need a lecture on the philosophy of what when. I assume for words and all, we use hyphens. For ranges of numbers we use ndashes (10-20 eggs). Would it be the same for page ranges? Also, with the ndash just nonbreak or is more code needed. I sorta feel like I understand more than my young colleagues, but I still don't really understand the rules. I think important for both NYM and myself to learn the rules and not just flop and twitch putting stuff in and out (which compounds problems, sort like turning the journals into sentence case). Please help us a little. I even looked at the MOS pages, but it was hard to nuke it out. I don't even know if the template automatically converts hyphens to ndashes (if it should).  :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DASH Sasata (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I tried RTFM but still had questions. Oh well, maybe it will be clear to others.TCO (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
To answer your specific questions, all number ranges should be endashed (and unspaced), so that includes page ranges. If the endash is unspaced, it is automatically unbreakable. If it is spaced (see the manual for the few times you might do this), note that "The space before an en dash should preferably be a non-breaking space (&nbsp;)." Sasata (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Crystal. Thanks, man. Still wish the cite templates would automate this. When running the toolbars, it is not easy to put in the markup code, so one ends up going back. But we will just watch for that, ever after.TCO (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

FAC tasks

Is there any outstanding FAC tasks now? If there are can they be listed here. If there is not then comment in the FAC to say that it appears all outstanding FAC things have been done. It's difficult to get supports while there is a long list of things to do and no indication that are all done. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we "need this", but it doesn't hurt and could be one more cherry on top of the ultimate ice cream sundae. (and after that would have NYM say we are done, judge us.) Might as well get a sentence or two on age determination with two or three refs. Probably put it in population features, where we talk about the age pyramid. Could almost cobble it together based on what I got off of Google scholar, but to nail it would like to have the Jstor paper scanned (not just first page), also some look at the "ref to the ref" for the 40 year claim. I imagine if it is Ernst, he points to another paper.
"Painted turtle age can be determined by growth rings in the shell up to 10 years. After that, less precise measurements are done based on measurements of the shell and legs along with mathematical models. Marked turtles have also been studied to determine age and the method of marking (drilling into the shell) has been practiced since the 1930s. (ref, ref, reffedie ref!)"
TCO (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me know if you need a JSTOR paper emailed to you, I've got access .... Sasata (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I was going to take you up on it, but looking at the Copeia paper again it is NOT exactly the killer ref that I wanted. I did another search and I found a very good one. It's a summary of a lot of reasearch one here that has both methods and results and is reasonably authoritative. Cogdon, who's like a god on the whole long-lived aspect. He just studies them in one area, but his intro talks about other areas (and pattern is the same) where researchers have studied them. Basically, yeah they use markings to tell age and capture over decades and decades.
"Between 1953 and 2002, 5749 Painted turtles were marked and over 21,466 recaptures were made." There's actually a pretty decent literature (lots of papers) just on age of painted turtles. 61 yo specimens have been found. We'll throw a couple beefed up sentences in there. Let me read this one paper and then get content uploaded. TCO (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This paper, page 32 (of the document) has a smidgen on how age is determined. The source is on bog turtles, but I think the particular process could be applicable to most turtles (may have to ask Matt on that one). In any case, it may prove to be a suitable back-up reference if nothing else. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there is a whole literature on it. This is another good paper that I scanned: [12]. I like the comment about how picta is the most commonly studied FW turtle. There have to be hundreds of picta papers. Then there are marking methods papers going back the 30s (same method being used today), even Pearse in the 20s mentioned (although I didn't read it, just of it.) I'll have something up in an hour. I think we have enough. Will add a couple sentences to the age pyramid discussion, and then use a named ref to support the "greater than 40 claim". (except it will become greater than 55). The funny thing is that although the thing has been studied to death (literally at times), there are still some cool things to learn. Chihuahua would really be low hanging fruit. Don't get scooped...  ;-) TCO (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I scanned the Greensboro thesis, but didn't find anything that key (didn't read it word for word). If there is somewhere it backs something up, feel free to add in as supplemental reference.TCO (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It's in there. Let's drill a star in turtle's shell.TCO (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine additions TCO! I'll have a look at the resources and see if I can make any improvements. I don't think anyone will question whether or not we've done the most thorough of research.  :-)NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a little bit about Texas distribution. Was curious given how the NM rivers run and all into that part of Tejas. Then I stumbled on the part about the southern in Texas and OK. Anyhow, I like how we have some real particulars in most of the paras now (not just a description of the map).TCO (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I got company coming so you all will need to take care of last ref stuff. Do whatever you need to do.TCO (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do friend.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mnor formatting query

Does anyone know if there is a way to prevent the units breaking across lines when the convert template is being used? I'm getting the "F" for farenheit and the "ft" for feet on the next line from the actual number, which is a bit irritating. I don't know a technical solution for this, as I can't seem to put the convert template 'inside' the nowrap template. Thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to request an nbsp (non-breaking space) version of the template off the maintainers. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Done, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Synonyms

There are problems in the synonyms list. Basically it's out of date. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Synomyms" are basically previously used classification names, no? Like tresailis, which got deep sixed by Smith? So how can it get out of date? Might have to add one, no? But they are just names that you might want to use in a search for old papers. Maybe I'm not understanding the term though. Can you explain? TCO (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Your right in your understanding. I think also some that are valid become invalid or something. But anyway, the two sources are Mann using Ernst(1971) and .edu website which is using Ernst and Barbour(1972). Well 1972 was thirty-nine years ago. Looking at Fritz(2007) it's quite a bit different now. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm really cool however you want to run it, honest. Here's my thinking though. I don't think a synonym can "become" invalid if it was valid before. They're basically just former classifications. So they should all be retained (even Testudo picta from 1700s). I wasn't even sure what that field was for and viewed it as crufty, but I have grown to love it a little as I have found it useful since sometimes old papers use different names. So I would try to be inclusive and just include all the synonyms. If a later report omits one, then I would not get rid of the synonym unless...well...basically it really never was a synonym at all. I would add though. I guess if we're really concerned that a synonym was never a synonym we could search on it. But I think the simple solution is to be inclusive. (This is not about copying on paper versus the other's list, but of giving the integrated view based on us looking at all the refs.) TCO (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Rewatch the Oregon video please...

I was just going to request this since I had already asked for the MO one. But now, I have a total desire to get that thing donated. I watched it again and discovered a lot of new aspects to it. Basically where I would want to put that is in Conservation. Remember how we were getting beat up for the quotebox vice an image? I didn't even whine about the turtle sign. But that OR video would fit PERFECTLY there. Lot better than the quotebox. (I like the quotebox for pets though, think more meaningful than a pic of an aquarium...although even there I had considered moving webfoot down...but he really fits well in description...but I digress.) Consider all the things in that video:

  • Right state (we call out and discuss OR issues)
  • Lot of discussion of endangeredness!!!
  • snapping turtles and RES discussed as risk factors for picta
  • a hoop trap!
  • Barnes! (co author of Gervais)

All that jazz is more relevant to conseration than to my little comment on description.

N.B. One concern I do have is the video playback. Is it possible to just embed the youtube? that way people can click over there? It's just way better streaming. hmm...or maybe I could sneak the Oregon url into a caption or a ref or something. hmm...I just want people to actually see the video not black like with pignose. And it is a several minute clip. I gotta research all this issue of videos.TCO (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And I think that video is public domain!!! Love ya Oregon!!! [13]
And then check out their linked flickr site. A gorgeous western painted turtle top shot. Know you were looking for one.TCO (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Bunch of nice pics really. hatchlings, basking, etc. Not the plastron I need though.TCO (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Great find. We should list the state sites in the resources if they all have this public domain licensing. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


They are not all PD. Was looking all over the site to find who to ask permission and saw the PD. But for NHFG had to ask. Some sites are very protective (well have big warnings). And then OK was almost all 3rd party content. They're actually great content in general for US turtles (info, range, pictures). Well actualy it varies. Sometimes it is like a home website. Other times really granular informaion. In general most are pretty high wuality. they are in the buseinss of wildlife management and are in the field. and have big budgets with all the hunting licenses. I think most of them are not PD on the images.
I am finding a HUGE amount of stuff on flickr. It always seems rights reserved though. Anyway to search for PD or CC stuff? I see several perfect plastrons, but there's like hundreds of images. Want to narrow search to open source. I bet my southern is in there too. HELP NYM!TCO (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Also don't yell at me, but I want to stick this in the article (probably in culture, could go usage as well...as there is a turtle racing connect. Holy jeepers man. EVerything is connected! TCO (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I've actually searched for CC images on Flickr before. Go to the advanced search, scroll all the way to the bottom, and select "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content" and the other two bullets. If you end up wanting to upload any of them, Flinfo is a great, easy tool. Goodvac (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
"Tommy the Turtle", a 28-foot-tall, 10,000-lb western painted turtle, in Boissevain, Manitoba

The flickr search with acceptable Wikipedia license is in the resources on WP:TURTLES Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. there is a lot out there. Only thing is I need to stop trying to do it all. But wow. Found a WPT plastron. And a nicer eastern. Still looking for my southern plastron. TCO (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess we can also ask for licensing by contacting people and all. Any feel for that?TCO (talk)

Dorsalis image

Much improved. Very much like how visible the dorsal stripe it.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man. Learning how you think and figure you would like it. Found some fre western plastrons on Flickr. Not ideal shots, really. And need cropping. Still definitely check the box. So I just lack a dorsalis plastrong for the second gallery. Then we can fiddle with arrangement and captioning and all. but need that one more shot.TCO (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool, good luck and I can't wait to see the new gallery extensions. And great new hatchling picture as well. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, main thing is to get that one new plastron. But I also want to take another brush through the description wording. I had cut a senctence about marginata top shell, but I want to add it back, just it was confusing before. but in taxonomy we talk about the red marking. You can kinda see them in the picture. (they are on the eastern as well. I wonder if our lovely marginata has been moving in on NH a little. I might look for a Virginia or Long Island picta. they're more purebred. Less Muggle genes. Not a huge priority as that eastern is beautiful and it's not bad. scutes are aligned.

Think I want to add the Cheldonian article for all 4 subspecies. Really think it is the most helpful ref. I was kinda light on it, since it is not a formal journal or Ernst, but the more I read, the guy was just very helpful in comapre and contrast. I will break down and skim all the refs though. I have some gaps in my knowledge for the fundamental bio stuff. Not going to go learn it all, but on the description, might as well since we're showing what should be characteristic top-bottom shots. I want to research the issue of plastron color for the eastern as well. I find a lot of picta pictas, especially from NC and VA have clearly orange plastrons. I need a ref that says that, but I will research it.

And then really the southern seems the whitest plastron in all the pics (I looked at a LOT of non free images on the net. and the webbed foot guys is actually a southern. but i want a totally turned over pic for the plastron. But I want to go buy sources, not me just making up a story based on the 8 pics I find. Babbling along...never heard back from Faendealis. I think I will just contact Cheldonian on my own and ask for that dorsalis plastron image. They had an awesome one.

I'm not sure what to do on layout either. I really kinda hate in our gallery how there is so much border space all over the place and the images are so tiny. Wonder how to fix that. Also probably want to cut the Latinate fields since I want to note location instead. Also worth just thinking about if I just do anothe gallery below (easiest) or if there is some razzle dazzle way to make a table or a 2-4 (or maybe a 4-2). But I'm just throwing it out there. Don't worry, I won't wreck it all and we can always just throw another gallery with all that blank border space. but appreciate any tricks on how to lay that thing out for maximum visual effectiveness. TCO (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

video update

OR said I could use the video. They are actually working on some technical aspect of it and told me to wait off on publishing it (will do). It will go right in the slot where the Gervais textbox was and be an upgrade over words there. (I like PA words and prefer them to an aquarium pic). MO is figuring out if they want to share. But my priority is more on the OR one.TCO (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Take your pick among three western painted turtle plastrons

None are beautiful, but all are serviceable. And these are already free (don't have to write a letter and all that jazz). Obviously all can be cropped.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mahalie/2748469784/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mahalie/2747644211/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/snaks/3501299371/

TCO (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I gotta do the work to crop and upload one of these. Give me your vote, please. It's for usage in the "gallery of plastrons". TCO (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Got one that is better than any of those (license request). Just need a southers. TCO (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

that blue on the project page grades looks very nice

I'm just sayin...TCO (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It does! Even better now Turtles are on top or Amp&Reptiles. :) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
eastern painted turtle: looks dirty and orange, but so did another I found on the web. maybe that is how they are. And the southern ones seem whiter. hmm.
Schnieder
Bell
Gray
Agassiz, there are photos and such in article and even an extra in Commons

I had this whole plan to get turtles and do photography, but we can actually kinda compile this with stray images. Main thing is that it is impossible to distinguish midland from western by top view, so we need plastron pics.

I really just need two more images to have the top and bottom gallery. We have a midland on the page (just move it and lose that whole sneaky justification thing that I did to connect it to the article). And then there is an eastern in commons. The top images are fine. YEah not ideal, but we are already living with them. And I have a couple requests in for a better southern (it and the eastern are the ones where top view helps. But current eastern is fine). So really just need a bottom view of a western and a southern. The western is helpful for differentiation. The southern just for completeness. There is another midland on the commons, but it's a hatchling and the plastrons are a lot brighter then. rather not use it as it starts to look like a western. not the splotch, but still big red. Or maybe that specimen is an intergrade. Anyhow like what we have. Also we need to be clear that the turtles are not same turtle, but I know how to explain that smoothly (cite locn).

To dress up the taxonomy page, I would put 1-2 (probably two based on lenght, but I'm easy) images of key people. I think this is nice to have a turtle "break" and people like people. And it's even illustrative of the topic. Well that is my defensive rationale. Anway if you can think of a better one feel free. I'm kinda leaning to Johann and Bell (since he is named and people will be piqued by the Darwin connect). But whatevah! Or if you can think of anything else illustrative that is superior. In a weird way it kind of connects to some of the herp stuff we did with linking Tanner and all. Motivates to write bios. Funny how things connect on teh Wiki. Even with Myrrha. Here are some imeages to consider: 02:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

An image of a taxonomist (or two)...interesting. I'm sure they would be flattered but these gentlemen named a lot of reptiles (and probably other animals). I think just images of the four subspecies is all that is really necessary. I can see a top image, a bottom image, and one or two people images getting a bit cumbersome. But I don't know what sort of layout you have in your head. We could play with it, see how it looks in various orientations and such. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to slap another gallery of 4 bottom images underneath the current gallery of 4 top images. I have to move the midland down from out of taxonomy. So now I have that whole expanse of text (and it has grown, rememeber how tiny it was when we started) imageless. So 1-2 people pics. And yeah, they had a lot of accomplishments. But still they were the key figures for picta. It's not like I'm sticking a turtle on the bio page!
I can just do one guy if it looks cheesey to have two. Or...what do you want to do with that section that will be imageless now?TCO (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm cool with four plastron images under the ones we have under distribution...I think that would look good. Um...if I had to pick one it would be Schneider. But really any of the four.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Schneider it is. Most pertinent and most resolute looking as well! I still need to get the two images donated, before I can work that magic.TCO (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool. And good luck with those images, I would ask Dger if he knows of any or has any himself. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Will do. Some of his images are not that great for me as they seem intergraded. But I can always see what he has. I have seen some stunning (look like Indian totems) western plastrons on the net. Just gotta go get one. that Cheldonian trust had an acceptable one. Need to look for a southern though.TCO (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, MO is figuring out if they will donate a video. I was wauting for them to just get out the drill and mark our scutes, so I started balls in motion to just keep making it indisputably over the top. I guess I should bug OR too. I was going to start contacting youtube users, all that jazz.TCO (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
A video would truly be cool, like over at Pig-nosed turtle. Good luck. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't see anything happening on that clip. Just a black screen. Actually that is a concern for me, the video display on this site always seems poor. See below, some other thoughts.TCO (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The video play issues are going to be around for a while until browsers move to html5. It's happening but there is some commercial pressure against doing it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the OR video thing is happening. We just need to check and make sure that it is viewable. Is really a pretty undemanding video in terms of Megs. But I'm concerned when I look at any WP video. seems much worse than videos on other sites. Not trying to peck at WP, just we need to make sure an image is actually usable, or else cut it.
Segue. I think for the galleries, I want to tightly crop all the plastrons and even the carapaces. Will take care of some of my issue with how small the images are in gallery and exclude destractors. It's just more work.TCO (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
For the best possible images, perhaps some background noise does need to be taken out. It's really an asthetic fix though, but it would look nice when all said and done.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
We can leave more of it in for the top ones if you want. They are more naturalistic shots. For the bottom ones, they're inherently posed anway. I'll probably just throw it together with what we have and see how it looks though.TCO (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been reading a fair amount about iron oxide staining of the shells. And then I noticed it on some of the dirty plastrongs that they explain it. Should probbly be a reffed sentence in text...TCO (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Eastern painted turtle plastron

OK. I got new one uploaded from Flickr.

Eastern painted turtle

TCO (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And vote on dirty natural, versus hand-held clean. (they're on this talk page). I can crop the hand held a little but still will be a hand.TCO (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

VOTE!TCO (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The clean one. Not easy to imagine they are the same thing. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with both comments. Don't even look like the same turtle and the clean one's best I believe.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, dirty one probably has the iron oxide stains.TCO (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me know what hyou thing of old painting

[14] from a 1792 book. Pics exist for spotted, etc. Most of the turtles. In here (at the end) [15]

I've noticed a lot of drawings like this with other turtles: bog turtle, spotted turtle, Blanding's turtle, and chicken turtle among others. All done by User:Cotinis. Maybe he's the person to ask (if you want anything special uploaded).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I can actually make it happen, by uploading and asking at Commons for a de-watermark. But he probably knows how to strip out most megs and all that.

What do you think of the image? I got rejected on the fossil. Grr. this could fill a slot in TAZ. Our current lede photo is better, agreed, no? Also these images are a little poor quality, just the page itself was dirty. I could go to libraries and look for cleanest one (it's held by some as an "old book". But I don't really want to bother.TCO (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's okay, so long as someone brushes over it. If that was done, and it was horizontally flipped, it could go in the taxobox. Although, I like the one we have quite a bit (but perhaps there's a better one on commons now!). And maybe he could do one of those paintings for each of the subspecies...or at least find them and upload them if he doesn't make them himself.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I really DON'T want to replace our guy. Think our guy is better. Just giving you a chance. I was going to use this in the Taxonomy section. Good call on getting it cleaned up. I can ask that guy or at Commons. We should get them all up eventually, but I'm not sure how easy that is (not one convenient source. Unless you count the pdf and bet it is not high res.
Other option is to go with one of the more "action shots" of midland turtle. hmmm...let me think.TCO (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Na, we can leave him I think, it's a cool image. But you think on it, let me know what you come up with.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox is safe!TCO (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I got denied on the SPT plastron. Still lacking one. Major need. (well other than that I already have a star.)

OR approved video, should be up in 24 hours (file conversion by partner in other time zone.)TCO (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah!? That's great! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

image for population features

I went and asked a prof in BC (Gregory) for a copy of his diagram on scute marking for turtle age monitoring. That section lacks an image and it kinda grew. And if we get it, it will be pretty illustrative, not just decorative. I guess that guy got to me with his comments about images. So I turned it on.TCO (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You're on a tear! Go for it man. We'll probably need the image getting/manipulation experience with our list of reptiles.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

fossil picture

I think when we do this gallery and move the turtle down out of taxonomy, I want to have a fossil turtle in there (and Schnieder too. but not Bellii). That thing is dry and a couple images will help it. Very few fossils picta images on the web, but found this one. Not perfect, but asking for permission. If not, just go with Schnieder.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/academics/majors/biology/ecology/pipecreek/animals.asp

TCO (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Denied TCO (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe contact these people http://digimorph.org/specimens/Chrysemys_picta/ (copyright and contact info) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Michigan state photograph

MSU museum curator will allow us to take a photo. I would like to network with one and get the photo taken. Any thoughts? I'm pretty leary of putting stuff into official queues and the like (photo requested). Rather just find an editor (any one) who is an MSU student and have him take the shot.TCO (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

hm, I checked the list and no one is offering from Michigan. Searching brings up:
User:Stanthejeep has a whole load of photos uploaded on his/her user page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's killer. How did you find them?TCO (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)There is a Category:Wikipedians in Michigan and I filtered it for those who edited in last 7 days with this category scanner tool.
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?categories=Wikipedians+in+Michigan&comb[atleast]=1&ns[2]=1&after=20110121&doit=1 Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians in Detroit, Michigan, don't know if this helps.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice! Let me try that category also. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Two active editors in Detroit. User:Stanthejeep and User:The Coffee Powered Liberal(WP:SPA). Is the museum in Detroit? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

[16] shows location of MSU and museum. It's not a big town itself and is (I think) about a good hour from Detroit. Ideal would be someone already there.TCO (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I went to the Ambassadors talk pages (there are three of them). Dropped my note. There's even like a whole technical writing group of students as well. Pretty hopeful one of them will get me my shot.TCO (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Also Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Michigan State University.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...that's a good one too. I love my idea of putting the students to work though. They want to do some wiki, here's a perfect task! ;-) TCO (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, any way we can get education involved is a plus. We can see if any of these fine editors happen to be interested in helping out.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

size

In the first paragraph it mentions the size of the turtle. Then it says females are larger. Does the given size range include both males and females, just males, or just females? Perhaps the sentence could use clarification. Also, if just one sex is used as the model size, perhaps also include the other sex for comparison? (How much bigger are the females/smaller are the males?) May be a small point, but it seemed confusing to me. Regards, LaXian (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Let me look at the whole context, as we refer to length a lot in article. Basically females are the more usual reference, but let me double check. We will fix it. Turtles rule! TCO (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
That was quick! I maybe jumped the gun as I see the sizes of the different sexes differentiated later (though I thought I did a search...). Anyway, perhaps it can be clarified at the beginning. I'm always uncertain per tradition if only the larger sex is primarily mentioned, or what... Thanks for looking into it! LaXian (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
That range is for both males and females. I will reword accordingly. Thanks fir the heads up! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Oregon video

Please let me know if this plays for you. did not for me. Black screen and buffering at 0% and no change, no matter waiting for minutes. (and I can watch the Youtube fine.) Hunster says he has no problems with the videos, so let me know how it works for you.

(will call out key features to look for)

TCO (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Even as smallest thumb does not work for me. Let me know if it works for you.TCO (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Na, I get like a weird play sign with a line through it. No black screen and no vid.  :-( NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It plays in Firefox but is slow, after 2 secs it stopped to load next part then goes on again in 2 or 3 chunks. It doesn't play in chrome which was a bit surprising. It does not play on an iPhone but then rich media rarely works on an iPhone. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't justify putting in article until we know that people can play it. hope we can swing this. Hunster has done so much so I feel bad to bug him, but will beg for more help. But makes no sense to put media in article that is unviewable if a link sends to a site that is easily viewable by all users. Still hoping there is a tweak we can do to make this thing work. Something with the format or compress the size or something. Content would be SO perfect in the slot where I have the Gervais textbox and the media diversity would really help, espeically with less sciencey readers to give them a wauy to grasp the content. And it would get WAY more play in article, than as a little link at the end.TCO (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
For now could add as an external link. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC) See it's already an El. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I hate to hear that so many are having trouble with the file. I know there's an issue with IE, but odd that SunCreator couldn't run it in Firefox. Do you have an older version or something? Unfortunately, there's just not anything that can be done until either the browsers provide better support, or a more capable player is released for Wikimedia. Also, there is no possible way to embed YouTube videos, so a link would probably be the only route. However, I don't know that it would affect featured article status since it's a limitation of the system, though as painfully picky as FA reviewers are, they may refuse. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, maybe I was not clear. It does play in Firefox just that it's slow to load (likely the file is big). Regarding FA it's already passed! :) Are you sure you can't embed YouTube, technically this seems possible but as a policy I doubt it is allowed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Whoops! I was working off the idea that it was still in the FA process, and didn't look. Congratulations! Yes, I read that it worked for you in FF, but I misinterpreted your words to mean that playback was stuttering along--not playing smoothly--rather than simply taking a long time to download (in which case, it is the filesize...natively, it is 33 Mb). Sorry for that. Also, regarding embedding YouTube, I am absolutely certain there is no way to do it, technically or otherwise, just as there is no way to display images from other websites (in both cases, something I'm extremely thankful for, given the massive copyright issues and off-site webmaster complaints that would ensue). — Huntster (t @ c) 09:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on Windows 7. IE8. I guess for my purposes, I could try to go to a newer IE. But my concern is the file readability by the public. NYM couldn't watch it either. I can get some more random people to come by, but if a significant fraction can't watch then we can't put in article. They probably don't even want me to put a link in the running text (so I'm stuck with a link in EL at the very end, but not calling it out when it's relevant to the Conservation section). The weird thing is actually some WP videos do play for me, so I really wonder if there is something about the settings on this one. Although many WP videos have issues, yet EVERY other site on the Internet I can play videos fine. I'm willing to get some more people to try it and if it's just my system and NYM (and SunC I guess). I just think we have tested enough to see that it's a common issue for the average user. I know you did a lot of work (twice!) with the conversion. And you were so poised with the donor! Any ideas for any tweaks you could do that might fix it?TCO (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to investigate the rule on link in article and see if there is any flexability, I suspect not. I could also put a sentence and a refernce with the link (which seems rather legalistic as the whole purpose is just to give the link). We are such a walled garden at time...TCO (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I have problems with it using Google Chrome (won't play at all), Safari (won't play at all), Internet Explorer (buffers forever), but no problems on Firefox (plays fine). Just saying, have no advice on what sort of action should be taken. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to stop pushing on fellow volunteers to try to fix it. I can't put it in the "spot" I wanted (where Gervais textbox is, where turtle sign was) as it just causes more issues to have bad media than not have it. I'll think about how I can call a little more attention to the key features (which have changed in my mind) within the See also. I'll write a nice note to Oregon, keep it positive, not throw wiki under the bus and just say we are housing on our server for use, but will stick with the youtube link as most helpful for readers. I think that's the best I can do. (I think there's a bigger issue that we need to have stuff that's readily viewable by the market share leading browser. But that's just a side matter. Not to be dragged into any of this.)TCO (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it motivated me a little to go save the road sign which is still in AFD limbo on commons.TCO (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Textbox is cool but the road sign would be a step up and the video two steps. I don't know much of anything about how commons works or there server blah, blah, blah. Not the most tech-savy person out there. If nothing can be done, the box is just as good (just kind of sucks that so much was put into the sign image and the video just for neither to be used directly: external link I suppose for the vid).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
the reviewer actually had a point with the textbox comment wrt Conservation. I thought I was so slick with the video. Agreeable a step up over the crossing which was even a step up over some roadkill or something. I could also do another map showing the details of stuff in OR, WA and BC. Like I talked about. Lot of work though. (I actually prefer textbox in pets though, vice a pic of an aquarium, we even have two aquarium swimming pics in other places in article, so I've known how to put one in pets, but I wander...)TCO (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I just read the media play instructions on wiki. I downloaded the Java plugin (think I had it) but still couldn't play video. Not sure why. Some other videos play (although they look pretty choppy) on wiki.TCO (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps, but it works for me. I am on a Mac OSX 10.5.8, and I am using Firefox.AerobicFox (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess Firefox works and the others don't.TCO (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It appears so. I just tried this in Safari(The Internet Explorer for Macs, for those unfamiliar Macs) and it does not work in Safari.(Black screen with 0% buffer)
This is definitely an issue to be brought up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).AerobicFox (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First I did an "external media" template with the link. Then I went ahead and included our copy as well as the links (more than 50% of people will not be able to see our version). Want these links in article at the right spot for usage.TCO (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Description images

LOVE the plastron images!! Wonder if it can be manipulated into one...thing...with two rows and four columns of images with the title Subspecies of the painted turtle: Top shells (carapaces) and bottom shells (plastrons) and each of the common names and scientific names underneath?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are SO right. I just got something in quick and dirty. We need to evolve to that.  :-( TCO (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thinking out loud here...I should rotate them so they are all in the same orientation. I mean that allows looking from subspeices to subspecies and just seeing differences in the coloring, instead of also changing view. The eastern plastron HAS to stay in its current orientation. So I would just make them all have head facing left. Not that hard really. Just work. Except for the WPT top (I tried rotating it and it makes you seasick, can see the horizon or waterline or somethin is off 90 degrees. I guess I could look for another WPT image. Sigh. Facing left or right (or even straight down).TCO (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Going through slowly to brush up

With some distance, am finding it useful to go through and do some minor CEing Find some places where can tighten up a sentence or such.

Also doing a lot of moving refs to the end of sentences. Just less painful for the reader. I think even if one gets 4 or a row or such. At least it's at a natural sentence break. Even though the speed bumps are bigger, they are fewer. And the kind of reader who looks up citations is the kind who can figure out amongs four instead of neededing to have it at the mid-sentence comma point. Plus most of the refs are so definitive with article titles and such, that one can tell which ref hits which part of a sentence.

Couple small org things with aspects that have long been sand under the carpapace. (webbed feet moved a bit.)

Will also move 50 chromosomes to evolution and I think expand in the conext of other turtles. Have some info on that. Think this is more interesting than going into the karotype shape of the chromosomes under description. And we really lacked any fact other than number anyhow, so "karotype" was really an affection in terminology not needed. Although we don't know exactly when and how the numbers changed in the families, its pretty evident that the closer one gets in relation, the more common the number of chromosomes. So just fits better under evolution, rather than description.

will take care of description subspecies after I get done with the just textual monkeying first. Gotta read those sources

Kinda going slow. Not going to wack it all in one day.TCO (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

various issues, request for insights

1. Any use for these images: [17], [18]? I actually like our current basking image better as it's more naturalistic, gives more perspective on the practice. But give me your take for basking or elswhere for these two. Haven't bothered with an upload as I don't see where to use them.

I like ours and this one about the same. Don't really think it's worth the trouble of uploading. Maybe a group of turtles on a log? If it can be found.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
There's not a good "set of turtles on log" in picta. Are some labled that, but you look and they are sliders. I bet there is something on flickr if we look. If you want that, go see. I'm actually thinking our OR WPT top view, could go there if we wanted. The reason is, it is coming out of the gallery of subspecies, as the view is wrong (from tail, not side).TCO (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Still waiting for a fossil image grant and a turtle marking diagram. I guess I need to just send followup emails to the people who I asked for permission. (no response).

3. Wish there were a better way to show the subspecies. In a table or something. Feels like there is so much wasted space in borders of the galleries. Also wonder if some cropping or uncropping or one rotation (western top), would make them all work better. Almost just want someone who is good at layout to do it for me. Mzab maybe? Or is he mad at me. Who is the expert?

I've known our very own SunCreator to work some magic before. A 2x4 gallery is all that's really needed, or if you're worried about whit space then maybe a table is the way to go.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It's being worked on now. Check out Merridaw's page.TCO (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

4. Still need to go through the whole description section. We have conflicting (small) facts here. Want to probably use Cheldonian species differentation as the master as it matches our specimens and basically seems like best description. Just need to go look at all that stuff, read all the sources and sort it all out.

5. Other thing I could do (just thinking) is stick the Commons OR video into our article but put the links as alternates. Could do it pretty skillfully in caption. Looks better visually. Plus I would be kissing ass with the Mac-loving Wiki types. Might be a good compromise. Only downside, is the external links would not be as highlighted. And I still think well over 50% of the general public has an issue with playing the wiki video (but 0% has an issue with external.) Hmmm...

6. P.s. I know alternation is a little funky now. Feel free to play with. (or any aspect of layout). I'm hoping to get the scute marking diagram for pop features. That would then switch stuff more. So I'm just not messing with it. Plus some animals would need to be flipped. It's not trivial. Kind of waiting til I have it all. but if you want to tweak now, have at it.TCO (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Been doing some with this. It looks okay really, would like one or two more on the left hand side, I'll play with it a little more.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around much. The gallary is nice and good work on the cropping and flipping (by Jack?). I don't think the state name is required below, it somewhat suggests it is important but I don't see how. In light of the 'unknown state' on the SPT I'd remove the state from under all the images. In the rest of the article why are so many images now on the right all after each other? The photo of Jon Montgomery seems messy and I would cut it or cut the Vermont quote box because that section is looking cluttered. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on state. Was RexxS and Jack. Someone put the images there, saying having an image right under a header at left is bad. I cut Jon. Liked his smile, and the human interest, but he was cluttrin'!
P.s. Can you please view the WP video version (since I can't) and compare it to the OR version on Youtube? Image we show, looks strange, is not the start of the vidoe in the YT. Am concerned that we might not have the current one. Hunster was supposed to convert the latest video.TCO (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks AW-SUM!!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, awesome arrangement. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The video in the article and the one on YouTube are identical. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

DNA para

I want to move the DNA factoid (that problem child) and put it in the Tax and Evo section. And expand it to a simple paragraph. Don't really want to go into the whole microsomes stuff (shape related aspect of the karotype). I just think it's too technical, too much diversion, too many terms needed to blue link. The people who really would have use for it can fire up there own google scholar windown. But I would mention the number, compare to reast of Emdididae (are 50-52) and bog turtle (gotta sneak a link into your old FA). And some example of a non-50 chromo turtle (like...sea turtle or whatever). Also, amazingly only a few animals have had their genome listed and one is C.p.! People just love to work on it for some reason. Anyhoo, we need to mention that.

Refs:

TCO (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll work with you on this over the next few days. It's interesting stuff and deserves a place in the article. I'll start by getting your first reference generated.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's another good one:
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/edwards/research/publications_files/Organ-3tiers-SICB08.pdf
--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I got a draft started in my picta sandbox. Feel free to edit it or import it to your box. Or just do what you want from scratch. But maybe helpful. Bickham of Perdue is the big name in chromosome studies of testudines. A lot of the big papers are from the 70s and 80s. Most papers seemed to be subscription, so maybe easier to pull at the library. I'm probably making too much of the chromosome number as we only differ from picta by a count of 4 but are still more different from them than snappers are. Just kinda wary of getting into the microsomes and all that. But probably we should. If you can communicaate the "so what" (I actually don'te really get the whole microsome thing, there is soemthing significant about those), and do it in a kind, clear manner for non-biologists (and not make them feel like they need to read a bunch of other artices to get the key point) then great. As I think about it we probably could use something on the shape, etc. aspect. Or maybe the content of the genome or how little it has changed over time. (See stuff about other turtles saying 200M yo chromosomes or for tss 67M yo). Definitely we should toot the horn aobut the C.p. genome being sequenced and published. It makes it pretty significant and still rare species for comparisons and the like. TCO (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Once you get it written, I think somewhere in Tax and Evo is the way to go. Not sure where. Maybe after the fossil para.
Cool. I agree that the sequencing bit is important and that it should be placed where you're thinking. I don't really see the need for all the micro-chromosome stuff though. I'll see what the literature says on it though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The nice thing about the chromosome number is that it kinda "fits" with what we've already told the reader about the families. It seems like picta and it's nearest relatives (slider and cooter) are all 50. I think maybe even all or most of the New World subfamily is (I need to see some of those big review papers to tell for sure though and could only see first pages). The Old World subfamily of pond turtles is like 52 or something and gets referred to as more primitive somehow.TCO (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Map

This falls into the "another scoop of ice cream" category, but I am thinking about getting a full size map done, as NYM advocated once. See here: [19]. Advice?

18:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Anchors for shortened footnotes

User:Jack Merridew pointed out to me that the HTML anchors for the shortened footnotes in this article are unusual. Normally, shortened notes use the anchor that is built into the citation template. You set this anchor by using they |ref= parameter. There are several advantages to using this method. (1) It highlights the whole citation. (2) It forces the harvard references to use the correct year and author names (this article contained several examples of incorrect parenthetical references -- missing authors, etc.) (3) It is well documented (see Template:Harvard citation documentation) so later editors will be able to read about solutions to common problems. (4) It is used in many hundreds thousands of articles, so later editors will typically already be familiar with this technique. (5) There are plans to produce bots that will detect and flag errors with these templates, so these links will be well maintained in the future. I've changed the anchors with this revision. If you don't like it, please revert and post your reasons here, and we can discuss it more. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Even anchoring a ref at all is beyond me. So doing it better is not something I could argue with!  ;-) I would just be doing the whole thing with individual citations. NYM may have an issue, I donno. But I think he is up for learning things. It's cool, man!TCO (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we should make Gervais "et al." as well (similar to Rhodin). Will see if I can figure it out, copying how Rhodin was changed.TCO (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Missed that one --- the link was working with just the one author. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We were in the Signpost

I guess that is like an internal newspaper for editors or something. Had a picture of our turtle. The writing in that 'post is actually quite zippy. Really like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-31/Features_and_admins

TCO (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I want some love

We have a gallery form the coding masters. Fall is working on a map. I added a fossil and a marking diagram. This thing is over the top. Give it loooooove!!!!TCO (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

LOVE IT!TCO (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The video!? The statue? 4 states designating it as reptile? Come on...this thing rocks!!!!TCO (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Little more ref padding and I ought to be able to hit 200! TCO (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I love it!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

Every time I turn around there are three new AWESOME images in the article. This thing is beautiful, there's no question...has all the bells and whistles.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man. Am getting the turtle marking diagram cleaned up. Oh...and a map.TCO (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. A map?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You asked for it a while ago. It will be good. Gallery worked out, right? [20] Deals with some of the "wlink the states and Mississippi" requests and is really better than that, since all the info is together and visual. Will be nice even for those who know the geography. There are some aspects of the range that bug me as well. Arizona text we say Lyman Lake is north, but our dot is south. Also, not showing the twin traces in NM rather than a blob. et cet tra.TCO (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Check out the images (and really just the whole site...love the text and layout and all) here: http://www.hiltonpond.org/ThisWeek080615.html TCO (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

range description

I'm going to be doing some polishing on this. Don't worry, the picta is not moving into Florida! Just (as I expected) the map-making exercise is giving the opportunity to go over this aspect and nail borders a little better. At this point, having read and reviewed Conant and Ernst, I think Conant should be the base ref. We can still ref Ernst and I will have some nb note discussing how similar the two are, but also how they differ. They just differ in that Conant is more detailed, like shows the rivers in New Mexico when Ernst draws a blob. From what I see at state level descriptions, Conant is just more granular and detailed and accurate on borders. It makes sense when you realize that Ernst concentrates and does a better job on the biology and that Conant spent 50 years of his life on field guides (recognition and range, more than biology). I want to get rid of using WCSU in this section as we have other better sources anyhow, and really WCSU just refs old versions of Ernst and Conant anyhow.

I will just nail it so that the source, description and map all match. In the couple cases where there's source disagreement, I will use nb notes to describe that. TCO (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

figuring out the chromosomes

I am just going to say that all the members of the subfamily have the same number of chromosomes (50). I checked and I think all the members of the WHOLE family have 50, but it is hard to get a good ref saying that. And I can on the subfamily. Part of the problem is that there is an old classification that has Asian box turtles in Emydidae and they definitely have different than 50. But I sorta manually checked the non-Diocletian Emydidae and even the damned European pond turtles are 50. And of course if someone looks at that best systematic papers (on chromosomes amongst many species) they are by Bickham, but are confusing as he refers to things with the old taxonomy. Just explaining...TCO (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

compliment from a turtle researcher

Got an email from one of the turtle researchers, who freed an image for license, saying that the article was good—pleasant and packed with interesting information.TCO (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha... let me know when an expert doesnt like this article.  ;-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

google ranking versus the camp

The camp seems to lately be coming in ahead of us in Google ranking. I just find that hard to believe that that is the true ranking and suspect they are using a service to boost their rank.TCO (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Weird spaces coming in

SunC noticed it and I've been seeing it to. Seems like something is generating strange extra spaces in the text. Does not seem related to my edits. Wonder if it is one of our templates or something about Wiki interface or what.TCO (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, I'm not seeing anything strange.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
That's cause I fix them when the happen. But look at SunC's diff and you'll see it. And some of my diffs as well (although often I'm doing multiple things at once, so harder to see with me.) And I've seen it a few times now, not just once. Wonder if it is something about the new templates we have for refs, my computer, or wiki's engine. But it's recurrent and recent.TCO (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Chihuahua

I sent notes to BYU and UC to try to get in touch with Tanner and Smith (both still alive). Just how cool would that be to be able to cite some advice from them, for a paper. Just didn't want us to miss the boat and them die on us. Supposedly Smith at least is pretty lucid (though deaf) and still publishes some.TCO (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tanner's memory is going and curator thinks he would be no help, given he was such a snake guy anyhow. They do have 3 samples, preserved and on hand. He says the method of preservation makes DNA study not work. Also, had a bunch of practical comments on collecting in Mexico. It would not be legal, but sounds a lot easier to just dip over the border and go do it and use the Grace Hopper defense. -TCO
Wow. I'm actually in email contact with Hobart Smith, collector in the 30s of C. picta in Prospero, Chihuahua. TCO (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

extinct species of Chrysemys?

Know anything about this? Fossil work kind of opened up this area. Given it is hard to tell a slider fossil from a painted, I sorta wonder how they can resolve different species by fossil. Need to look at some JSTORed papers. My impression already is that this is not "clean" since the darned herps have such a love for naming new species. But definitely need to report any well known extinct species, and even if it's debated, need to report that. Thinking about a para and would do it within "fossils" (as the only evidence is fossils). Found some JSTOR papers that may be decent reviews, although old. Need to see whole papers. Probably see what Ernst has too. Even if not much, tracing his recent refs might be good. TCO (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything too useful. Unforuntaley a lot of the fossil work went on at the same time as the genera confusion, so you see things like C. scripta. other times Chyrsemys (Tracheamys) scripta. Things like that or Chresmys floriana are just aspects of the genera kerfuffle from McDowell. Kinda leaning towards putting nothing down for now. I looked at Ernst too, and he just refers to 30 different fossil finds. No good review paper. Would hope there would be one from Holman or the like. TCO (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Extinct different fossils are largely classified as a different genus rather then a species, perhaps due to the time frame. So doesn't surprise me you find nothing useful. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

nuclear DNA does not seem to back Starkey up

Been reading some papers on the nuclear DNA. In 2003, Starkey mentioned that was coming. When it came in, it showed less distance than normal for separate species. He is now saying that this is because it's early and maybe the speciation is not that advanced yet. But still doesn't look good when he said in 2003, that that was coming.

Also, note from the map drawing exercise, I understand a lot more about the intergradation. And Ernst wrote papers on it also. Starkey draws his range map as if dorsalis was isolated in geography and also never adresses or rebuts the issue of interbreeding. Then I also read a paper that warns against mDNA speciation arguments. Just seeing more things that make me think the conservatives have it right.TCO (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also Wikipedia's policies and guidelines make it more conservative then conservatives. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Large Images

I noticed that both the Galapagos Tortoise and this article uses full size range maps. Has that every come up as an issue (load times, data bytes, issues over available memory on Wikipedia etc...) or is that now the trend in animal related articles?--JimmyButler (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's comparable to how I have seen print sources displaying the information. Also complicated medical diagrams and the like are done this way at times. I think we should use common sense on how to display the information. But no reason not to use full size. This displays fine on a laptop. The gallery of subspecies is also full size across the bottom. Someone on an I phone would have to scroll, but then mobile reading of Internet sites, usually encounters that issue. There is no Wiki rule against it, although I'm not surprised to see some suspicion.  ;) TCO (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the load time is more related to the cite templates, but they all have an impact.TCO (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Painted Turtle Distribution alternate.svg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Painted Turtle Distribution alternate.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 2, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-07-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Painted turtle distribution map
A map of the native range of the four subspecies of painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), a pond turtle found in slow-moving fresh waters in North America.
  Eastern (C. p. picta)
  Midland (C. p. marginata)
  Southern (C. p. dorsalis)
  Western (C. p. bellii)
  Mix of eastern and midland
  Mix of eastern and southern
  Mix of midland and western
Map: Fallschirmjäger
Archive – More featured pictures...

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 20, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 20, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Frontal shot of painted turtle

The painted turtle is the only species of Chrysemys, a genus of Emydidae: the pond turtle family. It lives in slow-moving freshwaters, from southern Canada to the Louisiana Gulf Coast and northern Mexico, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Fossils show that the painted turtle existed 15 million years ago, but four regionally based subspecies (the eastern, midland, southern, and western) evolved during the last ice age. The adult female is 10–25 cm (4–10 in) long and weighs 300–500 g (11–18 oz); the male is smaller. The turtle's shell is smooth, oval, and flat-bottomed. Its skin is olive to black with red, orange, or yellow stripes on its extremities. Reliant on warmth from its surroundings, the painted turtle is active only during the day when it basks for hours on logs or rocks. During winter, the turtle hibernates, usually in the muddy bottoms of waterways. The turtles mate in spring and autumn; between late spring and mid-summer females dig nests on land and lay their eggs. Hatched turtles grow until sexual maturity: 2–9 years for males, 6–16 for females. Adults in the wild can live for more than 55 years. (more...)

Question about statement of ice age evolution in article

In the article is a sentence as follows:

"Fossils show that the painted turtle existed 15 million years ago, but four regionally based subspecies (the eastern, midland, southern, and western) evolved during the last ice age."

Is this a direct statement saying that the turtle evolved, or is it merely stating that fossil evidence could possibly indicate that the turtle evolved? The larger question is this: What is Wikipedia's official stance (if any) on the evolution/intelligent design debate?

60.240.230.89 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no official stance on evolution but has a policy of verifiability for it's contents.
The line you quote is from the lead. It is expanded apon in the main body of the text with inline citations so that if required you can check the sources yourself. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Painted Turtle Main Photo

This looks like what we used to call a terrapin. Is there ant relationship? 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliopeman (talk • contribs)

In the UK, these types of turtles are called terrapins. In other parts of the Anglosphere (to include Canada, Australia, etc.) "turtle" means all the shelled reptiles. It's like "gas" versus "petrol". Our article "Turtle" explains this more. Since the turtle lives in North America and gets a lot of schoolchild attention, article is written with US English. Not meant as a slight to the Queen. ;-) TCO (reviews needed) 19:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Intergradation and origins of subspecies of the turtle Chrysemys picta: morphological comparisons", anyone know where this is located now? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just delete it. It's a paper reference. The link is an added nicety, but not needed. I think it was really hard to find even a for pay source that carried it and obviously gone now. But it's hard copy is sufficient.TCO (reviews needed) 23:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Got it here. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/z01-001 Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
A reminder to webarchive links perhaps. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Good find. I don't think webarchive is needed or appropriate. This is a journal article, not a web only reference.TCO (reviews needed) 00:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I kinda favour archiving importance links and putting then on the talk page like this. That way if major refs go missing at least an archive can be found. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I favor archiving EVERY link to a web reference. But that paper was published. On paper. You can go to the library and get a bound volume and look at it. It would be a valid reference without even having a link. FA will make us CUT OUT an access date or a web archive of it.  ;-) TCO (reviews needed) 01:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thinking out loud

Considering what can be improved about the article in light of things learnt yesterday.

  • The dead link issue will occur from time to time, ideally dead links would be checked on a regular basis. Archiving would be a constructive step to that process.
  • The issue of the globalize tag is interesting. Here I feel the article isn't very clear and many a reader skipping through the article could arrive at the same understanding. The only reason I know it incorrect is that I've done the reasearch but the reader won't have, so would like to tighten the article in that area.
  • The first sentence was initially weak. It's fine now.
  • Heading 'Chromosomes and fossils' to 'Chromosomes' and 'fossils', the lesson here is that joining words like 'and' in a heading is not a great idea.
  • cite journal, seems journals have issn numbers, somthing to add in future TFAs.
  • Turtle racing is talked about in two different contexts(Other uses, culture) - although possibly these are the same and could move together. Linking was required with two sections I feel.
  • In appears main page goes more then 24 hours, hadn't occured to me before.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought the day went OK. To your points.
Web archiving (or access dates) for hyperlinks to HARD COPY sources are not required and should not be used. The archive is the paper! however we should default webcite archive all website information.
The ISSN and DOIS are another piece of cruft and are not required. They are specific commercial services. And add more blue. I'm not crazy about them. But will wait and see how I feel after they are there.
Not sure about the globalize. Need to say what bugged you. AMENG? State names? Turtle not terrapin?
I don't like repeat wikilinking. the user ALWAYS has the option to use his browser window. I'll provide one link for convenience. But not more. Blue bogs an article down.
I think they go off of Grenwich and you are probably an hour off from daylight savings.TCO (reviews needed) 15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The wikilink is only a guide. I don't take the assumption that the reader would read every section. Reading sections in a structured way would make sense. So lead then a section and a subsection of the section. The issue with turtle racing is that it's mentioned in one subsection and then mentioned in an entirely different section, hence the reader may require the link if they had skippe the previous section. No biggy however.
Globalize. None of American/English, state names or terrapin naming are an issue. The thing is the article assumes the reader knows this is an American turtle from the opening lead paragraph, yet doesn't spell it out - so the none American reader can get the feeling it's been overlooked via poor research, especially when later learning in the article that it's introduced outside North America. If the lead said something like 99.9% of all painted turtles live in North America then it would give the reader context. Obviously we don't have a source for that, but some form of context is required. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I get you. We were too tight. Added more of a topic sentence to start things out. Tweaked para org slightly. Makes more sense not to have three topics (geo, taxo and description) in that first para. I will add a sentence or two to description, covering the subspecies anyhow! Damn you...I think I'm liking it better this way. TCO (reviews needed) 01:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The change to the first sentence is cool(later adjusted to remove big claim that would require a source and also likely to be challenged anyway) but have removed the added sentence "Prominent identififying marks by subspecies are (eastern) straight-aligned top shell segments, (midland) a large gray mark on the bottom shell, (southern) a red line on the top shell, and (western) a distinctive red pattern on the lower shell." The use of (eastern), (midland), (southern), (western), is quite confusing to the reader. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I reread our old talk

Couple small things that I might add (with research). Bit more on the chromosomes. Ucachaca mentioned it (and doing it in a non technical manner) but I was worried it would be hard to. But perhaps there is a way to do it. Just want some context like we did with the number of chromosomes at least. I also toy with the idea of moving that into description then. the other one is a bit more on the evolution branching and all that. Have seen some cladograms (there's disagreements on which, but we could show a bit more I think...just stuff I was learning after the FA).

Other than that, want to do another reread for both content and copyediting.

TCO (reviews needed) 01:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Most widespread and numerous turtle of North America

Is this claim in the lead sentence sourced somewhere? I can't see it. I thought(without sources) the red-eared slider is the most numerous(although maybe that is worldwide) and then the common box turtle. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Amended to "The painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) is a widespread and numerous turtle native to North America." The new version but I don't like it as to much joining and disassociation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)#
"The painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) is a widespread native turtle of North America." Clear and succinct? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I will try to source it and put in body. Think it's in Ernst. I prefer being specific rather than vague. I will leave your version until I find the source. You seem to be referring to pet turtle data.TCO (reviews needed) 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Article rating

A few minutes ago. http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n518/RandomScreenPrints/PaintedTurtleRating.jpg. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. We were a lot lower (4.5ish) before. I wonder if the general reader is a little easier than Wikians. Or perhaps my writing style is more reader oriented than wiki writer oriented.TCO (reviews needed) 16:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Webcitation archiving

From Bibliography

  • Dupuis, Linda (2006). "COSEWIC assessment and status report on the western painted turtle Chrysemys picta bellii". Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Coming later. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CW69-14-505-2006E.pdf, Site down.
  • Mann, Melissa (May 2007). A taxonomic study of the morphological variation and intergradation of Chrysemys picta (Schneider) (Emydidae, Testudines) in West Virginia. (Thesis) Marshall University. http://www.webcitation.org/60Pu7n4Kl
  • Packard, Gary, C.; Packard, Mary J.; Morjan, Carrie L.; Janzen, Fredric J. (2002). "Cold-tolerance of hatchling painted turtles (Chrysemys picta bellii) from the southern limit of distribution". Journal of Herpetology http://www.webcitation.org/60Pud0Ppa

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

None of those require web archives or access dates, and if running through FAC, they would get ripped out. The point of webciting is to archive a web page at a point in time, as they are not stable documents. All of the above are actual documents (COSEWIC is an official report to a government body). The hyperlinks are only conveniences. Do NOT put that stuff in please. TCO (reviews needed) 16:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
All right. I can live with it...as long as this does not start becoming required. And we don't start putting in the access dates.TCO (reviews needed) 01:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The idea is to put the Webcitation on the talk page in case they are required at a later time. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Gervais says most widespread. Ernst says most numerous in most of range (I bet it is most numerous overall, but won't bother searching for the ref.)

I'll take another try at species identification without parentheses. Think it's good to give a little bit about the subspecies. ID is probably most important (just by names, you know the approx ranges).TCO (reviews needed) 01:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

French have translated entire article!

They say it is beautiful. (which it fucking is of course!) All the text, footnotes, images, etc. are duplicated there. Check out the article and talk page. Is really sweet, seeing our stuff there in gentle Gallic prose! [21]

They have a slightly different section order (probably how all their animal articls are). I actually intuitively like it better (makes first section more helpful to the average reader: description, vice the pretty dry taxonomy stuff. But I understand we sort of went with the more traditional en-wiki order that is more scientifically a good flow.

They have a cute lead image that is a new photo, but I say we stick with ours. they do have one section in addition on confusion with RES that I think is a killer idea. Gosh knows we see evidence all the time of this confusion!

(translated, will reference and clean up and then stick in description with edit summary credit)

Similar species === The painted turtle may be confused with Trachemys scripta. This turtle has a brown-green upper shell and a yellow-orange bottom shell. But the main difference which distinguish it from the painted turtle is the yellow (Trachemys scripta scripta and Trachemys scripta troostii) or red-orange (Trachemys scripta elegans) mark behind his eyes. This mark could disapear when the turtle get older, and she is generally not visible on the older specimens."

Trachemys scripta elegans Trachemys scripta scripta
Vue complète de Trachemys scripta elegans Vue complète de Trachemys scripta scripta

TCO (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Nice to see work translated. I have not seen a good reference for looks similar to section; partly wondering if that is trivial. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

defense

We have one sentence talking about picta defending itself with all kinds of kicking and biting and urinating. Isn't it more likely that it defends itself by going into its shell? I think Keevil was starting to make this point. I cleaned up a lot of the other predator stuff to clarify that it is rarely eaten when full grown (this also fits with the population dynamics we discuss in article). Just wonder if this last sentence needs some thinking. I would have to break down and research it though.TCO (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I read the part in Ernst where this came from now. It does mention aggressive defense. Hmm...TCO (Reviews needed) 04:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's up for FA in French

[22]

They are extremely complementary about the article and especially the illustrations (one kvetch about the video as lacking subtitles). I went and voted for it. Hope that does not queer things or get someone to accuse me of being a meatpuppet canvasser or some other Wiki conspiracy.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Passed. Great to see quality articles in other language Wiki's.Regards, SunCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC).
Haha! U forgot to sine! Take your bot-whipping! TCO (Reviews needed) 19:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

California

On the map talk page File_talk:Painted_Turtle_Distribution_alternate.svg#California someone is correctly pointing out that the map doesn't show them in California. The article text gives them in California; Nevada also. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The text (correctly) says they are not native to CA or NV.76.79.11.122 (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

PAINTED TURTLE EGGS

MY TURTLE HAS HAD HER EGGS IN THE WATER CAN I MAKE A NEST AND PUT THEM IN TO HATCH OR DOES HER HAVING THEM IN THE WATER MEAN THEY ARE DEAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.196.234.144 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

More disambig?

I've heard the Jardine River turtle in Australia referred to as Painted turtles by several zoos, can we globalize the disambig here maybe? ZayZayEM (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Painted turtle. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Painted turtle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Painted turtle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Painted turtle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Painted turtle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Painted turtle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Painted_turtle/Archive_3&oldid=1111256453"