Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Just in case you haven't been following Wikipedia:WikiProject TypoScan, Reedy got this working again. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The article for Tortoise itself lists testudininae as a subfamily of the family testudinidae. This supported by several recent sources including [1] MMartyniuk (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved without redirect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Heya, am finding refs for the Myuchelys page, added two more hopefully will saticfy your citation request. But I will get more. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 12:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just an addit on something else you asked me once. After a long examination I now know there is not a checklist of fossil turtles in existence, so I am looking into writing one myself. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 17:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions, SunCreator. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the redirect † Geochelone atlas have any purpose? Can it be deleted? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess it did, when I created it. Today it is orphaned and can be deleted, of course. Regards, Chaoborus (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be confused with sub sp. Mississippi map turtle. Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Yes. The false map turtle is not the Mississippi map turtle. Corrected article. Quite of few of such problems have existed on Wikipedia turtle articles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 08:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no articles for the sub-sp. I redlinked them - the Mangrove terrapin link is wrong - I will add a disambiguator.. I will include the sub-sp synonyms, but sub pages would be better. The page refs will need tweaking if that is done. Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

There were some synonyms already present. I integrated the authority links as best I could, and one synonym, but would appreciate having it checked. The original list is in an HTML comment. Rich Farmbrough, 02:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Looks like you did a good job. Until the end of 2011 the article contents was mainly on a page called terrapin. I've combined the old(http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz) synonyms with the fritz list now and will check out the differences later. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk)

Pseudemys nelsoni has synonyms with a leading "?" - what to do with these? Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

I would add the synonmys anyway but leave off the "?". I believe the "?" means that it's unclear. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm occasionally supplanting existing lists, where there is apparent value, even if it's just the authority links, I'm leaving them in comments.

Cyclemys shanensis has been merged, I left the formatted subsp. synonyms at Talk:Oldham's leaf turtle.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Yes, since 2007, Cyclemys oldhami and Cyclemys shanensis where combined together into Cyclemys oldhami. Great leaving them on the talk page, I will be happy to move the synonym to the appropriate place. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Emydura australis Gray, 1841 is either Australian Big Headed Turtle (or Australian Big-headed Side-necked Turtle) or the North-west red-faced turtle, or possibly both. There may be a subsp. the New Guinea side-necked turtle or Emydura australis albertisii. Any ideas? Rich Farmbrough, 03:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

Very recently Emydura australis went into Emydura macquarii, I do NOT have a written source, but our resident turtle taxonomist made this edit saying Emydura australis and Emydura signata (synonyms of E. macquarii)]. We can't add it to any article as that would be WP:OR, can I suggest you put the synonyms of Emydura australis on to Talk:Emydura macquarii. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not technically OR as I did not do that, it was Georges et al., who did it and was originally suggested by Cogger et al, 1983. However, Emydura albertisi is generally considered a subspecies or synonym of Emydura subglobosa, as it is from New Guinea. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 16:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the source for 'Georges et al.' ?Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Georges A, Birrell J, Saint K, McCord WP, Donnellan S. 1998. A phylogeny for side-necked turtles (Chelonia: Pleurodira) based on mitochondrial and nuclear gene sequences. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 67: 213-246. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 16:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I will say one thing for free but this is OR and hence I cannot put it in the pages. I personally do not think E. australis is the same species as E. macquarii. I think Cann, 1997, is correct in that it is the miniature population of Emydura from north-western Australia. However, although I have examined the types and compared them this is not published and for some reason there is a lot of want to sinking this name. So I have gone along with it. But it has been published that it is a synonym of E. macquarii so thats what we have to go with. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 16:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That 1998 source doesn't help. Both Fritz 2007 and TTWG 2009, 2010 and 2011 still recognise Emydura australis which suggest there are other factors. Do we have a recent source that gives Emydura australis as a synonym of Emydura macquarii? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake TTWG 2011 have changed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No probs, I suggest we just be consistent and follow the checklist as best as possible. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 17:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I understand, I was following a site that said "Cann's 1998 book" [2] rather than 1996. To my untutored eye the North-west red-faced turtle is definitely different from that shown at carettochelys.com. Of course we can quite reasonably document the changes in taxonomy. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

Did you see who wrote that page? Faendalimas Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Rich, yeah note what you are reading, on my site Carettochelys.com I have the freedom to be opinionated. Here I do not. I try to keep to the published work. Note that that particular page on Carettochelys.com was a bit of an exercise in caution, ie look before you sink something. I think people have been too hasty with this species. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 23:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That's good, of course. Though an expert who is also a Wikipedian is naturally far more of an RS than one who isn't. Rich Farmbrough, 18:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

I have added the Fritz stuff here, commented out (as in one or two other articles)

Of the extant synonyms I suspect that

• Wollumbinia bellii (Gray, 1844)
  

is someone from IUCN mis-reading TOTW, 2011. I leave it in your capables. Rich Farmbrough, 18:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Definitely a complex one due to conflicting IUCN red list sourcing. Have hopefully clarified the synonyms now. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I am relying on the redirect here. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Yep, it's a good one. :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-present synonyms need merging here. Based on reptile database, which is more authoritative? Or do we just merge the tow lists? Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Imagine both are incomplete. Added second reference to cover it now and removed duplicates. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok little bit of 101.

The name of a species is made up of parts. It is assumed when reading nomenclatural text that the reader understands the methods used. That's just the way science works, hence some things are assumed to be understood.

The species name is the lower case last part and is independent of the genus name. So when doing a synonymy you have to do one for each level. In a species synonymy the genus names are put in for clarity but have no bearing on wether or not two names are a synonym. Using the one I commented on as an example. I described the species Chelodina burrungandjii Thomson et al., 2000. After this paper came out some started separating the genus Chelodina into its three evolutionary linneages (I recognise them as subgenera). Hence Artner moved the name burrungandjii out of the genus Chelodina and into the genus Macrochelodina however the species name is still Thomson et al., 2000 the name is still attributed to the original authors. So this is a recombination. All you are really comparing in a species synonymy is the species name, ie burrungandjii Thomson et al., 2006. Since this time the name has been moved back to Chelodina.

So if you want to place the name Macrochelodina into a synonymy you must do it in the genus account for Chelodina where it is a junior synonym. It has no bearing on any of the species within that group as far as species level synonymy goes. If you want a see species and genus level synonimies then I suggest follow Rhodin et al., 2011, you can use mine (Georges and Thomson, 2010) for more detail on the Chelids. But make sure whatever you write agrees with Rhodin et al., as it is the more recent review and is hence the more correct one.

Hope this helps a bit, am going to point Rich to this also. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 23:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I like clear definitions, though of course I had read up a bit on the subject, your explanation of genera moving clarifies the intended process.

So when we see:

• Foo bar Smith 1901
• Qaz bar Gray 1902

what is happening here? Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Your hypothetical would be two completely different species. The species name only has to be unique within a genus, outside this call them what you like. So we can have:

Carettochelys insculpta

Chelodina insculpta

Two completely different species not even in the same suborder. One is the Pig-nose turtle the other is a fossil long-neck. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 23:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understood Rich's question there. He's referring to two consecutive lines in Fritz 2007. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Did I, sorry will have to look at it. I don't have the paper in front of me right now. Also please note, the difficulty here is that you are calling these lists of names synonymy's which is a nomenclatural term, and hence has rules. One really important one is the authority also. Some of these synonymys your doing your list the authority as whoever did the combination or spelling your mentioning. Cannot do that the only authority of a name is the original describer. The others are reviewers and should be written differently. Also in nomenclature a synonym means that the name refers to the same taxon, not that it has the same meaning. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 08:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically there's a bunch of phenomena, mostly predictable given human fallibility, all of interest, and a few that we actually need to know to do the job, together with the terminology - some of which I have picked op from doing some botanical stuff.

• Emys rugosa, Gray 1831

- for example is given for Cuban slider and Jamaican slider. Now I can see that Gray had an off day and described one species, calling it, Emys rugosa only to find it was already described, and then, swearing softly under his breath, and dropping the letter from the London Zoological Society into the oubliette, described another species, giving it the same name (which was also previously described). And I can also see that we need to list both of these usages. I am surprised though that there is no systematic distinction between them. Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC).

I noticed you added a copyvio message in Tricarinate hill turtle. I assume you had a problem with the range list (the type locale was also copied). I also noticed that this list came from The Reptile Database, that's why I added the link. Generally, such a list is not considered a violation especially when it is not printed exactly the same. It might have been plagiarism but not after the link was added. You should only use copyvio for longer sections of text. Dger (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, just suspected, hence sent to the copyvio process for suspected copyright violation(Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_June_8). It will let someone with more experience then me decide. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk)

I had a quick look at this as long as its referenced it seems to have been reworded a bit, I think it is ok. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 20:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I will be interested in what the copyvio people say. Good work removing all those dashes in the turtle articles. I did a few myself. Seems like a minor point to me but I'm not a zoologist. Cheers. Dger (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sun, important comment for you, and anyone else interested Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Turtles#Chelonia more to follow, Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 19:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Keep us posted! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey dude, per your recent edit on the article The North Stands for Nothing, I was wondering why you changed the classification from mini-album to EP? I wasn't sure what to use as a classification for the album when I created the article because the band themselves and reviewers refer to it as a "mini-album" but per EP it is kind of still technically an EP. I mean the original is less than 25 minutes, but then... it has 8 tracks - at least 5 of those can be considered 'full-length' tracks and not just interludes. I originally did use the terminology "EP" to describe the album but decided to go with mini-album since it's what the band and media refer to it as. I guess I'm just asking for your opinion on the matter, really. REZTER ^TALK ø 01:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Tbhotch changed it here, perhaps because some of the articles content refers to it as an EP. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup on the Marion Dufresne article, my first full-scale editing experience. There is probably something wrong with Wikipedia if they let someone as dyslexic as me do this kind of thing. Something will come of it I'm sure. If you have time I have a couple of questions posted on the article's Talk Page.
Regards,
--Atani (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

On Marion Dufresne (1995), will do. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You moved Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni to Pinta Island tortoise. This is not the most common name. IS there even a source for 'Pinta Island tortoise'? The relaible sources (taxonomist based)(i.e. [3],IUCN don't mention 'Pinta Island tortoise' as an option. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, okay. But then can you explain why "Pinta Island tortoise" has been the primary name, used as the common name at the beginning of the article and in the infobox, for quite a long time? Was that just made up? And, why do media reports of this event refer to a "Pinta tortoise" or something close to that? It seemed like Pinta Island tortoise was understood to be the common name in the article, and I was just moving the article to reflect that. -- tariqabjotu 13:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

People edit Wikipedia doesn't mean it's correct and certainly due weight is often not applied. If you look at Subspecies_of_Galápagos_tortoise here it's called 'Abingdon Island tortoise', it's a general problem it has many names(each one individually soureable) but collectively conflicting, hence the scientific name was used. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the references mentioned in the article you're talking about, but I do notice that not a single story comes up when I search for "Abingdon Island tortoise". I do see results (some scientific) for the name when doing a regular Google search, but Pinta Island tortoise seems far more common.

That being said, I don't particularly care if you move the article back, but I want to reiterate that you're going after the wrong person here. The article was written as if "Pinta Island tortoise" was the primary name, and it's been that way for awhile. I just matched the title with how the article was written. I understand the article probably doesn't see much traffic, but if you do decide to revert the move, the first thing you should do afterward is rewrite it to note the ambiguity and put the scientific name as the primary name. -- tariqabjotu 14:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your not a zoological person, as you would not use G books, but anyway the most authority source is the IUCN neither of it's publications use 'Pinta Islands tortoise'. My issue is not with the page move so much(I've updated the page contents), the issue is with the In the news title on the Main page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense for the article name and the link text on the Main Page to be different. And I'd appreciate you not insulting my intelligence. If that's what you planned to do all along, you shouldn't have come in the first place. With that, I'm definitely not going to help you, so you'd be better off complaining somewhere where someone will care. -- tariqabjotu 14:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you apparently, and surprisingly, don't know, you don't need to be an administrator to move a page from Location A to Location B if Location B has just one edit in its history and that edit is the placing of a redirect to Location A. In other words, you can revert any move so long as the original article wasn't edited again (which is why move wars can occur). That was the case until 17:40 (UTC), which, as you see, is three hours after our discussion. This is further explained at Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect. -- tariqabjotu 20:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I was overly hostile in my discussions earlier. Thanks for helping come up with a solution that it appears like everybody can agree on. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem, your welcome. Thanks for keeping the article in line with the talk page consensus. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• • intrested
• Borussia Mönchengladbach
• Food security
• For Your Eyes Only (film)
• Meddle
• Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority Police
• Basketmaker culture
• Campus of Iowa State University (See also)
• Largest organisms to big to apply nospacebreaks
• History of Tamil Nadu
• indiependent => independent Music of Italy

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well received has been well received (not well-received), if you have questions about this rule please talk to User:Chris the speller. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply to this. The answer to your query was not simple and so I couldn't answer straight away and then I run out of time before I went travelling. We've had advice that leaving copyvios in history is not a problem legally (I've lost the link to that again but if you're really interested I'll try and dig it out - I do remember it was somewhere odd) and of course before RevDel we didn't really have much choice. Since RevDel was implemented obvious and serious copyvios have been RevDel'd at the discretion of administrators. Things like how likely it was to be re-introduced was also considered. As with most uses of RevDels people started off by being cautious so as to find out the community's limit. More recently I have seen nearly all copyvios deleted and this is what I've started doing myself. The only example from the last month or so I can think of where I've left the text is where I removed text because I thought it was highly probable, rather than certain, it was a copyvio as I didn't feel happy RevDeling under the RD1 criteria.

WP:CP and {{copyvio}} is really for the more difficult copyvio cases. Examples include ones where there's a reasonable possibility of permission and ones where the person who spotted it isn't sure how to proceed, perhaps because they're not sure it's actually a copyvio. In general more obvious cases can be reverted on sight and then {{copyvio-revdel}} can be used to request revdel. At the moment this isn't much used - I'm not sure whether it's because people don't want to or know how to deal with copyvios or because the copyvio instructions aren't very good (and probably a bit outdated). I suspect it's probably a bit of both. Those of us that work in copyvio know the instructions etc need updating but if you look at the backlog at WP:CCI and WP:CP you're get a good idea why this hasn't happened yet!

Hopefully that's answered your questions but if not feel free to ask more although please be aware that I'm still travelling so replies may not be quick. Dpmuk (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)