User talk:NYMFan69-86/Archive 4

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Barnstar

Reptile Barnstar The Reptile Barnstar Awarded in recognition exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's article on the Painted Turtle.
This Barnstar has been copied to User:NYMFan69-86

Announcement

Hello! I'm The Arbiter, one of the coordinators for WikiProject Zoo. I am proud to announce the launch of a new portal: Portal:Zoos and Aquariums! ZooPro, ZooFari, and I worked hard to create a new portal for information on zoos, aquariums, and the associated projects and articles on Wikipedia. If you could head on over, take a look at our work, and maybe learn some more about zoos and Wikiproject Zoo, it would be great! Cheers and Happy Editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Arbiter (talk) at 03:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

Dragonflies

I wondered about the dragonfly picture. Of course, turtles can only catch the larval stage, frogs get the adults; if they are fast enough. Dger (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I could really use one facing the other direction, though. Maybe like the one in commons. I'm going to throw it in there. I talked to a bunch of senior Wiki MOS types last night. There is totally NOT a "rule" of alternating images. Thee do want the heads facing in. AND they like our bullets. But they don't want images on the left side of bullets.TCO (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
That sounds right, no images to the left of bullets. The article right now looks pretty good as far as image formatting goes. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Check that, see article talk.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Section organization (thought heirarchy)

Just wanted to talk through some thinking on PT and concept itself of structuring writing. Think we have a couple things to fix and want to explain rationale (I'm not some super essayist but have had some decent training, see Minto, Barbara.)

Basic idea of organizing writing is in a "pyramid". So all subordinate thoughts, should be kept at same level. Am concerned how on Reproduction and one other section, we have taken the first subordinate thought, pulled out the section break and just used running text a the higher level of absraction.

There's no problem with having higher level sections "Behavior" "Reproduction" that are just groupings of other subordinate thoughts. See recent FA Elk. Of course sometimes it makes sense to have text at the higher level, but not needed and of course we should not make empty filler intro paragraphs OR smush the lower level thought into running text for the higher level concept. It can just go "Book 1, Chapter 1, verse 1".

Also, the TOC length can be handled by limiting what it displays (I researched it). We should not lose a lot of valuabel on screen navigation, because of the TOC. We'll limit the fields, still be displaying the same amount of info in the TOC, but not have overlong sections. Especially for technical content, the sections are helpful to make it a little easier on the reader (who is challenged by more difficult material). Something like a biography or a work of fiction plot summary doesn't need the sectioning as much since there is a strong narrative to motivate the reader.

We have a pretty long article (within the "limits" I checked, we're fine, but on the long side of the range). Section breaks will help the reader. Want to keep the content. It's good and is a result of your and my and others diligent searches. And it would not help to break things in more pages. Don't worry, I'm not going to go crazhy and double the section count. but there's a few places where it would really help to add a couple. Solution is to add a few and then limit the TOC.

I am a little more section heavy than you, but that is fine, I can compromise and cut some of them, and have been. And I realize it makes laout easier with the images and all. (Like I think we should merge Foraging methods into Diet, on my list of todos!) But whatever level of length we have for sections we should have a logical framework, heirarchy.

Within Conservation, we can't have Limiting factors (running text of some of them), then "other concerns". The text is at same level. If we did it that way, would go with "Primary loss factors" and "Other concerns". But I think really better to call out the more importan and longer ones, as we had done before with subsections. It will catch the readers eye and help him penetrate what would otherwise be dense text and allow him to skip to what he wants to read about (like reading roadkill and blowing off habitat loss, or the like).

(Of course I'm happy with whatever way we go and you have my support. I just want to give you some experience of what will produce more accessible prose and make the FAC a lot more pleased when the read the thing.)TCO (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your points, an encyclopedia of general knowledge should be easy to read: more subsections facilitate this. Right now, our prose, writing style, and content are all A+ work, now it just comes down to organization and formatting. We're pretty well off in this respect too, but certain things to need fixing. You can insert new subheadings, which I agree would make the article better, but they must be used in the right spots. The parts of the article you mentioned do need help, so have at it. You envision layouts better than me so let me know what you specifically have in mind. And all this I see about you 'stepping on' the others...Fugetaboutit!!, you're not stepping on anyone!!! You're doing phenomenal work TCO!  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I just wanted to explain the concept. I will A. fix coupla places in heirarchy (where thought level became mixed). B. NOT go crazy on adding 10 million sections. C. Limit the TOC to 3 equals. TCO (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good man, I'll help out if you need it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your a star

This Barnstar has been copied to User:NYMFan69-86
The Teamwork Barnstar
For your effort in creating the excellent painted turtle article. 200K+ of talk page discussion in a few weeks is a testament to both your own huge effort and teamwork skills. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why, thanks! It certainly has been an effort (by about a half dozen editors). We'll need all the help we can get for the eminent FA push, are you going to be around?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Haha, you won't stop me!! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice! I'm assembling an army: User:NYMFan69-86, User:SunCreator, User:TCO, User:Dger, User:Matt Keevil, and perhaps User:JimmyButler. We can't lose!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Malleus Fatuorum who is still looking on and User:Focus who did some great copy editing but is likely moved on. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Forgot about those two: Focus did do good work. Malleus will probably tear us to shreads but all in the name of making a better article. I've worked with him before, he's excellent.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Olive Ridley and Kemp's Ridley sea turtles

I'm trying to work out the correct name of these turtles. Seems it's not clear whether to add sea turtle on the end as it's often shortened to two words but also whether the R on Ridley should be capitalized. Kemp's Ridley is from Richard Kemp but the Ridley origin is unclear. Also I don't know about the O on Olive for the prose although for article name it will be capital anyway. Any ideas? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading through my patented Ernst sources, and the 'ridley' is often left uncapitalized as does the 'o' in olive (must be just the color here). As for whether 'sea turtle' should be included...I don't think it's important. Ernst just calls them the "Pacific ridley or olive ridley" (with the capitalization just like that) and the "Kemp's ridley or Atlantic ridley" (again, same capitalization). I think for the articles, they should "Kemp's ridley" and "Olive ridley" respectively.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice you have a source for lowercase olive. Here is government source lower case ridley with sea turtle. http://www.nps.gov/pais/naturescience/kridley.htm. I think part of the problem is that Olive Ridley/Kemp Ridley look like a persons name, that was my take before I read a bit deeper. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Right, it gets confusing, I still don't know where 'ridley' comes from.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a riddle. ;-) http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Accounts/crm_5_000_checklist_v3_2010.pdf uses sea turtle on all the sea turtle names which leans me to adding that. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Another t-shirt (perhaps only herpetologists would get it though)!  ;-) Add it, I just read that there are only 8 species of sea turtle, leads me to believe we should mention in the name that it's 'one of the eight out there.'--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

List of U.S. state reptiles

I so don't have time to help, but I wish you all the luck in the world! Best, jengod (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you so much for the encouragement, it's an important topic that deserves much attention.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NYMFan69-86. You have new messages at SunCreator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I gott sleep.

Got zero last night. Take care. We are close.TCO (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

On Gervais, I bet you know this, but watch out to make sure that we cite the page of the report itslef, not of the pdf. I thnk they are off by one. TCO (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Good to see you back at it. I'm going to look at our long list and see what I can cross off, then get going on something to help (maybe the dashes).TCO (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I left a little blurb on Gervais on the talk page (under the 'final, final, final...' section). The citations mostly check out, a few were misidentified I think. And thanks, I change one, I think I got it right. We'll bang this list out soon enough (and yes, dashes would be a huge help).  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you rock out the rest of the refs?

I think it is very cool of "foo" that he is trusting us to run all the checks ourselves. I need to nail down a couple things in the SW (probably a couple more refs coming, please check ME on those, too). And rewrite this Tax section. Then I think we are close.TCO (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll address all the concerns to the best of my ability than drop a note on his talk. Keep up the work!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
turtle is moving. Thanks. TCO (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
If you could do one teensy weensy thing: can you put the lead in phrase '"Found at sentence starting: "...""' where quotes from a website are included in the citations? It's one of the things our reviewer brought up.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ahhh....that's what he was getting at. Will do, boss man!TCO (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Great! And I've personally never seen that done before, but it sounds like it would be helpful to the reader.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is overkill. The quotes already convey the imformation that it is a quote backing up a ref. And a citation should be somewhat clipped. Like we don't say "this is the volume", we just put it in parens or bold it or whatever the format is. Also, one could not start at a sentence, I probably have. Also, if they really want that, then automate it in the cite template. But that dude is such a good guy, I don't mind.TCO (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, he was a surprisingly pleasant reviewer (most aren't like that). I may start a new section on the talk to hash out some publisher/ref formatting things I stumble across. May take a while tough (definitely by tomorrow).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Assess for WikiProject Turtles

You seem to be under rating some. Not sure why. Are you just swapping AARTalk to WikiProject Turtles? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was. Are we still replacing their templates? I'll be more careful with my ratings; I'll check each article's page view stats before adding the template. Thank you. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think so on the replacing. That is what ZooPro said. You confused me with this! At least it's correct. :) By the way you may find some view counts off if the article has been recently renamed, the view count goes with the article name at the time. It handle caps/lowercase okay but if an article has gone from a scientific name/other name to common name then it may look weird. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I'll look at several different months to get an average number/idea of whether or not the page has been moved. And yes, that one I got wrong the first time. :-P --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Like how we are going after this. Very thoughtful, but also hopefully not too much a drag to get the stuff done.TCO (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No drag at all! Wait, the wikiproject or painted turtle. Actually, doesn't matter, I like how both are going!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Genus assesssment

Not sure if this is an error or because these are dead as a Dodo. Genus article at a minimun of Mid I thought. [1] [2] [3] [4] Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Did we say that? Okay, apologies.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Before you said it was fantastic now your not happy?? Anyway of more importance is the FAC comment. I recommend linking - or better still quoting the specific MOS part about bulleted lists and bolding etc. It looks better then being vague with it being in the MOS somewhere. I think TCO linked to it in some painted turtle talk thread maybe now in the archive? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No, no, it is awesome...I am happy. :-). I just missed that part is all, totally my fault, I'm sorry. And yes, I plan to add that link in, I do remember TCO including a link to the specific section I was thinking of. Thank you!  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You guys, I really appreciate you going along on this ride with me. I promise if we get rejected, I will be pleasant and calm and just help you guys rewrite it (and kinda fade back). I don't want young comrades to suffer. Happy turtle.TCO (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem! Don't worry about that guy, we hit him pretty hard, he might not even come back. FAC can be disgruntling, we won't fail because of him, I guarantee it. Every reviewer sees how much effort we put into it (sheer edit counts and amount of discussion on the talk page(s)). We're fine.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I looked at that guy's page and then his contribs. Pretty strange pattern of a new account only making those FAC comments. SAndy is all over that kind of thing and I'm sure she will notice it was a non-regular. TCO (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I'm not convinced that person fully knows the wikipolicies (okay, I don't either, but that person doesn't even appear to have a grasp on the basics). As far as I'm concerned, he's handily been proven wrong.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It is probably a banned user (maybe a renamed account). gotta have wiki experience to even get to FAC, but then the contrivs where he has like only 20 and they are all FAC is just strange.TCO (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point, I've noted this on the FAC review page.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Why Genus? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a genus, but it's prehistoric, shall we rate those mid also (after thinking, we probably should, you're right)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Dead as a Dodo for sure. I don't plan on editing the extinct ones(see comment on project scope). The assessment is suppose to be easy for anyone - so that everyone is consistent based on article type. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Haha, you're right, I should have kept it all consistent. Thank you (I promise this is the last time you'll have to call me out on this!).  ;-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Made Gular scute low importance, I think it's the right move (not too many views).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for having my back

Very, very much appreciated. I realize I am some scary banned guy. I kinda want to let this play out, for the good of the wiki and to see who's right. Will definitely make sure you are taken care of in the end, but want to see about this issue of readability and all. Not to be dramatic, but it kind of affects how much I want to play (and how). Again, very cool comments. And I promise not to be too dramatic (well, at least no personal confrontations or salty sarcasm, there's drama on the style difference). Stay clear of Malleus's spats too! But use him as your super-editor!  ;) TCO (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I told you the reviewers would come!! Malleus is a sort of deity on Wiki, me and him (and him and you as I understand it) are on good terms.  :-) I also left a comment on the person's talk page, where did (s)he get "rushed" from!? We could not have been more careful about when to nominate! But anyway...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Everyone should stay away from my spats, including me half of the time. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Got the Tanner ref in

But please proof it. I listed a form as it's not just a pdf, but the need to click through. Trying to stop you before you do duplicate work.TCO (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know why I'm even writing this now, but left some commentary, and thanks for doing that.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles assessment drive

At WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, in which you are listed as a member, we're working on a pretty massive backlog (1000+ articles!) of unassessed articles. We would appreciate it greatly if you would help assess the articles in the link. It's simple to do!

  1. Read over the article.
  2. On the discussion page, look for the {{AARTalk}} template. Add in a "class" and "importance" parameter if the template does not have them already. Example: {{AARTalk|class= |importance= }}
  3. For the class, fill in the article's quality using the WikiProject's quality scale: stub, start, C, B, GA, A, or FA. Most unassessed articles will probably be stubs or start class articles, and definitely B or lower.
  4. For the importance, fill in the article's importance to the WikiProject using the importance scale: low, mid, high, or top. Most unassessed articles will probably be low or mid importance.
  5. Then you're done!

It's not a difficult task, but there's a lot to get done. Our hope is that we can chip through the backlog and assess every article within the auspices of the project. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 00:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

how do you know how many edits you've done?

I see you updating your page. how do you count edits? What do I have?TCO (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=TCO&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia, as of now: Total edits (including deleted): 4,359. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Fascinating. I bet almost all the user space stuff was article drafting. Looks like I'm a chatty little bugger too,though.TCO (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm chatty too. My article contrib stats are at about 36%, I'd like to see that reach 50%+. I think that will come with turtle article expansion.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If I give myself most of the user stuff as content (sandbox) then that gets me to about 45%. Plus I did a lot of article talk space. Which I think is more content related than user talk or wikipedia space talk. Anyhoo. Better than the pure chatters. (so are you.) TCO (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well thank you, and I feel like a fair chunk of our talk page edits were done on painted turtle; and that was some serious stuff, nothing to scoff at.  :-). NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

picta should be done

If there is anything you still want, let me know (or do yourself). I think it is already pretty above and beyond the call. TCO (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's done too. We'll just have to sit back and address the concerns as they come (I don't see anyone proclaiming we did too little research on this animal, which, at FAC, is the situation I like to be in). I'll give the article a once over (again) to see if I can add any sources (I think the content is adequate and really has been for quite some time).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want to go get the old reviewers back to comment, feel free. I feel like I've done enough. Think Nashua, PresN, and Fiflefoo gave us strong review and would (probably) support. Would not bother with the troll and with that other fellow who asked for a re-org and then did not participate in discussion when I rebutted (they are supposed to, per the reviewer guidelines, not just give dictates or play passive aggressive RFA oppose games). But use your judgment. Also, if you can take care of the old refs? FYI: I asked academics we've talked to (Gamble, etc.) to come by and opine. Very neutral: asked for their up-down perspective.TCO (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on the old refs. Bishop totally cites them but it is hard to find them on the web. Got Schneider after some arduous searching. If you can go ping the reviewers to help close, appreciate it. I don't want to.  :-) TCO (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I let one of them know that we addressed their concerns, awaiting reply. If they don't say anything I'll leave a note on the review page saying they never returned. I don't think we have to worry about that withdraw guy. Other then that our reviewers have supported. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think people like 'foo or PresN would support us,but they never said so explicitly. With a bold and all. I did the refs... Personally, I just can't get over how they say it's not a vote, but it really is. At a real journal, the editor would make the call and we would not need to hunt down reviewers for this sort of thing... TCO (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgot about those two. Will ask. And Wikipedia is a bit of a different process. Everyone's opinion (oppose or support) weighs a certain amount. If a page has ten supports but one or two opposes, it will likely be held up from promotion. The community has to decide if an article is ready.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
PresN's one link two link concerns were addressed, I don't think he'll be commenting on article quality beyond that (seems he does the same link sweep for every FAC).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I stayed up two hours looking at science papers from the 1700s and 1800s. You go get PresN and 'foo. Deal? They both complemented the writing quality and importance of the work (at my page). You're the peacemaker and into this Wiki community thing. Me, I feel there's a lot of discussion of "how to behave" versus "what's the best work product", like why was that Boomer reading our talk page, giving me a little scold for requesting the journal editor close (as if that is not perfectly normal and I needed to genuflect first), but not bothering to comment on the article itself? This place...  ;-) TCO (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You got it. I left a comment of fiflefoo's page and will do the same on PresN's. Dana explained a few things to us (not really a slap on the wrist or anything I don't think).  :-P NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks man. I'll just let it go.TCO (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Painted turtle FAC

Wouldn't it be useful to post at the end of the FAC to say you now think all things have been done? You need to make it difficult for someone(including anyone who would close it) to fail it. And time is kinda dragging on with it now. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of saying something, I just don't know if I hit all of Sasata's points 100 percent, specifically the six or seven new reference concerns. I also believe he said he has yet to look at the content of the article. I would feel more comfortable waiting to here what he says (about the concerns he has already left and the ones he may very well leave), although this FAC is about two weeks old already...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Didn't see your comment NYM, so I took the bull by the horns. I'm a freaking co-nom, you know.  :-) Seriously, this thing is good enough. I'm not saying that just because we worked on it. I've seen the other FAs even recent ones. I've read an incredible amount of picta stuff. It's actually "better" than a typical FA. Hope that doesn't piss off the voters, but...well, it is. Tony1 knows what he is judging...TCO (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I almost fell out of my chair when I saw your post! I've never seen anything like that done before, is it common? Anyway, I can't really see the delegates promoting an article with one support and a whole bunch of commentary (plus it's still a pretty young FAC, most take about a month or so). Alas, I don't know how this will turn out for us. Maybe as I'm writing this Sandy is "pinning the star on the turtle."  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Haha, was posting to say again comment as Sasaha has read prose etc, but yeah it's done now as TCO has 'posted'! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It needs a couple more supports at least, no matter how good you think it is. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly as I felt. Another 2+ weeks of commentary can't hurt. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes true, part of the reason to post that it's all done is to that someone passing by is not given the impression there is loads to do. There is a lot of commentary and that would discourage some from supporting. More reviewing is fine, just didn't want it to fail due to lack of interest. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understood that concern fully. Supports may be hard to come by when the review page looks so full of concerns. I feel like Dana boomer left a good post; TCO and I should seek out the editors who left commentary and never returned. Also, perhaps Sasata would be so kind and move his review to the talk page. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment on to do

Something that needs attention is fossil species of turtles. Many articles in this field remain uncreated and sources are hard to come by. A list is being compiled so progress can be charted. Can you explain that more. I think you mean:

  1. Fossil information for different species needs attention
  2. Creation of new turtle articles are required. A list of which is being created. (Who is creating this?)

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. I meant that extinct, fossil turtles' articles need to be researched, classified, created, expanded...what have you. I believe User:Faendalimas was working on something, but I could be wrong. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay! Got it now. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Could not wait until March

Could not wait until March when the popular pages will be ready,
so I have created a public watchlist already! :)

 
 
 
 

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap!! That's awesome!  :-) It shows every change to every turtle article?NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, every change to every article, makes it easier to know what's going on. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Very cool! Does every member have this same message? I'm just too lazy to look.  ;-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Only you, also posted Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Turtles#Turtles_public_watchlist. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Odds and ends

{{Turtle terms}}

Above is some odds and ends articles. I'm thinking of creating four templates, one for each of the rows. Would that be sensible do you think? Can you suggest some names for the templates? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mm. This might be tricky. I think four separate navboxes are the way to go as any one row isn't totally related to any other. Some may need renaming though, specifically the other field. I thing named turtles and tortoises may be best for the last one, the the second one seems fine as is to me. The first and third are what I feel may need renaming, to what I'm unsure, what do you think? Cool navbox though! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
What I you think? I thought I'd ask you! ;) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the three one could be something like "Turtles with humans". Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with SunC above. (Would probably put excluder in that section as well).TCO (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Good idea on the excluder. How about "turtles in human activities". Also to add is Turtling (hunting) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good. The first one may be fine as well (as far as the name goes). NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Man, that is a stubby article. If I don't get banned from Wiki, sort of had it in my mind to do an article on turtle trapping (or hunting or harvesting), not really sure the best title. As one way to get a plus sign to add 5% to the ticker. We actually have a fair amount of picta info and there is even more on snappers and the like (but I was really trying to NOt give general trapping info when we did the picta paper). Would almost like to restrict it to "in the US" though. Just so hard to do something global like that. Those are kind of unresolved questions (title and scope) and how would impact GA. Like title, I can just nuke out on my own. And they won't care. but what about scope? A global article seems more useful and normal, but is just a royal pain in the ass for me to put together. Maybe after doing a US article, I would feel more comfortable, but even then would need to be a different sort of article (like in the US, I could cover a lot of specific regs and such), pretty hard to do that globally. Hmm... TCO (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC) (can you turn off the sinebot, please. Was even trying to get it in, but got eced.) I will try to get signs in, but I hate when that thing signs for me.TCO (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You may want to go completely global on your first go. Just from what I've seen, there appears to be big ethical problems with turtle capturing in places like China, where species are on the brink of extinction because of it. I'm sure there's quite a bit out there on other countries as well. All sounds right up your ally, and I would do what I could to help you out. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably the right way to go article wise. Lot more work though. And we will have much more info and better language coverage on what goes on here than overseas. Hmm...TCO (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Definitely would involve more work, I just know that if you don't "go global," someone, at least at FAC if you take it that far, will ask you to (which may bring you pain if you had already gotten the article where you wanted it). As far as a title, I would go with what the majority of potential sources use, whether it be "turtle capturing," "turtle collecting," or "turtle hunting" or whatever else. Good luck though if you choose to create such an article. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes very difficult topic to cover globally. Laws are local and I doubt there is many documents dealing with collective regulation. You should check Sea turtle threats as that has a link dealing with international agreements (laws?) about sea turtles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Named turtles}}

{{Turtles in human activities}}

Two done, I have added 'non-fiction' in the title otherwise there will be all sorts of Pokémon and game characters added. What to do with "None taxonomy groups", any ideas? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, since they seem to be unscientific, maybe "Common-name groups"? Like some people call them that name just because. As with puma, mountain lion, cougar and such; they all refer to the same animal. Just thinking out loud. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There are others that use common names but in a sensible way for example Sea turtle, Softshell turtle, Side-necked turtle and Tortoise. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Mm. Our other ones are...odd. Maybe 'non-taxonomical groups' is the way to go. It didn't sound that bad when I first read it. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
They are ambigous terms. Perhaps they could all be disambiguous pages? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you mean?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Like pond turtle. we aren't helping the reader by combining two articles of unrelated families into Box turtle. It's not easy to understand, it's a duplication of other articles and harder to maintain. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction three families. Terrapene, Cuora and Pyxidea. They are three separate families I don't see that combining them is helpful for the reader. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
My last comment didn't post apparently so I'll write it again. I think I understand what you mean now: make those pages all disambiguatuons. This makes sense to me because the titles are themselves ambiguous terms. Just have to make sure there are no users out there that think these things need there own article (I don't see this happening though, so I think we're clear). NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, today I'm not so sure. I can't find a relevant wiki policy. Box turtle seems ambigous but I'm not sure that applies to them all. Giant tortoise for example it's a notable term that refers to tortoises that are large. By contrast I imagine references to box turtle means terrepene if in regards to US turtles or cuora if in Asian literature. Anyway, still thinking it through. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Mm. Maybe one of our turtle experts could help us out. Matt Keevil or Feandelmas? ZooPro? NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's more about finding the appropriate policy or guidelines. I don't think any turtle expert can help unless they happen to know the relevant policy of course. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh. What about for the exact meaning of terms like box turtle or giant tortoise?. Maybe they would know, maybe not. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I think that I know that already or can work it out. The scientific literture would be specific with scientific naming and leave no room for ambiguity, but these common names are used outside the expert field. That's where it becomes unclear. I've asked a question on this at WP:HelpDesk Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The composite box turtle is no more. User:L.tak boldly started cleaning up and so that is now done. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Very cool. Glad you worked so hard to get that sorted out. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Took more work talking at the HelpDesk then sorting the topics out. Did you see my talk page addition on the iPhone - scroll with two fingers. It's cool. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

put the comma back young man

That wasn't even me. It was Malleus. The problem is if you don't have the comma in the other placement, then it sounds like the waters themselves are flowing from Canada to Louisiana (well some of them are, but that's not what we mean, we mean where the turtle is found, not where the waters flow). You're changing back something Malleus already fixed. TCO (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

*Shame--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You're doing great. Loved the catch on the singular versus plural shift inside a paragraph. There is a great section in Harbrace where they talk about minimizing unness shifts in paras (of number, tense, actor, etc.). I wish I had learned all this stuff at 18. It was sitting inside my grammar book, but somehow, never really penetrated the old noggin. Now, I just look inside there when writing. Some of the old salts here make me self-conscios, but having a desk reference really helps. Seriously, great to see you putting the house in order. I'm working on Greek mythology, while I do my cooler king time. TCO (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Grammar's just one of those things ya know? Such care is required, but if you get in the habit of doing things correctly it makes your life that much easier. At least understanding it has made my life a lot easier.  :) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Lovich attaboy

Lovich wrote me and said that he scanned our article and was extremely impressed with the accuracy and the detail.

Not worth bringing up in context of our WP review process as I had already invited him to comment and he declined (said he did not have time to really do a full review). Just wanted to share that positive thing, FWIW.

TCO (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Gervais wrote back too. She was impressed by the content and visuals and layout. Said it had potential. But then felt that it was too difficult for a general reader. And that there was unevenness. She said it would take 8 hours to do a review and she didn't have time until FEB. I told her, sure give the review and put it on the talk page. Probably done with our FAC by then.
I'm a little down now. I rewrote that thing front to back. So it's really had a single person go through it. A lot of the unevenness comes from content, which just varies naturally in sciencey-ness. I could make the whole thing impenetrable like a typical wiki article (just check out some of the stuff on here). I think that is even worse for the general reader, but...hey it's even then.
I don't know what to do, man. I write reports in the corporate world and they blow people away how I can get a lot of different things going on, find analyses, organize a picture, a structure for readability, etc. on things where confusion had reigned.
That's probably close to the best I can do. I'm sure there's better that "can be done". But I'm really not sure that wikipedians can teach me who to do it better. Or somehow, I'm not finding it. I mean I learn a few tricks from people, but haven't just seen anyone that I was all grasshopper to sensie for. And then there's actually a fair amount of "bum dope" running around. Anyhow...maybe I'm better off writing for the real world for attribution and all that. wiki is kind of fun and intoxicating with how fast you can have stuff in front of people's eyeballs. But there are some misisng aspects as well (attribution, permanency, dineros, profesionals).
I guess one thing we could do is kinda slim some of the content down. It's not gonna get there from combining a word or two nit process (and I really worry that too much of that and we end up losing transitions and such that make the thing readable). But we could take Taxonomy and cut it in half or a third and spin out another article. Maybe population features (which grew with the age determination thing coudl get skinnied...that's kinda more boring content). Same with Nesting. Do we really need to discuss the clutch size by subspecies? I mean I like it and all. And hoped that a snappy lead would compensate for a detailed article. But something can always be skinnied. I donno, man.
TCO (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No, no. I don't think we need to reconsider the whole article! We already have three supports; if we trim stuff out we may lose them. I like where the article is, it took us all forever to get it where it is. Don't worry about 58... Whatever his name is. The deligates know he isn't fir real so his oppose means nothing (especially since we addressed his concerns anyways). We're fine, truly. The article reads great.
And double kudos on your successful outreaches to the professionals. Very cool. Did you say gervais was on wiki? How cool would it be to have a person like that review our article!? NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If you keep giving me pep talks, I'll have her come do a review in FEB. I didn't get the impression she contributes here, but also I got the impression she was pretty computer savvy and no big deal to register (she talked about making comments on site).
Yeah, I really don't want to rewrite it now either. Rather take our chances. It's an ocean liner, not a speedboat, so we don't want to try doing donuts with it.TCO (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Gervais would make the perfect WP Turtles member! And who could argue with an analogy like that?  ;-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Also take a long view. Wikipedia sometimes WP:SUCKs but today, tomorrow, next week an FA don't matter. It's the longer term, enjoy yourself, learn, experience. In such a short time TCO you've done so much, written a brillant article, pushed the boundaries way out with your offside contacting, photos and now Gervais feedback. Amazing stuff. Almost every FA that is submitted for Wp:TFA is worse then Painted turtle. Sometimes I am amazing at the disparity. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Question on Culture content

See discussion at Sunny's page. What would you think of cutting some of the less notable culture stuff?TCO (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:NYMFan69-86/Archive_4"