Talk:Painted turtle/Archive 2

Latest round of accuracy improvements and associated edits

So overall I think that the accuracy of this article is pretty good. The sources are a pretty wide survey of good quality information that is available on Painted Turtles. Generally, a lot of the problems that do creep in stem from taking results of one narrowly focused study and over generalizing them to the whole species or subspecies. Bear in mind that Painted Turtles are a generalist species with a huge range that are able to cope with a variety of habitats and situations so we wouldn’t expect them to be doing all the same things in a beaver pond in Nova Scotia as they would be doing in a backwater of the Mississipi which in turn will be different from what is happening at an arid land river in New Mexico. The seasons are different, the habitat is different, the predators and prey are different. Some of the other issues come from using out of date references. I’m thinking specifically of Carr 1952 here. At the time there were no long term studies, and very few if any quantified observations on ecology (ecology as a science was barely getting started then – our understanding is totally different now) so Carr had to rely more on anecdotes and isolated observations than did later authors. A lot has changed. That being said, I don’t have a copy of Carr on hand so I can’t double check his own words on things. Anyway, I just did a round of edits on a couple sections with more to come. In the meantime, here a couple issues that I found that I would like clarification/comments on. Matt Keevil (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Description – says hatchlings more colourful – This has not been my experience. New hatchlings tend to be a little washed out looking. Maybe they are brighter when compared to captives (which are nearly always dull and faded). I don’t have the 1994 edition of Ersnt and Lovich so perhaps someone could double check this. Matt Keevil (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The 25cm max length given for midland painted turtles in our text comes from Natural Resources Canada and I think that they made an error. I have seen this before somewhere and I'm guessing that there is a typo or misidentified museum specimen somewhere. Anyway, Ernst and Lovich 2009 give SCLmax as 19.5cm and that seems much more reasonable and in line with my experience. I suggest we switch to this value. Matt Keevil (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Feeding – Carr is cited as suggesting that painted turtles can feed out of water. They may occasionally grab food from outside of the water but to the best of my knowledge they need to be submerged to swallow. Could someone with access to Carr double check this. Matt Keevil (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff Matt. I am no herpie, but just reading around in papers or web sources, it does seem like there is a tendancy for people to talk about what "the species" does, based on what the "ones they've seen, where they work on them" do! We are doing a service, by actually having more the comprehensive view.TCO (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On Carr, I'm fine with fixing stuff that is outdated from Carr, when modern sources say otherwise. Can handle it by either (1) just cite modern sources, (2) have some little nb note summarizing the discrepancie but in article text conveying the modern soure, or (3) actually discuss the discrepancy in the text. My impression is 1, maybe 2 make more sense. I have not read Carr though: NYM, what was your impression of that source? Is it some forgotten treasure or was it early work, that others have already improved on?TCO (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On length, just a technical note if we change it. Need to make sure we fix it everywhere since we refer to different sizes in a few different places. Also, we have some comments about the relative sizes and western being bigger. I assume this would still hold? We should just look at all the length stuff and make sure comments still are consistent.TCO (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Addressing this waaay out of order, but here goes. I agree the midland doesn't get that large: most of my sources say 10-25 cm for the species and go onto note that the western is the largest subspecies (thus it makes no sense for the midland to be just as big)...cite earnst here. Since Carr was so out of date with the range map, it brings many other things into question. The reason I liked it originally was because it did everything by subspecies (feeding, economic value, description, habitat preferences...). Some of the info it offers I would like to keep: specifically the information about it's consumption and at least partly the subspecies range map (however, using updated range extremes from more recent sources as this has completely changed): it was the only source to break it up like this.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Southern painted turtle provisionally a new species

Exciting change that requires information in the article. Turtles of the World, 2010 (Published:14 December 2010, yesterday!)checklist gives dorsalis(the southern painted turtle) as provisionally a new species. You can read about it on Annotation 6 page 000.137-page 000.138 (53 and 54 page of pdf). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. We have a sentence on Starkey in our current taxonomy. It has been there for days. It is a disputed view and still not the majority view. If you want to add another reference fine. But reading that article, it just says that they are making it provisional to keep an open mind. Our own experience (of sources) as well as that pdf say that most people are still using the traditional categorization, so I would argue strongly against some radical reorganization of our page at this point. Maybe just add this reference to the sentence on Starkey, or add a few words more. TCO (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything radical. Only that the now provisionally elevation of dorsalis from subspecies to species at an official level is reflected in the article. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No sweat. I'm trying to be a team player. (Maybe not well, but trying.) Let's just look at what we said before and see if it should be expanded. I'm not an expert on turtle taxonomy, so not clear to me if this is no big deal, just the Starkey stuff we had before, or if the latest article shows that Starkey's point of view is gaining adeherants. If so, then we should probably at least add a sentence saying so. My impression is that it is still an uphill battle for Starkey, not yet recognized by most. TCO (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This can be handled like any other taxonomic alteration this turtle has gone through. We note it, cite it, and reassure what the general consensus is. I've seen in about three different sources that the four subspecies are in fact subspecies because hybridization is documented everywhere there is an overlap in range (this was a Linnaes thing). Good source SunCreator, keep us straight.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this about what it says on page 000.99: Chrysemys dorsalis or Chrysemys picta dorsalis, or did I miss something?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would propose we just add another sentence on top of what we had before for Starkey, and separate into a short paragraph. The pdf on the pages Sun cited basically shows this is coming from Starkey's work. I guess this paper gives it a little more "traction". The Vancouver turtle biologist I talked to yesterday was "anti-2, pro-4". But it was at least topical enough that it was on his mind. So we need to report it a little more. That new paper probably gives Starkey more "legs". I think we need to just be impartial and not try to adjuticate the debate (which unfortunately I started to read about. It turns out that there are different stances on the DNA (depending if you use mitochondrial or chromosomal, etc.) as well as just the pernicious "species concept" itself.) and just report on it. I can draft an impartial sentence or two if helpful, but I don't want to step on others. Do what you want!  ;)

I agree that it deserves a mention. I will read the relevant papers if I have time. Frankly, I sympathize more with the four subspecies view because I can't really see how, in light of Ernst's evidence (which I would want to examine more carefully), the mtDNA analysis actually supports the existence of separate species. However, there has been a trend in herpetology to rearrange species solely on the basis of mtDNA haplotype clades (eg Rat Snakes) even though I have yet to hear a coherent argument relating it to a meaningful species concept. Grump grump. Anyway, I will look into it. Tentatively I think I might support a subsection about this dispute (obviously no consensus yet) but I really need to review the lit and think on it. Matt Keevil (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are many pools of thought, no consensus, and no way we, right here, right now, can make a decision: we just have to report. Thus, this source and other reliable ones that turn up should get some attention (both here and in the article).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note([nb 1]) to explain this a little. We may want to move or add a sentence to the main taxonomy section. The current taxonomy text is a bit misleading because it gives Fritz's(2007) view. Things have moved on since then as it wasn't just Starkey(2003) who advocated it, but also Iverson(2008) whom Fritz wouldn't of known about. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would put the info in the same section (Taxonomy) where we talk about the slider-picta previous debate in 1964-67. just give it another paragraph and acknowledge the new paper. Right now we only have one sentence and it is pretty dismissive. I could see being a little more open and bumping weight to a paragraph. Of course if we end up having several paragraphs of info, it should get it's own section, a subsection of Taxonomy. Since this is an editable encyclopedia, we can always expand more if the controversy deepens (and if Starkey "wins", then we can change the whole article structure.)TCO (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Shall I include it toward the end of the second paragraph where this is already sort of mentioned (different source used for what's already in there though)>--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Take the sentence about Starkey at the end of that para, detach it into a new para, add a second sentence plus reference discussing the Shaeffer paper and leave it as a 2-sentence paragraph.  :) TCO (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That'll work.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

dashes for ranges

When I first started ce-ing, there was variation on whether we said "4-10 in" or said "4 to 10 in". My prefence is the former, as much quicker to read, but regardless we need to be self-consistent. I had whole thing standardized and one "to" crept back in (no biggie, but just prompted this note). Also, we'll need to do the nBsP thing and all that. I'll go research it all, but for now, please let's not stick any more "to"s in. TCO (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dashes are fine, but I still stress the use of a conversion template (often a requirement at FAC...I believe). Shall I run through the article and insert templates (shouldn't be too time consuming, I've done it a lot before)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Please make it consistently:

• abbrev on,
• dash on (from to is verbose IMHO and slows reader down, I've researched it and we can either go dash only or from-to in terms of rules, I just want dash as it looks better and is easier on the reader.
• rounded numbers (NB: think if you round the first entry it rounds the other, there is no point in reporting 14.3-25.4cm when the source to source variance is higher than .3 and the difference of a 14 cm turtle and a 14.3 cm turtle has no added value for an encyclopedia reader. It's just a distraction for the reader and slows down gaining understanding of a technically complex subject to have overly detailed numbers of that sort. We will still get a few annoying ones like 2m being converted to 6ft4in, by the algorithm, but I can live with it.)

P.s. Sorry about the rework and if you need a hand, I will help, especially since I cut them in the first place. You have to give me time. Otherwise, go after it!

TCO (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, these are all valid points and I will implement the templates accordingly, give me about 20 minutes (I rounded here, it may be more like 23 minutes).  :-P NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How's this: {{convert|300|-|500|g|oz|abbr=on|0}}, which yields 300–500 g (11–18 oz)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about using this throughout the article...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

that's the one to use. don't let any "from"s sneak into the discussion. So it weighs 300-500. Not it weights from 300-500. The rule is, if you use "from", you have to use "to". If you use the dash, both from and to are cut. Which is better anyway as it is less wordy.TCO (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay cool. I will knock this out by the end of the night. Are the dashes correct? I want to make sure I get them right.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know you changed midland and western painted turtle length from 25 to 26cm? Pointing out in case it was a mistake and not deliberate. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mm...thanks for keeping me strait. I'll look into it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Checked back with sources and you were right! Good catch! They've been changed back, how do the conversion templates look...did I get them all? Are the dashes formatted correctly?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent convert edits. Two changes, one maybe deliberate other unlikely. You've changed all decimal places to zero. Previous was a decimal on 'The southern painted turtle' - 4–5.5 in -> now 4-6 in. I like the change on that. The other is 2km - 1.25 mi, which you changed 2km - 1 mi, seems that a decimal is preferrable because of such a small value. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The second one has been changed (still the same template just no rounding), although it now reads 1.2 miles...I don't know what happened. Thanks SunCreator!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some dashing observations

(not meaning to sound like a scold. And I can pitch in and fix some of these myself. I just don't want to see them wander back over time, if others don't understand the rationale.)

1. There are some "to"s creeping in from edits, sometimes outside of templates, for instance clutches, sometimes with conversion templates, for instance the temperatures at the end of reproduction, but NOT at the beginning. Let's please stick to one style. Which should be dashed, but whatever it is should be consistent. For BOTH scientific and general audience the dashed numerical expression is more economical and quickly grasped. We have a lot of numbers and technical content, so let's take a strain to present in the way that is easiest on the reader. NOT give up the content, but make it absolute easiest to get down. "13-17" is faster and easier to ingest down your philtrum than "from 13 to 17". The former, you read as one word expressing a varying quantity. The latter requires parsing. Of course this means we need to be all over the n-dash and non-breaking spaces. (When in templates, the template does it for us, but there are a few ranges like number of eggs where we need to put it manually as there is no conversion.

2. There is also MOS direction about NOT starting an article with numbers (e.g. "7-10 days"). What MOS says is NOT to ditch our format and start spelling things out in that sentence (our article has a lot of numbers and they read better as numerals), but to just reword THAT sentence, so that the number is not at the beginning.

3. Not crazy about 200m and then 659 feet. I think we might need to live with some of that, as fitting into wiki world, but it just looks strange the precision of the converted measurement, along with the intentional and good vagueness of the first measurement. Maybe if we tried yards? I think that is very legitimate for an on-land distance (not an elevation or a height of an animal, but pretty darnded normal for a distance). I would actually be fine with having the article metric only (even though I am a traditionalist) just causes it looks cleaner, but I've checked and wiki definitely will want the conversion to imperial for a subject like this read by a lot of US readers.

TCO (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For 3 it would be better to have yards, change the |ft| to |yd| - would do myself but as present the Guild sign is up(which by the way is better at top of the page as otherwise many will miss it). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Template's off. I'm on to next section. Appreciate the help.

There is a "sig figs" field that can be used on the conversion template. For instance, setting it at two gives 660 ft which kinda "looks right".TCO (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Template's up or I would fix myself. I'll run back through the article when it's removed and try to make everything consistent an proper looking (yards is better here).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A question for our turtle expert

I have a reference that says the eastern painted turtle is easily distinguished by several white to pale yellow dots on the back of its neck, is this correct? It's the first time I've seen this in anything I've read.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

never heard of that either. I have seen easterns with wide yellow blotches on the backs of their heads but most midlands have this too (although in some cases they may be faded or narrow). What is the source? Matt Keevil (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A book I checked out of my university library: 'Turtles of the Southeast' by Kurt Buhlmann, Tracey Tuberville, and Whit Gibbons (so you can get a visual). The source says rather definitively that the eastern can be identified by "enlarged yellow spots behind each eye." It also has several pictures that demonstrate this.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What was the context of the sentence? Were they saying that you could distinguish versus other turtles of the SE (sliders)? Or did they assert this was a subspecies to subspecies thing? Anyhow, even having never seen a field guide and just learnd about this turtle from this WP exercise, I think the scute alignment is key. You can even see it on our picture. Look the "lines" on the back of the eastern just pop out at you. FYI, here is a paper from Vermont looking at their midland to eastern ranges and intergrades and all. They do numeric studies of morphological parameters and all. At the end of the day, you're talking subspecies though and that means tehy readily breed. Like people, I guess. No?TCO (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well Whit Gibbons is one of the most famous turtle experts in the US so definitely an authority however if the guide is only to the turtles of the southeast then perhaps the only two subspecies that are covered there would be eastern and southern so it may work for differentiating those two. I have little experience with southerns myself. Without the pictures it is hard to know precisely what they are talking about. If it is the occipital stripes/blotches as I suspect then I can say with absolute certainty that they are also present in many midlands well away from the range of eastern painted turtles. This page here http://www.raywilsonbirdphotography.co.uk/Galleries/Reptiles/Reptile%20index.html has correctly identified pictures of both midland and easterns and clearly shows what I am talking about. If that is not what you are talking about let me know, as I am curious about this. Matt Keevil (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The book was running through the four subspecies and giving definable characteristics of each. The book mentions three (southern, eastern, and midland) as living in the southeast. The image here of an eastern shows it pretty well (the pale yellow spots behind the eyes). As for scutes, I do feel like a little more can be said: will look through my sources.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well our own article text right now lists the yellow behind the ears as a characteristic of the species in general. Does your source show pictures of the other subspecies that are missing those yellow spots? The Vermont paper does not use it as a differentiator (they use scute alignment, yellow on scutes and plastron markings. They do cite about 10 papers on midland-eastern intergrades, so you could check those.TCO (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll dig around some more, I think the coloration found in all four is the lines and such that look 'painted' while these are more like circles. I'll look harder though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We edit conflicted, but this is what our article sources (with pictures) show:

Looking at the Conn website (http://people.wcsu.edu/pinout/herpetology/cpicta/speciesidentification.html), it seems to me that the midland has somewhat similar markings on the head (although it also says it is sort of "in the middle" of the other three subspecies. Really I think differntiating e from ml is a judgement call and they intergrade and besides really what is a subspecies in the end of the day.

The differentiation site also has pictures and disscussion. To me it looks like the yellow is biggest on the eastern, but still a splotch on the midland. For the other two, it looks more like a stripe than a splotch, but is still yellow on the sides of the head. I don't know what else to say. what do you want to do? Add some text? I think maybe there is some way to say, has "larger splotch of yellow". Or say has a splotch and the midland has somewhat of one also. Think that would match both the pictures and what we read and what Matt said. TCO (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll dig around some more, I think the coloration found in all four is the lines and such that look 'painted' while these are more like circles. I'll look harder though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, they are talking about the post orbital spot/bar. Well I can see a difference between the pictures but I wouldn't add it because it seems to be a question of degree rather than kind (since midlands also have a spot there). The striping patterns are so variable we use them to help recognize individual turtles within our populations. I think adding it would just add to the confusion (heck I'm still confused). (added before TCO reply). After TCO reply: I'm pretty sure all subspecies will normally have some sort of post orbital mark. It is more like a stripe in westerns and more like a dot in easterns and appears intermediate in midland and southerns but they all have something there. Matt Keevil (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Should it be noted under general description? Perhaps something like: "Present in all subspecies in some shape or fashion is a pale yellow marking behind each eye. It appears as a line or bar in the western painted turtle but is more circular in the eastern. The same mark in the southern and midland painted turtles is an intermediate pattern of the two." I realize my source doesn't say this, perhaps something can be found that does.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article text already says that it is a general trait of the species to have that mark. "Behind each eye is a large, yellow spot and streak." I would not discuss the subspecies variation, within the species part, (that will be confusing) but just under the eastern (bullet) say that it's ear spot is "most prominent". P.s. I got lazt and did not copy the link, but go the our reference on differentiation from the Cheldonian trust. you can totally compare the yellow on the sides of the heads on similar pictures for all 4 subspecies. TCO (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, forgot about that little bit I added ages ago. I think we're fine than. What do you think Matt?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Matt Keevil (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay cool.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Note 4

Let's get this referenced, I can do a provisional google search and see what I turn up.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick search showed that not all Canadian Provinces even have reptiles (at least in enough abundance to award each on an 'official reptile'). Still no definitive word on whether or not it's absent from the state symbols. Although, it is conspicuously absent here: List of Canadian provincial and territorial symbols.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked and could not find a good ref. All the content was user-generated. If you want to cut the note or reword that somehow, it's fine. I was just trying to show that we had not failed to look for a Canada connection.TCO (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nine of ten Canadian Provinces have native reptiles (only two, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, have no turtles unless you count sea turtles offshore). Even Newfoundland now has an introduced population of Eastern Garter Snakes. I'm not aware of any official provincial reptiles. Matt Keevil (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm cutting the note. I was the one who put it in, but I don't think we need it any more. Was like my Vermont note (little defensive.) Don't think we need it--article shows care. Also getting rid of the "nb" will make sentence look better. Plus we cover some of the Canada "angle" pretty smoothly in the lead.TCO (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand the reason for its inclusion, and the sentence was correct (as I understand it), but unsourcable apparently. No offence to Canadians...sorry it can't stay in, eh?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Image flipping caution

FYI: We may not be allowed to "flip" the images. MOS likes pointing in, but says not to flip images based on that requirement. I'm getting a clarification on that (wording seems related to pictures of people). I think the issue is that it is seen as tampering with a photograph. I'm totally fine with flipping them personally, but just want to get the answer so we don't get a monkeywrench during FAR. TCO (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

P.s. Some options if y'all don't like facing in (which is not a "strict rule") and they won't let us flip. (1) Cut the prey picture entirely. (2) switch to the nymph in Commons. (3) go back to the crayfish.TCO (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we have the option of a left Raccoon image if it's deemed suitable. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the larva picture is mine so I can't see why anyone would have a problem with me flipping it.Matt Keevil (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I imagine there is an issue of flipping/reflecting where the features are important or identifiable - certainly in the case of features on a face and same could be said of a street or map location, but in case of pond, a tree and an animal it seems fine to me. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The raccoons been flipped so now I think everything looks good. The only thing I might add is that our image of the Eastern painted turtle under 'description' doesn't do it justice: one of the face would be nice, if we can get it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually like it since you can see the scute alignment popping out at you. Same with the southern, you can see the red dorsal line. But if someone took the captions off the western and midland photos, do you think you could really differentiate them? That's why if we were writing an article for money or the like, I would want top and bottom images (on a light table), sort of like we have for midland. But it's totally not worth pushing. This article, really is above a lot of the FAs that I surveyed.TCO (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And (to the point of the Vermont differentiation article) you would want specimens far from a range border or area of mixing, so they were most showing the subspecies differentiation. You don't want to display an intergrade.TCO (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Leave them as flipped. I researched it a little. We are using them for illustrative purpose and I don't think it is misleading (not like showing a person or a building and flipping the orientation). But if someone objects in FAC, we just deal with it then and flip back and let it face the wrong way (and MOS Image Layout allows the images to face the wrong way if truthfulness is the more important driver). The article is so darned awesome, we need to leave something for FAC to find to complain about.  ;) TCO (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are confident words. I think all images are fine now and we should have no more problems with them.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article is in pretty good shape. Its had heavy input from at least 6 editors. Still looking at other FA's can be unproductive if they are not recent because as I said elsewhere, things have moved on at FA level. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

coupla bibliography questions

I will research this a little, but am trying to understand wiki practice and juxtapose with what I'm used to on a science paper.

1. What do y'all see the bibliography section as doing? Not critizing, just want to understand. Is it a tool for making references easier (what does "anchoring a reference" mean?) Is it supposed to be the most important references (but not all of them?) Or should it be every inline reference?

2. Would it help the cause, and or do you think we need to, break out the Jervais references by page number. We have a large amount of them, especially for conservation. This makes sense, since they wrote a review on conservation issues. Also should we put it in the bibliography? Seems like a significant reference for a reader.

TCO (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is to condense referencing so that page numbers on books can be done with simple references. "anchoring a reference" I believe is to enable when you can click the name in the ref (for example, Carr or Ernst) and it goes to the section in the bibliography. Doesn't always work if the end is short, expand(show) templates below and then go up and click Carr or Ernest and you should see it work. So yes, article already has "anchoring a reference" done. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)(ec) Actually on second thoughts it's not that, it likely means having a more basic WP:INCITE level as opposed to links like this or this[1]. If the question arose because your looking at FA then the current reference system is good. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's all meant to facilitate reader access to the information. If I use a 200 page PDF and simply cite the whole thing, the reader has no idea which page to go to to find the information. By breaking it up, people can find things a lot easier. Anchoring a ref allows you to do this (i.e. have citations with different page numbers for the same source). I haven't checked out the Jervais source but if you think the reader would benefit from this sort of thing than by all means (and if you need help, you my number...so to speak).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's do it. We have 20 refs from there. Anchor it for me please and then I can cite the specific page numbers and all. Think it will help the article (somewhat, not entierly since Gervais is more towards the end) look less Ernst heavy. And for a justifiable reason. We really did get a lot of highly good content out of that review paper so let;s take credit. Plus it is a pretty long report and covers a lot of topics, so citing by page makes sense.

It's anchored my friend. Good luck and I'll be around for the next couple of hours or so.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

See what your getting at now. Yes, WP:Page numbers is desirable for lengthy sources. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Also (new point) remember we have that thing where I cited something from "early Ernst". And I think I used your anchoring but is outside the range. It was from the general turtle discussion but was relevant. Not from the picta chapter. So we might need to add those pages or make a different sort of citation or something. Please take a look at, so that no FAC nitpicker catches it.TCO (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember, thanks for bringing it up. Two things: do you remember the page number and was it the 1994 Ernst book?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now there is one showing a range (which I think the range is appropriate). Then I had one from page 26. Yes 26. But it's missing now.TCO (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed one problem I noticed. If you see others, drop a note.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention bibliographies...

We have certain things formatted a tiny bit differently among the anchored refs. One is the author names: some are fully spelled out, others are abbreviated. Also, the order of the different fields (page #s etc.). Are we okay or should these all be perfectly consistent for our future FAC reviewers?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you anchor "Turtle of the world 2010 Update" with the formatting like Gervais. It's a nice item to have in the Bibliography. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's anchored but I'm having a hard time figuring out how to use the citations the same way we do for the others. I don't think it likes the 000.99 page number thing.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I still have a vague concern that we might be confusing what is convenient for us "to create page number refs" clerically versus a bibiography that lists every reference used, versus a bibliography for the reader of key references (but presumably not to different editions of the same book, but perhaps even to works that we don't cite if they are still useful). I have written "annotated bibliographies" which seem to have more value, since you clarify to the reader why he would get different sources. For instance, for an article on Persian Wars: "Herodotus is the best ancient historian, but writes from a Greek perspecitve. Mr. Umptifratz is the most accessible contemporary historian. Dr. Googldiepie's 12 volume text is the best academic work." But this is kind of a niggling concern and I'm not totally clear what wiki does as best practice.TCO (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I was following what was done over at the Bog turtle; nobody mentioned whether or not all the refs should be anchored. I think we're okay with the ones we have, I just need to get the most recent one "Turtle of the world 2010 Update" to format properly with regards to inline citations.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the idea to put the page numbers for when you have a Bibliography? Was expecting to see the page numbers for Gervais references. At the moment you know it's between 4 and 61, but not the page like you do in others like Ernst. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes exactly. The Gervais source is currently being changed by TCO while I'm still trying out how to format the 2010 Rhodin source (I have it anchored but I can't seem to get the page number citation thing down, will work on it).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In the process of reformatting Rhodin, it's largely done however I had to remove this note for a minute: {{#tag:ref|In December 2010 the [[IUCN_Species_Survival_Commission#Turtle_Survival_Alliance|Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles Specialist Group]] provisionally elevated ''Chrysemys picta dorsalis'' to the species ''Chrysemys dorsalis'' but kept the [[Binomial nomenclature|classification]] as a subspecies as valid.<ref name="TTWG"/>|group="nb"}}. It was causing problems, will reinsert once I rename it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I put it back in, Rhodin should be clear now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Is retrieved date in format 'Retrieved 10 December 2010' or 'Retrieved 2010-12-10'? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, this is why I said the things I did at the beginning of this section. I'd like to get these little kinks worked out. Which do you think is best?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No real preference. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. I made them all the one with the dashes as most of them were that way anyway, now to make the inline citations not anchored look the same.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of retrieve references with out dash formats i.e. Ref:82-89. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I did a full sweep of the article...I think I caught them all.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Distribution and map

Overlap

From the list of states found on page 000.99 it appears that an overlap of subspecies in some US states exist. The map does not indicate that. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi SunCreator - where they overlap they seem to interbreed which I think we mention in the text so there are not well defined boundaries in the real world and the distributions are not known well enough to map them with that sort of precision anyway. Matt Keevil (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It will be clearer to acknowledge in text, agreed. I was pushing for range overlap display before, but it makes it harder to process information and besides how do you define where the intergrade "stops". HEre is how we discuss it under Description: "Although the subspecies may intergrade, especially at range boundaries;[20] within the heart of their ranges, they look different." Some caveat like that, right before we go into the bulleted list of range descriptions would be better than confusing the display.TCO (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We could also add something to the file copy of the image (but not the caption please, since we have text already to the left). But you're never going to find an RS to nail down "borders of intergrade".TCO (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Even though it's mentioned in the text, the map is misleading because it shows zero overlap. I think just shallow hash marks (because nobody knows how deep they would really be) is the way to go. I can try to do this now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

The article currently say the western painted turtle is in Chihuahua. Do we know any more, can it be added to the map somehow. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Our text acknowledges Chihuaha prescence. All the maps I have seen (as well as ours) show that New Mexico blob just kinda crossing the border into Mexico. If you can research it and confirm that, I would vote for just saying that in text, to clarify things. And not update the map image more. If the prescens is large and reaches deep into Chihuaha, then we probably need to show a "tail" of Mexico stretching down and some blue speckles sort of like we do for Arizona.TCO (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember including this bit after reading it in the most current Ernst book (2009, thus I went with its range). From page 185 of the 2009 "Turtles of the U.S. and Canada: "The species is also found in scattered localities in western Texas, New Mexico, southwestern Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Chihuahua, Mexico." We have this in the article but not necessarily the map.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The map is fine as long as the crossing into Mexico is just slight and at the border (it does show that, and we can even describe the entrance as slight in text). If the entrance is deeper, then we need to show more of Mexico (I don't think the whole country, just a "tail" and add more speckles in. The sources I have seen (for instance the 1974 map after Conant, see the Conn reference within our ref section) just show it being that NM blob crossing a little at the border. Someone needs to go research the issue to a deeper level of knowledge than just that single sentence from Ernst. And if significant, then we should show more of Chihauha in map and discuss it with a sentence on the topic. Here is a google scholar search to get started: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&q=picta+in+chihuahua&wrapid=tlif12925250377351&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws TCO (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This 2007 source [2] says "extreme northern Mexico," so I think just mentioning it in the text is fine.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Introduced

The painted turtle has been introduced into Germany, Indonesia, Philippines, Spain and California(p000.99). Presently the article only gives California. Suggest a more world view is given in text. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please add a sentence with the RS. Put it under "Gain factors" vice "Range", right after the California discussion. TCO (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This can and should be worded in, but it creates all sorts of problems for our little map.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Only words required to cover this with a reference. 'our little map' is fine for this. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, made it the last sentence of 'Distribution' (the introductory paragraph before the bulleted information).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

German sources http://www.testudo-welt.de/testudo_magazin7.pdf p11. http://www.tierundnatur.de/rar-cpic.htm Painted turtle is Zierschildkröte in German. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Are non-English sources fair game opn the English Wiki though? I've seem people take some heat at FAC for having such sources.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems not WP:NONENG. The testudo-welt source says import of the turtle into EU is no longer allowed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if you generate the footnote to be used (the translation), I can generate the ref and include the sentence.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would just ask that you read and understand it, to have cited it. Not just dump the FN down but not be able to understand it. However on German, I can probably parse it if you can't, SunC.TCO (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It was all in the link SunCreator provided...basically, if it's a translation, it needs a footnote of the original (I think that's what it meant).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Great.TCO (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not recommending use of the German link in the article. WP:NONENG discourages it. I read it through Google translate. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Have there been any English sources that discuss this?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'this'? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I though I saw someone mention somewhere that the turtles are no longer allowed to be brought into Germany. Am I seeing things?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Were the ingroductions into those countries deliberate or more pet releases (like in Cali, and also as the slider has been all over the world also? TCO (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Pet releases or escapes from turtle farms. I am not aware of any official introduction (as opposed to reintroduction) programs of any turtle species anywhere although I don't rule out that it has happened at some point in history.Matt Keevil (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is how I put it in article. Before it sounded like a deliberate introduction.TCO (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Bringing this conversation down from a higher section

I've included this sentence in the taxonomy section as per TCO's advice (combine it with the Starkey sentence into a new paragraph): "Most recently, in 2010, the IUCN recognized both C. dorsalis and C. p. dorsalis as a correct name for the southern painted turtle.[2]"--Is something like this what we had in mind for clarification purposes?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking back, maybe "correct" wasn't the best word, what does everyone think?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe 'valid' instead. What is 'coworkers', seems vague? 'In 2003, David E. Starkey and coworkers classified... ' Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sort of stuck that word (coworkers) in there. Page 177 of the Fritz source is what I based that sentence on and 363 of that same source is where it is cited. Maybe I could just get away with saying 'Starkey...'?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And 'correct' has been changed to 'valid.'--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Starkey et al. (note this is a proper use, since it's in article body text, not in referencing), Starkey and collaborators, Starkey and coauthors. I agree coworkers is wrong (they might be on same paper, but work at different places...)TCO (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed to collaborators, but it still begs the question: who?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NYM, all that sentence is saying is that Starkey was first author on a 2003 paper that said something. But Starkey was not the ONLY author. That's why "Starkey et al." (in discussion) is a fine way to describe it. Starkey and collaborators is OK, too. If you want the list of all the authors, just go look at the 2003 paper (it is cited by Fritz, cited by Shaeffer, probably Ernst and Gervais as well). We should probably have Starkey's paper as a reference as well. Citing Fritz for the criticism is OK too, but Starkey deserves a ref as well. Also, if you have Starkey's paper as one of the references for that sentence, then the interested reader can look down and see who the others were. Cool? TCO (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In general if something has more than one author, you should acknowledge that. With one author it's easy. With two, I just list both "Ernst and Lovich say blabla" or "Gamble and Simon" say. If there are a bunch, then I go with "Gervais et al. say", or "Keevage et al. say". Note that this is use of the et al in discussion, NOT as a biographical or reference shorthand. Speaking of which, there is probably a Gervais that needs an et al added in Conservation.TCO (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Would this be best done with notes down at the bottom?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Just add the citation for the 2003 paper. The citation has all the names. No need for a special note. TCO (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Page 177 of the Fritz paper is where I got that information, is it good enough to note that or should I include the Starkey citation found in the Fritz paper?

I think you should add the Starkey paper itself as a citation. I don't agree with his theory, but he deserves the citation. For a reader wanting to understand the issue and the different "sides", going to read Starkey 2003 would be a key reference he wants. Think it is needed from respect for Starkey and for the reader and it also allows someone to see to whom the "et al." or "collaborators" refers!  ;) Ideally take a quick gander at the paper and check that it is on what everyon says it is, so you don't have to do the whole "as cited by" thingie.

Leave the Fritz one also, as the latter part of that sentence discusses that the proposal was not approved, and Fritz is the ref that supports that.

Starkey, D. E., and a. others. 2003. Molecular systematics, phylogeography, and the effects of pleistocene glaciation in the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) complex. . Evolution 57:119-128.

P.s. If you are interested Gervais has some discussion of Starkey, although I get the impression she is just kinda repeating the Ernst point of view. No need to read it or cite it. Just telling you in case you are intellectually interested.

TCO (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been added (in the middle of the sentence because only the beginning is from that source, the rest from Fritz). Thank you TCO.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ref # 93

We have this cited where we talk about the build up of PCBs, but the source is talking about this in fish...not our turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

References that need help (mainly proper formatting):

1. 9 (formatting like the others)
2. 16 (ditto)
3. 102 (ditto)
4. 103 (ditto)

There may be others that I missed. This is an easy fix, I can run them through a ref generator TCO.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Fix the refs I did wrong, please. I will look at the PCB ref.TCO (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Other things to check in references.

1. Rhodin Bibliography, Last name followed by first name for co-authors
2. 99 pages number in pdf(Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)
3. 101 page number in book(Handbook of American Indian Games)

Getting to the end of things to do. Roll on FA! We should do it soon! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright! Once we fix these ref issues (and the Gervais source's citations are sorted out), I think it's about ready!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed number 9 and 102, don't know what to do for 16, there's no URL. And I don't know what to do for 103. Does that last one have the proper URL?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

For ref number 99, I specified a page number but didn't anchor it. (we only used it once)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Was ref #101 from a book? I don't have access to it (to reformat the ref) if it was.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

On the PCBs: I am cutting that. You can put back if you want. That ref DOES talk about turtle (snapping) PCBS. It's at the very end, they have a section. And I could swear I read on some (of the gazillion) web page on PA FG site, that they referred to eating painted turtles and said follow the same rules for snapping turtles. But I googled my ass of and can't find it. Not central to story anyhow so cut it gets...TCO (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha...okay.  ;-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Page 62 for the Indian book.TCO (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reformatted it, you may want to make sure I got all the fields right (was a coauthor 'Paulette Macfarlane' for isntance?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good job with the drudgery. Macfarlan was correctly spelled. Fixed a couple nits.

date formatting in refs?

I'm fine with any date format and we should be consistent throughout the article. Was just curious. Is there a preferred date format?

SunCreator and I decided it didn't really matter either way: '08 December 2010' or '2010-12-08' so long as it was consistent. Ive made them all the latter, is that cool?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool!

Gervais: Can one of you do, the page by page stuff?

I can totally handle that and I am familiar with the reference. That said, I feel like a lot is piling on my plate and this is one I could delegate. Where there's other things (like prose quality) where I can't delegate and you get key value from me there. Would also give you the "fun" of going through Gervais and learning from it. Otherwise, if you need me to get to it, no problem, but will need to wait.

In terms of how we cite it, there is an interesting question. Should we cite the initial reports (a lot of Gervais is her doing a review and citing other people's work) in the "as cited by" format? The benefit is you give the reader guides to specific primary literature. And it makes our article look more diverse. That said, it is a lot of CiteJournal drudgery (and the as cited by field will be a little tricky). I suspect Ernst is the same way. I would say we just stick to citing Ernst or Gervais as "review papers", but just want to toss it out there that there is another option. I really do NOT want to go and read all those primary lit papers, because then we end up having to "redo" the reviews of Ernst and Gervais, in effect. And I feel pretty good that Ernst and Gervais are both quality works, by quality people, so it is OK for us as enclopedists to cite the secondary lit, not go to primary. TCO (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We can totally go secondary on this one. I can reformat it like all the ernsts and such, but, if you would be so kind, could you develop a list on this talk page of which page each citation came from? It would make my job a LOT easier.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I still need time, then.  ;)

That's fine. We have nothing but.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(hit edit window and you should see on separate lines and can cut and paste to your pc)

a13 b9 c33 d36 e34 f34 g34 h47 i35 j33 k6 l36-37 m37 n40 o37 p36 q38 r34 s35 t37

TCO (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you TCO, these have all been changed appropriately.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

foraging method for plant eating

Can you check in refs and see if there is any discussion of "how" the pt eats plants. I have combined foraging methods into diet. Would flow a little better if I had some "how" it cuts or chews the plants, similar to how it grabs prey.TCO (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

They eat plants in the same way they eat animals i.e. biting and swallowing. If it is large they bite onto it and then tear with the claws. I've seen them feeding on Water Shield (a floating leafed plant similar to water lilies but more delicate) and the bite the stem to cut it and then when it floats up they continue biting and cutting and swallow the small pieces. But that is 'original research' and pretty specific so I just offer it as a point of interest. Not really sure what else to say about it. Matt Keevil (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Write a paper on it! "Floating plant cutting practices of C. picta marginata in Ontario" J. Turtle Behavior  ;) Yeah, I'm just pushing for every little scrap to help the little guy's article.  ;)TCO (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

dumb question. What is the purpose of alt text on pictures?

Is it so you can essentially put a longer caption on a thumbnail sized photo? I've been blowing it off and if I understand why we do it, I may be a better boy in the future. TCO (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, it's so people with vision problems can 'see' the pictures through audio software. At FA all pictures should have it. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Very helpful. When I write the text will think of someone who can't see and describe it for them.TCO (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For blind or partially blind people. So the text can be read out by speech software. So the alt wants to be a description of the image as you would briefly describe it to a blind or partially blind person. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The most common U.S. state reptile

• "The most common U.S. state reptile"
• "In the early 1990s, U.S. export data showed that painted turtles were the second most popular pet species" - two things 1) how does export data show it was popular. 2) It's second popular in the US? in the world? Sound like it's US only in which case it should be made clear. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

SunC:

• I don't think it needs one, but if you want one, you could do "state symbols" website. Go google it and add it if you think it's needed and that that's an appropriate ref. Really...I am tossing this cn back to you...;)
  • WP:FACR 1.(c) 'Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;'. The claim is not currently cited, hence . Regards, SunCreator ^(talk)
    • SunC: There is also an essay saying you don't have to reference the sky is blue. To me it is obvious, but let's not debate a judgment call. Maybe if you think it's needed, so may some other person. So, go find the ref, and add it and help us out man!TCO (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• On the export data, I agree it is convoluted. Will look for a better ref (think I have seen ones where they just say it without referring to the export data.

TCO (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just don't want some lizard coming along and saying such and such a gecko is actually the most common.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Or a Frog leaping you. ;) I've now cut the part as it's not easy to cite. And WP:BLUE/WP:NOTBLUE is not going to make any sense at WP:FAC. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Article doesn't lose much without it, hard to source, right move.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bleh. (LOL, just kidding). No biggie. Of course, now I'm that much more motivated to write state reptiles to FL and note the four pictas, two alligator missippinesses, etc.  ;) TCO (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Length

How does the article compare in length to other FA articles on specific species. Is there a point of "too much" info - in an encyclopedia article? I suspect this has to be the most comprehensive article on the Painted Turtle ever written! I look forward to observing it move through FA. Also, I nearly fell out the chair when I heard a detective on one of the network crime TV series - discussing the Bog Turtle. My wife couldn't understand my excitement!--JimmyButler (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already checked this and we ARE in the general length restrictions of an FA. 30-50k. We were 45k and that was including references and such. We are probably on the long side, but are within specification. Also, a lot of work is being put into sectioning and organization to make the article easily navigable. TCO (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The bog turtle in culture? That should be included in the article.... No, joking. I think part of the reason it's so long is that it encompasses the four subspecies, all of which could have easily had their own article. It is a chore to read (takes days it seems), but as TCO says, headings and subheadings help (as do images).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I gave myself a to-do, to tighten up the Conservation section. Think it will take more than just word by word stuff, but a general collection of the sentences and perhaps elimination of some details. If anyone else wants to do that as a project, that is fine with me too.

P.s. I am also busy creating more text on commercial harvest. TCO (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, i've seen the work taking place in your sandbox. It's looking great, what of the diagram image, any news?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NYM, I just asked, now, but I really did. Was holding off, to package questions in one email to Gamble to be efficient with him. I think we will get the image in a few days, but no promises. Section is written up assuming I don't, but if I do will be easy to sub in.TCO (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

New images in commons, please examine

Finally got licencing permission from NHFG for several photos. See here and if you want to use any, have at it. (no push, but maybe some help.)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Painted-Turtle-head.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Painted-Turtle-1_Young.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PaintedHatchling_Marchand.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PaintedHabitat_Marchand.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Painted_turtle_egglaying.jpg

TCO (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

egglaying pic is nice :-) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I done good?  :) TCO (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excellent picture! Clear and well proportioned. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Egg-laying picture is phenomenal! I'm all for the inclusion of more images, serves to break up the seemingly monstrous amount of text. How about our 'capture' image, the one in a previous heading on this page (tony gamble)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew I would get an edit conflict there.... Great pictures. The hatchling with the funny bird coin is blurry unfortunately. The nesting one is especially nice. I will point out that she isn't laying yet (I can tell by the size and appearance of the mound she's dug out, looks like she's only been digging 10-15 minutes or so). Also, I'm guessing that the 'Young' in the file name is someone's name, but in case it isn't I would also like to clarify that that is not a very young turtle (not necessarily old either) but she has no scute annuli (growth rings) visible so she has been a mature adult for awhile. The habitat shot is nice, but it doesn't show any good basking logs. Still I think it definitely conveys a common sort of habitat that they would like and it will improve the article. (Oh I was just kidding about the bird coin bit, I know what a peso looks like ;) Matt Keevil (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Since we have all these pictures, maybe it would be nice if we could pick an especially good one and show it large and put it beside the table of contents to eliminate that big blank space? Most of this formatting stuff that you guys keep doing goes over my head so I have no idea if it is possible. Something to consider.Matt Keevil (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. 1. Need an admin to change the file name. I agree it is confusing and a reader clicking over will be confused too. Was pjhotog name and I goofed and created it by default.

2. Quarter pic is easier on the eys, but still confusing. And I think using any national emblem is going to get us into hassles.

3. If you just want to move more pics around, I always thought the old vegetation picture also sort of illustrated our purple prose regarding foraging (since it is a turtle in the weeds). I also find the pond picture a little easier on the eyes and anice non turtle break.

TCO (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

didn't mean to say that the file named should be changed, just advising in advance for anyone who might caption it. I think that the quarter is fine, but the lack of focus might be worse than the dark background (or maybe not at thumbnail size). As for the original turtle in the weeds, it was most likely not foraging anyway. May have been basking but probably returning from land after nesting or being released after someone (i.e. the photographer) picked it off the side of the road. Matt Keevil (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've edit the descriptions on commons. It requires no special access at all. The photographer of the first two is Victor Young, so it doesn't mean the turtle is young. You can see the original here. Also the turtles are eastern painted turtles as both specified on the page and the fact it's New Hampshire. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Great pictures, the habitat one is so much more pleasant.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

turtle racing...no I am not joking...or (that much of) a redneck

I know this is going to draw herpetologist grimaces, but I am finding all kinds of stuff on turtle racing of painted turtles.

Tony Gamble, Ph.D. mentions it: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nongame/projects/consgrant_reports/2003/2003_gamble.pdf

"Minnesota’s Painted Turtles are captured in large numbers for the pet and biological supply trade. Small numbers of Painted Turtles are also collected for turtle races, which are popular summer events in some central Minnesota cities."

LOT of local burbs in the US Midwest mention it:

• http://columbustelegram.com/news/local/article_11f50372-730c-11df-9a36-001cc4c03286.html
• http://www.midwestweekends.com/plan_a_trip/family_friends/travel_with_kids/nisswa_turtle_races.html

I will keep it down to a single short sentence with a reference, but I am going to add it under other uses.

Oh...and I promise not to use this video

TCO (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the racing bit, could you include a page number for the gamble source? It's a bit lengthy. (btw, is that what the '30' is in parenthesis?)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Page 2 for both Gamble refs. Not sure where the 30 came from. maybe from me copy pasting the whole named ref, instead of making a shorter version the second time? Can you please fix? Sorry. :O TCO (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh turtle racing. There was one in Ontario, which was totally illegal (Painted Turtles are protected in Ontario), and recently the Ministry of Natural Resources told the town to knock it off so now they are using Red Eared Sliders which is even worse because they are not native. I don't even want to watch the video, but I'm going to. Arrgh.Matt Keevil (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This info's been cut? Which link expands upon this (noticed your edit summary)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I just cut the picture, left the sentence. Will have a better picture under capture (diagrammatic) and the people pic was really snazzy but it messes up sectioning, plus is at the other link (Turtle racing). You can check history though. TCO (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Turtle racing

This is a TOTAL threadjack and segue, but the turtle guy Blackeyed peas guy has some funny kitty vidz. Love me some kitties. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXClXHitLGE TCO (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooooooookay. I didn't look carefully enough, I'm glad the information's still there. I saw in your sandbox you got the trap photo? Excellent.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

We have the basking trap for sure (it's on commons). I was hoping to get this one, that is more diagrammatic. Figure the geeks reading wiki will like a diagram. Could use in conjunction iwth the photo as Gamble did: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~gambl007/publications/Gamble_2006.pdf TCO (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, I saw that one (and I like it), wasn't there another (it was also a diagram, the people said they would get back with you in a week...)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That was Wisconsin, and I could bug them. It was cool liking, I agree. But the basking trap is more relevant to picta. Let me go after the basking trap as it is really geared to pet trade (and thus picta) collection, whereas the hoop trap is more for softshells and snappers (although there is crossover). If you are dying to have an image up right now, throw the photographic image of basking trap up. But if you can wait, I will have some good content and images. Have done ok so far... TCO (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, and I just looked back through a discussion you had with Matt Keevil. I agree, this one is better, and I can wait.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Like the box changes

Like the wider box and also the resistor-code coloring for the geological ephochs. Looks slick.TCO (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, real cool. Makes "species synonymy" and "subspecies synonymy" one line, which looks nicer.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it one line before then. What screen resolution are you on? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

1600x900, as I understand it, a pretty big resolution. I don't know, it looks great now. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I see the issue now. It did occur in other resolutions also. Glad that is fixed. I made the image wider not for that but because Matt made a remark about all the white space beside the TOC(table of contents) and I looked around and saw Loggerhead sea turtle with a wider image in taxobox - so copied it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, it looks really nice. And the time-scale thing (which I've seem before but never thought to put in).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Something I noticed on Loggerhead sea turtle. It's good to look at other similar FA quality articles as it gives you some ideas. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Eastern painted turtle image

Yey! :D NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

TCO linkcheck done

OK. Hope it is appreciated. I went through very carefully and read every section and checked every link to make sure our stuff was consistently top-notch. Not trying to push my decisions, especially if there is some judgment call. But I do think its important we are uniform and have checked everything. And even if we decide to do something different from how I decided that's fine, just want to be consistent and conscious. Not let the article wander away with different people having different styles. FYI: MOS Linking guidance...good stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)

1. Cut a few more links. Overally, I had cut a lot when I rewrote the article. In general, wiki more lately has an issue of overlinking, than under. And stylist guidance I get is to cut overlnking. And the blue is very intimidating to readers. It's like paprika...a spice, use sparingly. Plus our article has so many really great things, doesn't need cheap lnks.

2. Can't have two words next to each other that are to separate links. Blue goes together. (and a comma is still considered "next".) If we really want to link a big mass of stuff, like all the predators, that should be in a table, not prose then.

3. I tried to use common sense for what we "need to link to". Cool concepts that user would want to click on like "supercooled" or "nesting". Animals like other species of turtle, animals with strange names or unknown appearance (osprey, waterbug), but not common ones like crow. Etc.

4. Are three redlinks, all very legit to become articles IMHO, and SunC backs me up that the red itself is not considered "bad".

5. Geography: They are down on geography being used for links, if it is obvious (Mississippi River is specifically an example of what NOT to link to).

• I figure we link to NO US states or Canadian provinces. (too many otherwise and they are reasonably obvious...and not that critical really anyhow.) I do think Chihauaha is exotic enough to get a link.
• Also the term Pacific Northwest is an interesting cross-border concept, and Canadian Maritimes is a litle bit of a fancy word.
• I want to keep the Tennessee River as it is not intuitive where that is (has a strange geography actually)...and also we lack a "blowup map" for the marginata Ice Age story.
• Also Vancouver Island and Portland, Oregon all seem a bit more specific and kinda fit into our story a bit too, within range reduction. Plus I would love to have a blownup rangemap here like what is in some of our refs, but if we never get to it, those specific links can help.
• Washington State: Don't want to wikilink since it is a state like all the others. If we think the state is a confusion with the city, than we should spell it OUT. The wikilink does not benefit a confused reader who does not click the link, and also no one can rely on a wikilink being piped properly, so it tells little to a confused reader. But I honestly think there is NO confusion here about the geography given we talk about the bordering states. Not like a mention of a birthplace in isolation, where you would need to specify.
• Several links in reproduction went to articles talking almost all about human reproduction or anatomy. Confusing to someone who clicks on them. I have linked to subsections related to the animal sex and body parts (and even left hidden comments at the section headers!)
• We should aim to do piped links going to the proper page (not to redirects). So people don't see that little red in the corner. And also so, that there's not another step in the chain that could break. I fixed them all. Just a teensy clerical thing and not "wrong", but something to do, to be tight.
• Of course there is also the "link first time" and "don't link twice" guidance. Actually there is some guidance that you can link twice if far away, and also to try to reduce some of the blue in the lead can skip some linking until detailed discussion. But that's if we need it. I just tried to be mechanical and follow the link first time, only.

TCO (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

P.s. I gotta pack up and drive tonight. Won't have much more wikitime for a day. Feel free to go after the article, I still have several niggling things to do, but getting this linking thing done, feels good. Main three things left on my plate capture stuff, couple fixes on sectioning, and a "real copyedit" (going through for commas that have slipped, etc. I fixed a lot as I was link working, but I know there is a lot to do. Also, before my focus was on pretty fundamental rewrite. This will be tiny polishes.) Anyhow...be good, y'all!

Thanks for the article update and the talk page update! Have a good drive. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Just now noticed all this, yes, great work TCO. =) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking is not an issue for this article. As a rough guide, more then 10% of words linked is overlinking; under 3% of words linked is underlinking. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We fall within those percentages?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This could be just a rounding thing...

...but in the lead and beginning of description we say '10-26' cm while in the bulleted information in description, no subspecies reaches larger than 25cm. I'll look back through my sources.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There were some changes made the to length recently. We just need to be careful, when we change numbers, that we are consistent from subspecies to species and from lead to article mainspace. Good catch.TCO (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

On your recent CEs, all good upgrades, except

• I think "ocean" is understood with "the Pacific" or "the Atlantic" like "Sea" is with "the Mediterranian". But if you need to add it, make it plural and capitalize.
• I had that sentence on mating after the hibernation, because it seems to make sense in terms of time-sense. One sentence says winter hibernate, the next says what they do in summer, vice scattering through the paragraph. I realize that is not same order as the discussion in the article sections, but I think the reader will not notice the difference and we do them a service by having integrated flowing paragraphs, vice sentences glommed together. No biggie though. Another option is actually to move the Food chain section a little lower in the article....TCO (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you can revert that edit. I just liked having that paragraph end with the whole '40 years' bit, but that type of reasoning is much worse that yours.  :-) Also, I can remove 'Ocean,' I see your point. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Took care of the two bullet points, will look at length thing shortly.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually loved the ending with 40 years part! Let's figure out how to get that back. Maybe put the eating and what it eats at the front of the paragraph?

Anyhow, I need to get on the road. Just edit it however you like best (or ask a question, doesn't matter). Will look at both the diffs and the talk comments when I get back and ask any questions in here on stuff that does not make sense.

It was very confusing and seemed redundant. Like saying 10% of students at West Point are female and 87% are male. Like 3% are robots? And I think we "get it" that if 10% are female, the other 90% are male. If you wanted to talk about sex ratio changing over time, you might say, "In 1980, when the first class of females graduated from West Point, they were only 5% of the Corps, but now in 2010, they are 20%." A discussion like that sure doesn't need us larding it down to explain that males went from 95% to 80%. It's kind of like a duh that they dead. If you think the carrion is really important and want to drag it in fine, but then you will need to explain all three parameters. From what I remember the change was almost perfectly vegetation for meat (and besides dead mead is really a subset of meat, even within our intro sentence, remember?) Anyhow...this is a lot of collaboration...gotta jet.TCO (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We can leave it for now, I see what you're saying. Safe driving and I'll try to hash something out with the '40 years' bit, will show a mock-up here before incorporating any changes into the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Some things I'm noticing as I'm going along

• The last three sentences of 'movement' need copy-editing and I'm unsure how to do this (they just read a little weird is all).
• I remember bringing this up a while ago but, I think for the southern painted turtle portion under 'diet,' the animal matter statistics should also be given. Right now it's not so much a reversal in meat vs. plant consumption as it is a reduction in the latter.

More to come I'm sure, but the article's looking great. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Under predators, I don't think we have to worry about that little rule that two terms next to each other can't be linked. There was no problem with this over at Bog turtle, which has a similar section with similar 'lists.'--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Nests and young, paragraph 5: doesn't the last sentence just repeat what all the stats say (northern=larger clutches)?
• Last paragraph of 'Reprduction,' is there a difference between 'sexual maturity' and 'maturity'...because we have different numbers for each?
• "it is classified as of G5"--is that proper wording, because later we have "it is designated S5"?

northern clutches, I agree seems convoluted. Your original (which I assume came from Ernst or Carr) seemed to think it important to make the point that further norht within subspecies (or subspecies to subspecies) that clutch size was bigger. It might be related to foragint and summer peak. I have no idea if you stick a southern painted in Minnesota for the summer if it would lay a big clutch also. Clean up however, you like. It was even worse, before.  ;)

I think that was one of Matt's edits on the maturity. Needs to either be fixed or clarified. Not sure if he just stuck a sentence in and then didn't make it match with other stuff, or if he really meant two different things. But let's get his input. Maybe drop a note on his page.

In this case maturity = sexual maturity and it varies with latitude among other things. So Ernst and Lovich sumarize a few values gleaned from their lit review but did not cite any studies from the northern edge of their range so I added those values. I'll change it to sexual maturity in the text to make sure it's clear. Another issue Erst says spermatogenesis begins in march but in 2009 edition later in the same paragraph on pg 197 they talk about sg beginning in March in Louisiana but May in Tenn. so there is some confusion there. Our text also mentions basking to raise body temp to x degrees for sg. The issue with that is that northern populations are stuck under the ice until late April in case of Algonquin park. Maybe we could simplify the whole issue by just saying early spring.Matt Keevil (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

'Early spring' sounds like a happy remedy.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cut the "of". It is an error.TCO (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

'Of' removed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Finished my copy-edit sweep. No more concerns other than what's been left here.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Spring may not be good wording because seasons occur at various times around the world. See WP:RELTIME. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's good you point this out now, I'll go through the article and see where seasons can be changed to months.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Do what you want, but given that it is completely clear that the range of the turtle is in the northern hemisphere, I think describing seasons normally is fine. If this were an article in Britannica or National Geographic, would anyone object to using the seasons in their conventional expression? Also, it seems that even in that policy, they mention "spring blooms" as acceptible...and we are discussing the turtle's response to the seasons. We even have a heading called (properly) seasonal routine. I think saying it hibernates in the winter is fine. If we were discussing something else where there was a legitimate cause for ambiguity about southern and northern hemispheres would feel differently. Heck for that matter, if someone introduces picta into New Zealand, I'm sure it will respond to those seasons. So the season is actually more relevant and helpful than the month...TCO (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to be disagreeable...and that is a great page actually (words to watch). Just would caution that it calls out "words to watch", not words to never use, and also directly counsels common sense in a box at the top. A much clearer case of season bias, would be if I said "Halley's comet came in the summer of 2005". Obviously there, I'm showing my top half of the world chauvinism. The thing came to the whole world...not just the NH. I just think in this context, sure, watch for problem words, but I think seasons are fine. P.s. there is a nice section in that page where they talk about preferring to make quote verbs neutral (said, or wrote) and I think I have one "acknowledged" where the interpretation should be taken out and just go to a "wrote".TCO (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I don't know how this sort of thing is handled on other pages so I'll leave all as is for the time being.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would really watch it if you were writing about WW2 for instance and said "the summer of 1942 marked the high point of Japan's expansion". As obviously, Australians were relevant to that war and actions took place in the SH. Writing for a WW audience as we do, we NHers might be inclined to unconsious bias that would be jarring to the the ears of ANZ, but not C of ANZAC. So we should cut it (however if you were writing something for a US or C journal, I think the expression might be ok, but not here at Wiki). Also, it would probably be relevant (and maybe even pack more content than referring to the months) if describing German-Russian battles, you said something like "the muddy spring melt of 1942 held up the tracked vehicle advance of the Germans for 3 weeks, but then they rolled eastward" (as in that example the melt might come earlier, further south).TCO (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly advocate for 'spring'. Painted Turtle life history is organized around seasons, not months. The timing of life history events varies geographically, and yearly, because the events are correlated to the season. If a painted turtle population was established in South Africa, they would begin spermiogenesis in the southern hemisphere spring. Similarly we wouldn't say that painted turtles begin basking at 8:00 EST in the eastern time zone, but at 5:00 EST on the Pacific Coast. Instead, we just say morning. Matt Keevil (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with spring. Glad the discussion has been had because this is possibly the type of things people will raise at FAC. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Some things I'm noticing as I'm going along

• The last three sentences of 'movement' need copy-editing and I'm unsure how to do this (they just read a little weird is all).
• I remember bringing this up a while ago but, I think for the southern painted turtle portion under 'diet,' the animal matter statistics should also be given. Right now it's not so much a reversal in meat vs. plant consumption as it is a reduction in the latter.

More to come I'm sure, but the article's looking great. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Under predators, I don't think we have to worry about that little rule that two terms next to each other can't be linked. There was no problem with this over at Bog turtle, which has a similar section with similar 'lists.'--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Let's talk it through, becuase that was a total headscratcher for a reader looking at it. I could not tell what you were driving at. Like why didn't the percentages add perfectly to 100%, but almost did? (were there 5% rocks it was eating)? Also, if we just said the animal eats both animals and vegetation in the section, and then we say juveniles eat 90% meat and adults 20% meat, anyone can tell that the vegetation went from 10% to 80%. Telling them that, is just annoying. But comminicate, cause maybe I don't getl you.

2. Getting away with it at Bt is not the only parameter. Yes, I don't want to piss off the reviewers or put us through pain doing something non-wiki. Honest. If it is something I would do different in the work world, but wiki has made a style choice, no problem...we conform! But I would be careful about inferring too much based on what got by or what you think is required. There can be some wrong impressions. It would be different if you told me you got beat up and had to add all the animal links! But I honestly don't think FAC would drive us to have 3 sentences in a row with 8 linked terms in each sentence. Think if anything they will prefer it if we come in extra pleasant to read.

Tony is really against overlinking common terms (and alot of the animals are) and it seems like more and more I read articles saying to be more judicious with links, and I agree with the arguments. I think that predator list was like a perfect example of what they don't want in terms of so much blue next to each other. Almost a poster boy for the disease!  :)

If you really think that a person is going to want to jump to each animal, and maybe you are right(!), we might want to think about doing a 3-column table. This would also correct that the para is really just a list in text now anyhow! Just 3 super-list sentences. See the example here (below in Philosophy) and how bad having all those terms in blue next to each other looks bad.

P.s. I definitely don't want to "argue" and will support however we go. I just want to explain at length the rationale and give you the benefit of my experience and judgment. But am really cool with you calling the shot! TCO (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thought I was going crazy for a second: saw two of the same section. But anyway, no, this isn't argument, it's collaboration! I think the reason they didn't add up exactly to 100% was that Carr counted 'carrion' as a seperate category. From Carr: "Plant material constituted 88 per cent of the food of the adults and only 13 per cent of that of immature specimens, while the respective percentages of animal food were 10 and 85." So I don't know...does it make sense without the animal numbers? As for the predator section, it looks great now, just some sentences have a lot of 'ands'. Everything is looking exceptional regardless.:-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A-class

How would this article get assessed for A-class?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A-class is when an article is reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. To date amphibian and reptile have none of these. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be advisable to put this article through such a review as is?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't see much point now that it's GA. A-class is more WikiProject group based way of getting the quality improved instead of going to GA which only takes one uninvolved person and doesn't require an article to be assigned to a WikiProject. It seems looking around that few projects use A-Class now. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Push for FA. TCO (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

US or U.S.?

Saw you changing them back and forth. Either one is fine, per wiki, as long as consistent. Here is an interesting essay on it: http://grammar.about.com/od/grammarfaq/f/abbreviationUSfaq.htm

P.s. Can only use it as an adjective though. US border, but not eastern US. I think I put that one in, too.  ;)

TCO (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed one from US to U.S. and was told they usually stay as US, so that's what I made all of them. I don't know if this right, please change all mistakes. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is fine either way, man! Don't change it again! I was just interested in sharing the essay to show how it's not settled. Just thought would interest you. Wiki is also fine as long as it is consistent. TCO (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The above link is out of date and misleading. Chicago Manual of Style 2010 now support US, rather than U.S. See WT:MOSABBR#Chicago_MoS_and_US.2FU.S. for some talk about this. Also MOS:ABBR. It seems to me at this point both are supported as long as it's consistent, but in the future that US will become the standard. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If you prefer US, I am totally fine. I think I was USing also! Per policy, either is fine on Wikipedia as long as consistent. As the essay I cited says, most newspapers still use U.S. CMOS is not the only guide, too. It's our article so we can set it up how we want. Just if someone else basically writes an article up from scratch, would advise not to tell them they are incorrect. Wikipolicy allows either if consistent. Maybe it will become the standard in the future, but either is common now and in a lot of media, U.S. is still normal. Second word on front page of today's Washington Post is U.S. Also, my mother (appeal to mom) who writes reports professionally and has for 40 years, said U.S. point blank when asked. In any case, Wiki policy is fine with either and on any page I'm editing with you, I will make sure we use US.  ;) TCO (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The ocean or Ocean or oceans or Oceans?

I was wrong to say to capitalize ocean in that situation. Was right to tell you to pluralize it. This essay explains. http://grammar.about.com/b/2010/06/16/cap-that-guidelines-for-using-capital-letters.htm

Personally, I don't think you need to say ocean in "from the Altantic to the Pacific". I mean Michener wrote Tales of the South Pacific. not of the South Pacific Ocean. As it is now, we are using ocean on one and not on the other. So we are half-pregnant.

Gotta sleep now. CAn't beleive I spent 45 minutes of sack time researching that!TCO (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in the text?

The text of the article says: "To be active, the turtle must maintain an internal body temperature between 17–23 °C (63–73 °F). When fighting infection, it will manipulate its temperature to be 4–5 °C (39–41 °F) higher than normal.[41]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_turtle#Daily_routine_and_basking

I think the conversion factor has been misapplied and the sentence is supposed to mean something like this:

"To be active, the turtle must maintain an internal body temperature between 17–23 °C (63–73 °F). When fighting infection, it will manipulate its temperature to be 4–5 °C higher than normal [22-28 °C (72-82 °F")]

This is taking the internal body temperature of the turtle as the normal temperature. Michael Glass (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these are differential extra degrees. So when we did it manually, showed better. We can do this one manually. And put a hidden not for explanation. Probably helpful, also if we just pick a number instead of the range, too. 4-5 is just annoying. Will fix. TCO (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason this looks complicated is because it is. I have this on my accuracy stuff to fix list. Basically, turtles can be active at much lower temperatures than 17 degrees (swimming, basking, and probably mating) but painted turtles won't eat when its colder than around 17 degrees. There is a range of temperatures at which they can be active. There is also a temperature set point that they prefer to be at given the choice, usually close to the optimum where their metabolic and physiological processes are optimized (e.g. swimming, digestion) and they tend to thermoregulate around that point. However, there are efficiency trade offs so they can continue to feed etc even if the thermal environment is such that they aren't able to actually stay around their set point - i.e. they won't necessarily drop everything just to pursue the thermal optimum/set point. To make things more complicated, the set point changes with season (so probably lower in fall than in spring). In some cases they will actually pursue cold temperatures such as during hibernation in hypoxic (low O2) environments. This will lower their temperature and hence the amount of O2 that they need. Also females and males will vary in their thermoregulatory behaviour. Females spend a lot more time thermoregulating in the spring than males because they need to speed up the development of their eggs. Anyway, the fever response it just an adjustment of the set point meaning that they will tend to thermoregulate to achieve a higher body temperature than they would normally. So the two sentences look confusing because they are talking about two separate things - temperature range of active turtles vs changes in preferred temperature. Now all I have to do is find refs and a nice concise way of explaining it for the article. Matt Keevil (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, Matt. More depth of thought is great (like what you just said) and accuracy is great too. The rationales and reasons you expressed above were fascinating. I basically cede to you ANY observation of the northern turtles with a ref on it. Honest. I don't fight on the science. And I totally respect your knowledge.

Maybe separate paragraphs on each phenomeonon would be good as well. Need a little more info and relevent detail on the fever response. Before we had two sentences, but the second one was really filler fluff. Need another peice of meat.

Also, please just fix it all over the article when you change. Honest, I let you have the 26 or the 25 cm. It's cool. Just it puzzles the reader and fellow editors if it changes in the lead and not body or visa versa. Same with subspecies to species, and different parts of the article.

Also, I don't know the complete answer, but we need to figure out how to express insights without a "some" on every fact. Maybe putting a "typical" at the beginning of a paragraph or something. I get that we are describing behavior that is of an animal and it may vary, is not an atom decaying. Just I don't think the added content is helpful to the reader if we have a qualifier on every single thing or we express some quantity like 4-5 deg C (8-10 deg F), when it's just some blip upwards anyhow. TCO (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the 26 vs 25 thing got up there, probably two different sources or a rounding difference. I don't think I changed it but I may have. Anyway, most of the qualifiers should probably stay. Maybe some of them could be done away with but not many although changing synonyms might help the style in some cases. The problem is that for a lot of the 'facts' there is not just individual variation, but large differences between populations. For example, the 75% of females stay overnight on land after nesting fact was qualified because, not only do not all populations have that behaviour, but most do not. The value came from one study of one michigan population. But in other populations it almost never happens. In fact painted turtles in another michigan study were the first to finish and the first back to the water relative to other species. It probably just depends mostly on how far from water they need to get to find a good nesting site and that will vary by location. I can see how the style would be snappier without qualifying so many statements but we are constrained by the messiness of reality. Basically, removing qualifiers will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis and most will likely have to stay if we are going to accurately convey the information.Matt Keevil (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe for the 4-5 (7-8), we could just say "a few degrees"? the way it reads now, it looks like someone did a study and found an average of 4.5 fever temp elevation and we are just saying 4-5 (7-8) to be vague and verbose. And it looks bad to have to use 4 numbers to express something with a one degree range difference. Why not just look at the study and round it to whichever was closest 4 or 5? It's not like a large range of importance. Or just do like we did with early spring.

On the overnighting, good catch and I'm glad you found a place where we drew too much from a single study. I totally agree we need to watch for that as people have a tendancy to cite "their turtles" as "the turtles" and we are doing the reader a service, since we give them an overview and (try) not to do things like that. Good job. TCO (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I hastily threw in that '75 percent' bit without reading the rest of the paragraph. Thank you Matt Keevil. I agree that qualifiers are the way to go, but I have neither the style nor ability to 'mix it up' when it comes to using them. Help from our copy-editor friends will be of great value here. P.s. I changed the 26cm to 25cm because that's what most of my sources say, although I have seen a few 26cm's.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

hey no problem. That sort of thing is what I'm here for. I only brought it up to illustrate a point.Matt Keevil (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

talk page length and archiving

I changed the archiving time length back. Someone unassociated with the editing had lowered our archiving time. I think we have an active talk page and that's good. And I see the whole thing getting archived, when page is "done". Anyhow, if the people working on the article and using the talk page want it smaller or are having load times, I'm fine with that. Just get concerned when someone unassociated with the work, tweaks our tool that we are using to coordinate.TCO (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Canadian regulations on capture and keep of painted turtles?

Matt: Are painted turtles forbidden for capture and keep in all of Canada? Is it a province by province type of thing or federal? I did find this ref, saying capture in Ontario is forbidden (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/document/239841.pdf) but otherwise, hard for me to google...and my French is poor.

Actually not sure. You are right that they have special protection in Ontario and obviously BC. As for the other provinces, I'm actually not sure. I did try to find out before, but could find few reliable sources. My french is pretty poor too (I'm a bad Canadian) but that is only an issue in Quebec. One website here http://www.mcwetboy.com/reptiles/laws.php suggests that keeping Painted Turtles as pets is illegal in Quebec.Matt Keevil (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I think I can finesse it.TCO (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Grey squirrel

This link is a disambigious. Is there some way to clarify what is meant. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Eastern gray squirrel is a better page: range is almost an exact match as with picta and article much nicer than the disambig page. Changed.TCO (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this brings up an important point, we need to do some reworking of the predation section (and concomitant wording in the lead). The text reads as if painted turtles suffer from high predation but, like all turtles, the natural predation rate of adults is lower than for the mast majority of other animals - that shell is there for a reason after all. So there are lots of things that eat hatchlings (any predator or occasional predator that can swallow/chew an animal the size of a quarter) but there are only a few important predators of adults. Adult annual survivorship is probably always >80% (pops in the south may be an exception) and usually closer to 90% (>96% in the Algonquin study) in stable natural populations (which is why sustained excess adult mortality -> local extinction). Somewhere I have a picture of a Painted Turtle that suffered a sustained attacked by a fox or otter but because of her shell she suffered no soft tissue injuries, just lots of tooth marks on the shell. When I find the picture (not on my computer here) I will add it. I also have a picture of a Painted Turtle with what appears to be a canine tooth puncture through the shell made by either a black bear or eastern wolf but it's an older injury and I'm not quite as certain of its providence. Matt Keevil (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen that a lot as well and I thought we had something in reproduction and growth on it. Regardless, I do think it's an important general observation to add to predation, that they are relatively low predated as adults. Concur. It's not like they are the rabbits or deer that are on every canine's dinner menu. The other benefit is we get some more of an interesting point into that paragraph, which is very list-y now.TCO (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I can source this, Ernst has all the numbers.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a good way to read pdfs of papers online?

Drives me crazy to try to read two-column science papers on a computer screen, especially a laptop. Has pissed me off since 1995 at least. Would think Adobe would fix this. Even pdfs that are more than just photos (where you can cut and paste) have this problem. Is there some setting or alternate style free reader? I guess I should just print more stuff. It is so inefficient otherwise. End whine. P.s. this is related to content prep for picta.  ;) TCO (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I use Foxit Reader(actually I have the PDF editor) rather then Adobe Acrobat because it's more secure. What is the issue you have? Seems like you want a bigger screen. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Even on a big screen, you end up going down one column and then up to the next and getting onto the wrong page when you don't want to. It's just hard to scroll. Or for me. Could be an operator issue.  :) TCO (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They are sort of a pain to read, I typically zoom waaay out and use ctrl+f function to find what I want (I don't know if this helps you, just rambling I suppose...).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I just tree-killed. Gotta get you this bit of turtle capture content, tomorrow and then I will need to be a bit more scarce, for a while.TCO (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll be scarce as well, until about the 28th.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Shaffer coauthorship

I just noticed that Shaffer is co-author on the Starkey paper and Rhodin. (No action needed, just interesting.) When I talked to the HAT biologist, who is "pro-4", he said Shaffer was pushing the new species taxonomy.TCO (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

TCO work turnover

Hey guys, I have some commercial work (well, a proposal) coming in, and need to take care of that. Three turnover items:

1. Expanded capture section with photo. Will place in article. Do with as you like. NYM has already started improving it. Don't care if you cut it, tighten it, change the slant, convert to a sub-page, whatever.
2. Want to add back a few section breaks in Reproduction and in Conservation. Not overkill, but I think it will really help. Have had the experience with technical topics or long reports, that sections really help. Few readers coming to the page will read from front to back so navigation helps a lot. (different on a history or biography article where there is an inherent narrative that is more story-like.) If you don't like it, just change back.
3. I will write a little task list down (here). It's the stuff I would do, if I were editing more actively. Maybe it helps you, and no pressure. Just want to turn it over.

Article is awesome. Please take it to FA and carve me a piece of the star. If there is some question, feel free to ask, but I will step away from active content creation or grammar analyyzing for a while.

TCO (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

FA can wait until your able to co-nominate with me. The new section looks great as far as I'm concerned, will go over the grammar, having a look at the list below right now... (p.s. totally support the introduction of more section headings)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

AL FG ref 31

No idea how I broke that. Sorry.TCO (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No promlemo, refs get like that sometimes, fixed it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Other parts still broken. Look further down the page, boss.  :( TCO (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, note there are two different AL FG references. One was AL FG and one was AL FG comm. they worked before. Don't clip one!  ;)TCO (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I got the right one, the original citation that messed up was AL FG, not the other, I believe I preserved this. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Beginning to work through new content

Unclear what 'DNR' means under commercial harvesting.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

DNR is Department of Natural Resources (the "fish and game department"). I cut DNR and moved some refs around and did some other fixes. Will really try to stay away for a while now.TCO (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed three as cited by refs, should be coming out of Gamble2004, not 2006. Will fix. The two I am leaving DO come out of Gamble2006, though. (and if you want to pull the refs and verify the info and remove cited by, feel fine. I don't have academic journal access or ILL now.)TCO (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You continue to work through and I'm here if you need formatting help. My wikipower will be limited over the next week or so (holidays and such), but I'll continue to read through the new sections and make fixes/offer commentary.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

TCO thoughts on remaining tasks for FA

FWIW:

Need to do:

• tighten prose of Conservation and Capture.
• double check Gervais pagination (may be fine, but I got a worry).
• go thru entire article for "omit needless words"
• go thru and actual ce, nit by nit
• spellcheck offline
• Ernst page 26 ref lost (look back in talk and in diffs. There was a Ernst page 26 reference that I had, I think in conservation, that was disappeared (this is different from the Ernst 22-33 ref).
• parentheses 30 in Gamble ref. Has something to do with the date of the paper (figure out)
• Fix AL FG ref, 31. (not sure what is issue)
• Some of (my) refs with day-month-year dates insead of converse.
• ref format for family

Nice to do:

• family discussion (just wonder under Tax if there should be some mention of the parent family of turtles. We mention it in lead after all. maybe a sentence describing about what it is in words (NA freshwater turtles, "pond turtles", what? (maybe we know by now). Perhaps right before we get into the slider-cooter 1960s tax controversy (I assume they are in same family?)

• Yes, I feel like this is important as well. I will include something and add a definitive source (SunCreator has found several very recent ones on the taxonomy of this family).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ideas I had, but probably not worth worrying about:

• blown up map for PNW (show all the geography and popuylation details for endangerment)

If this ever gets done, would do it for the longer article, not main one.TCO (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Will get right on this list. Just one more thing before you go: there are two refs in the new material added that need to be cleaned up (large red letters saying citation error, can't miss it). Just an html thing probably, not saying they were formatted wrong or anything. New section looks great and I'll give it a grammatical once over for you. Come back to us when you can TCO!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the Alabama ref crap. And you did cut a reference. Grr. We should have one "AL FG comm", and then three instances of "AL FG". Let me try reloading all three manually. give me ten, please.

I think I see where the problem is (different thing, but it is causing a nesting error.) Stay clear, I need to revert and then open up the patient.TCO (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha...okay. The only one I touched was the Al FG one, which I just cut an pasted to another spot in the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I got it. Stress over. :) TCO (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thank you.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a nested set of screwups. And then there were some, that didn't even show as screwups, until I got the ones before them. All my fault. Funny how they interlink though. Had a bunch where I missed the training / on named refs. And then a couple where I somehow called Gamble Gervais. and then on sneaky one where I messed up and said Gamble 2004 instead of Gamble2004. Whew. Bleh.TCO (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I know what is doing the (30) also. Think I entered day of the month where it says date, but field gets date maybe. Will work on...TCO (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Feeling guilty for the length of the sections I wrote :(

I think both Conservation and Capture should be edited down to a third of their current sizes. We don't need the state by state litany of creel limits. We don't need a long paragraph of basking versus hoop traps. We can cut some of the general turtle context blathering. Those places a paragraph could become a sentence. For the general reader, easier to ingest the meat without the added spinach.

Doing this would also allow dropping the subordinate section headers. I could see a revised structure like this:

Interaction with humans

• Conservation
• Uses
  • Pets
  • Other uses
  • Capture
• Culture

(note that our TOC is limited to show 2 or 3 equals, so the sections below Use, don't impact the TOC length)

Would like to keep a subpage for each of those two sections. Interested reader can click to them and the work is not "lost". The FA judges on the main page, so it's not like one has to keep the subpages as beautiful. And while they judge on the main page, I think the presence of the subpages helps us sneakily if there is any concern about our rigor.

I realize this is more work and don't have time to help on it for a while (least a week or two). But I think it would spiff the page up, however we get it done.

I think that, plus an anal copyedit (spellcheck offline, check every ref for format, sentence by sentence look for effective structure, make sure the writing (at least within a paragraph) is consistent in tense and number), would basically get it to where we feel that the page is our best effort. IOW, imagining that we had no review and were dependant on ourselves to make it perfect. I'm sure the critics will find extra stuff, but it will be easier on them to help if the thing is already top notch, so they can really probe, vice find a lot of stuff. And I'm sure having it spiffy will help in terms of the reaction.

TCO (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have more a time a little later on (about a week or so), so I'll go through it in detail than. The new content is great but in some places it's a little too specific. I wil work through and drop notes here before I make any major changes (will 'fix' grammar as I go [don't know if it will fix it or hurt it with my grammatical skills]). :-P--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I think it needs Capture and Conservation need a a rewrite to be about 30-50% as long. Cut or severly limit the intro "context" paragraphs about general turtle issues. Change the state by state crap to be a sentence not a paragraph, summarizing that states allow recreational taking with a fishing license. Cut the basking trap stuff to be a sentence or two, not five. Where-ever else you want to cut or can really justifiably summarize, vice showing detail. probably a lot of sentences in Conservation that could be become phrases (sort of how you had it before.) Can dump the old pages into user space or make subpages, whatever you think best helps the cause. Feel free to improve the grammar and syntax. If you have a question, look it up in a grammar or writing book, or ask a question over at MOS talk page. Be bold...I need to stay away from this stuff for at least a week. TCO (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a little free time. Will see if I can trim the fat and keep the meat.TCO (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

added family and subfamily content

Per talk page discussions, I added a little on the parent family (and subfamily!) that our little guy finds himself in. Kinda been bugging me that we have a factoid in the lead, that was not in the body. I also expanded the thought just a bit. Think our lead is fine (like how we set it up), but just wanted a little more detail and "so what" for the reader in the body. Seems like the content even connects to the next paragraph about slider-cooter controversy, so nice thought "thread" for the reader.

Of course, if I glitched up the logic, please fix. Also, the reference might need upgrading (and formatting, haha!) I just grabbed what was on the other wikipage, but I heard you have a better one, SunC. (Back to paid work rest of the day.)TCO (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

slimmed down capture section

I cut the capture section in half. Will keep more detail on a subpage (similar to how Lion was handled). I think this helps the cause, best. Also, pesky subections and quotes are gone now, but preserved in subpage.TCO (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, keep the subpage. Sorry I haven't swept the new material yet, today or tomorrow for sure (just got home).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

picture size

Been playing around with picture size after reading advice on Giano's "how to FA" essay that making some pictures bigger really helps sell an FA. Just something to think about. Feel free to play with yourself and/or revert them all to small size. I guess was kinda thinking we have a lot of numbers and population descriptions and the like, so that some bigger pictures might be the sugar to make the medicine go down. Just something to play with!TCO (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors can set the size of images in appearance tab of 'my preferences'. If the image doesn't use the thumbs option then those who have set another size may complain it's either to big or to small. Exception is the taxobox image which is not a thumb. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The default size that people surf on must be pretty darned small then! And I bet more than 90% of the people reading wikipedia articles do not have a profile set to change the size from default. But I don't want to mess up our chances for a star. If others hate the look, of course we change back.TCO (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Image size is something to consider, but it won't make or break us. 'Play around' at will! --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

offline spellcheck

I did an offline spellcheck. Was having a hard time getting it to work until I pasted unformatted text into word (somehow normal pasting made it html and then word checker didn't work right). I ended up keeping the edit window open for the article while I had the text in Word. Also had a dictionary in front of me (Word dictionary not always reliable) and even googled on a couple tricky ones. Anyhow, found about 10 errors. Just sharing in case it helps others or others have suggestion on how to do this most efficiently. Was giving me a hard time at first, but now can whip out fast. Useful last check before going into FAC.TCO (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Many times I use Firefox for such a task as it has an inbuilt US spell checker when you edit text. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm even lazier: I let the wikignomes cleen up mi miztakes.  :-P--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I want clean haircuts and spitshined boots when we go in front of the general(s)  :) TCO (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think every mistake was from me, BTW, and there were like 15 of them, when I did the sweep.TCO (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifteen's not that bad for this size of an article (I'm a little subconscious that I left that many after reading the article a million times...haha). Are you ready for FAC?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we are close. And I'm not scared of those guys. That said, I would really like to buckle down and focus on it for a day or two, first. Nothing major at all. No fear. Just want the time, to grab a grammar book and kind of look at the thing, rule by rule, almost. Even just as an exercise for me (but you get the benefit). Maybe make a new section for stray tasks. I know of at least two, which I would totally love if you did instead of me. We've had these little lists, at times, but I want to have one final one (as I know we did not finish them all off at the time).

P.s. My contract work did not come through.

Fine by me, no rush. What two things are still irking you?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think some of our refs still have different date formatting.
• Spotcheck a couple Gervais refs and see if the pagination worked right (I know we had a handoff). Might be hunky dory, but I'm worried. Just imagine you were the FAC and doublechecking us. Check a couple and make sure we got that right.

Sure thing, these two things in addition to what's discussed in the following section will be cleared up between now and tomorrow. I really see no other problems...it's almost like we've already done the FA review. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Can you make a flipped version of the basking turtle (sorry).  :)

2. OK. I will get off my ass and get everything I want done on the article. Will give up my plan to read an entire grammar book and check every rule. I think that would take months. You have been through so much, let's get this thing into the process. Give me until end of day tomorrow. I really don't think I have many more changes, but I want the chance to read it from front to back. Also, want to go through the talk pages and see if there were any of these little stray tasks (and at my soapbox) that are still outstanding. I'll put a note on here when I'm ready to pull the trigger and then you can do the formal nomination with the powers that be. Too tired now. Bed time.TCO (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would like to co-nominate with you, but I'm unsure how to do this officially (if we even can). Would you like to?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if allowed. Otherwise, I will support you during the review commenting (and fixing!), regardless.

I think you (or I) just mention in the lead that one or the other is a co-nominator than, after the review (if it passes), wikicredit is officially given to both of us by the FA overseer. SunCreator would know more about than I do though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A fourth thing is that some of the refs are out of order now. I will try to get as I copyedit, but feel free to fix in sections where I don't have the tag on.

Reference #4...

...needs reformatting. It can probably be replaced by Fritz, but if you want to keep it I can just run it through the ref generator.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Disregard that last post...I just read what's above. Our truly epic turtle taxonomy source can be used here, will get on that (if you're cool with the change TCO?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Go right ahead, boss. Let's pad this thing back up in references. Lost a few when I skinnied the content down.TCO (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha, sure thing. This will be finished by tomorrow as will my scan of the (not so new) material. :-P --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Most common state reptile

I've added another source that lists the state reptiles.TCO (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(Ec)It seems to be WP:SYNTH as no one source makes the claim. I've looked for a source myself but only found lists. 'Most common' seems puffery to me, even if factually correct. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

1. To me, it's like noting how many states start with the letter M. That is in front of you.

2. Also, when something truly IS distinctive, it is important to point it out. Noting that Russia is the biggest country or Everest the highest mountain or Kodiak the biggest bear are helpful and relevant things to know.

3. Added another source. It's hardcopy, real book, real author, for money publisher, not just a website. Still just lists them, but it's a quality list, not some website from some dinky company.TCO (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The book source of 2002 is out of date(as no Colorado until 2008 and no Illinois until 2005) so it would therefore appear(can't view it all in Google books) to show two American alligators(Louisiana, Florida) and two painted turtles(Michigan,Vermont) - so doesn't support the claim of most common. The Netstate URL list is not likely a reliable source and not dated either. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well when we write up the list to a featured list, we are obviously going to remark on the most common animal, on any animals that there is more than one of, on how many turtles there are versus lizards. And it will be perfectly normal prose to put at the top of that featured list (in the prose section). And no one would look at us twice to want to source the numbers when all we are doing is describing the list. I really think the same applies right now.

But do what you want to resolve the concern. (It's fine, man. I just need to go to other tasks to finish this thing.) If you cut the comment, please pull it out of both the lead and the body, so we are consistent.TCO (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing any more, just sharing, FWIW. But look at the last line of Northern cardinal. (I'm not saying they source it, btw, just that they find it significant how many states have it.)

I cut the offending claims.TCO (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hello. I think the editors here are getting ready to make this an FAC. The only thing I noticed at first glance was that you'll need to replace hyphens with en dashes for ranges (numbers, dates, etc.). You can see some examples in the notes, e.g, in page ranges in notes 1, 40, 45, 47, 53.

On a side note, you'll want to start archiving discussions on this talk page. It's over 264kb now. Once a page hits 100kb, it's getting too big under normal circumstances.

Best of luck! --Airborne84 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

• We will archive talk as soon as we get done (in hours, I hope).
• I thought the damned conversion templated used en-dashes. I guess we need to stick en dashes in the conv template (can we)? I confuse, my eye can not tell the difference of a hyphen and an en dash.TCO (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that the cite templetes don't automatically provide en dashes. Unless there's a shortcut that I don't know about, they have to be manually inserted. I have trouble seeing the difference between hyphens and en dashes when I'm editing. The difference usually becomes clearer in the final markup, but your browser may handle them differently and allow you to see the difference while editing.

There are a few instances in the article itself that should be corrected also, but for the most part it's grammatically correct as far as the en dashes go. However, It'll have to be 100% to make it through as an FA candidate. These are little things that GA reviewers will let pass that will hold up things at the FAC page. You're on the right track though! --Airborne84 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I don't know how to format en-dashes so I'm hoping some nice person can go through the article checking for accuracy with regard to their use. Again, thanks.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We'll make a list of tasks (start another penalty box) and put it towards the end. If we don't get a helper, we'll just do it manually by opening the article and using the edit find for all the hyphens and overpastin en-dashes (where they belong, since there are hyphens that need to stay also!)TCO (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. We'll get this thing done before the year changes. I'm like a dog with a bone now.TCO (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good friend.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

CEs to description section

Not gonna capture every style edit, just the ones I'm worried about drifting back.

• We had some repetition of specifying shell length as opposed to just giving lengths. I cut that and added a note. We need to be consistent and note will help us.

• I am using a standard format of sharing the more technical terms, but not repeating them throughout the article. I think this is right balance of info with readability. We have a huge amount of technical info (like population distributions and the like) and no need to "carapace beat". This is per WP Technical articles. Obviously it is a judgment call, but I'm a scientist and think it is right balance for reader and meeting policy.

• Second paragraph had some sentences where number (the turtle versus the turtles) changed in the middle of sentences. I just changed it to be singular similar to the para before and after. BTW, either is fine, I think, although would avoid shifts within paras. I think "the turtle" is mildly guttier. But in any case, it was just bad grammar disagreement before.

• I changed the 26 cm to a 25. I think it slipped in as a mistake anyhow (Ernst is the ref and is 25 elsewhere). In any case, we need to be consistent, so if someone wants 26 he needs to change it everywhere AND including changing the refs all over the place (to be some 26 ref).

• We had one "from" preceding a ranging dash. Can't do that. Dash replaces both the from and the to.

• The midland turtle description was confusing and inconsistent with the article on the top shell. It listed a fainter top stripe than the eastern, but we already say the eastern was faint and sometimes absent. I went and looked at like 4 different sources. This is one of these things, where the turtles are hard to distinguish anyway and then differe even within their non-intergrading range. I just made it simple and went with the approach of the ref 25 (added to that part) and just emphasized the bottom shell. This fortunately helps with the earlier pics relevancy and plays well versus western and all.

TCO (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Last CEs on Distribution

Pretty clean. Just got a few number agreements and tightened up the style. Only thing of note is I added back the "Range header". If you leave it off, it's incorrect, because, that para that is about current range, does not serve as an introduction to the paras on fossils and pop distribution and habitat. Since the concepts are at same level of thought heirarchy and just different topics grouped into the span-breaker of Distribution, need to show it that way. No need for a topic like this to have an intro paragraph to the four topics as they ideas don't have a strong theme connecting them. Just some commonality to group them into the category. BTW, this is fine per MOS, per outside writing, and per recent animal FA examples.TCO (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

CEs in Food chain

Just couple sentences rewritten for flow and maybe one grammar change.TCO (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

CE Behavior

Just style changes to tighten and strengthen. Small changes.TCO (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

blank spaces between images, sections, etc

If you have a single blank link between a section header and the next header or text or a picture (also can have a blank line below the picture), it does NOT give any extra blank lines into the page in normal view. General trend I'm hearing is that it is better to keep these blank lines as it is hard to edit in edit view with all the markup in the way all the time. Separation helps. There's no "rule", just nice to do.TCO (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes keep them, easier on the eyes in edit mode.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Going with mid summer, not mid-summer

I actually researched this. Hyphens are tricky and there is a lot of evolving and concurrent variation of usage, for joining, separating, or hyphenating. That said, both my grammar book and said googling indicated that "mid summer" was better than mid-summer. Mid-July would be correct though. The rule is to hyphenate when it is a capitalized word.

P.s. Not trying to push anythin, just explaining, so it does not look like an error.TCO (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm the worst hyphen/en-dash user on wiki, so whatever you say is what we'll go by (plus you researched it). :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

CE for Reproduction

egg-laying and growth are pretty long and pretty dry. I did a lot of work stylistically to improve the prose. Really need "brilliance" in that section, given no sex (after mating) or killing is going on. Just going to put the main things. I was in there a lot. Should be same story, but better told.

• Overnight is one word, not two, as an adverb.

• delinked menstrual cycle and left a comment. It is pointless to link to that crappy mammalian article and there is no good other one. Changed wording to reproductive cycle, which is fine. Given we can't define the fancy term more.

• added a link to the wiki article on heteropaternity.

• Nesting: cut almost all the nominalizations. Better to have a real actor "the turtle" versus a concept "the process". Compare "we struggled" with "the process was difficult".

• Organized the paras to get like concepts with like and keep a narrative. REally need to have a clear, flowing story here. Not a stray collection of wiki sentences glommed together.

• Added some clarification on the numerics and the timing from pushing NYM. Still wish we had something on how the eggs roll out the back hatch and if she covers the nest after laying.

• Little structuring in Growth (moved some content down and broke a para). This section not as off as Egg-laying.

TCO (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CE conservation

Nothing big and had just revised this. Found a few places to trim fat, but then had to expand on the Gervais sentence as it was really too complex an idea to be clipped about. Amazing how off my commas are when I go back and really look for them.TCO (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice, and I noticed a few comma splices along the way as well. About Gervais, I've compiled a list (hand written) of ones that need page number tweaks, I'll do it all in one fail swoop once your ce is finished.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year. I didn't finish whole article today.

I am going to just get the CE done, tonight. Then I feel like I'm really all over the writing (and someone needed to be a central person to do that). We can tweak things I missed or broke and get the refs and dashes and all. And I will watch over all the diffs and make sure we don't backslide (or we talk over and all).

Think we could pound out the refs and dashes tomorrow, but I don't think we get every line item done tonight.

Happy New Year, slugger!TCO (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year, yeah, I think we can finish and submit for FAC by tomorrow night. After the ce I'll go through and check/fix all Gervais citations. I'll also look through some sources and see if I can find more on egg laying.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CE Uses

Should be minor changes only for style.TCO (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

A few comments.

The lede seems quite good. As a summary of the article, you seem to have captured all the major elements, at least in the quick look that I gave it.

Excessive inline citations seem to put off some Wikipedians. For example, you have two statements supported by 6+ references in the "Capture" section. I would not suggest reducing the number, especially if something is likely to be challenged. However, I have seen some suggest reducing the number of references. But you put the work in to find the references right? What I did in this situation for my first FAC (Sentence spacing) was to consolidate numerous references into a single inline citation, separated by semicolons. The result is one inline citation in the body text, which points to numerous references in the endnote. You don't need to consolidate your references for it to be an FA. Just be prepared for this comment.

I did not check the MoS regarding how you split up/labeled your notes and endnotes. I'll just offer a possible alternative in the FA Clemuel Ricketts Mansion. You may find this version cleaner. Or you may not. Just another option from a current FA.

Finally, I recommend you handle the issues that you know need to be resolved. Then go ahead and nominate it. There will be things you have to address no matter how much you try to get it to 100% FA quality. The FAC reviewers will let you know and you'll have a chance to make changes. Good luck! --Airborne84 (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

References and citations are always touchy. Clemuel Ricketts Mansion does have good formatting, but it has no notes, so I think here, since we have them, we should use the subheadings 'notes' and 'footnotes'. I also like that the references for our anchored works link down to them. This is only really because there are so many, and some have the same author. Thanks for your help and if I misunderstood you or didn't fully get what you said please let me know.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what they did with notes now. Either way, but it might require a fair bit of work to change it now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Yeah, I will definitely do what you are saying on the Capture section. That was on my, not written down, but worruing about it, list. You may have helped me extremely there. Just need to figure out the mechanicsl, but should not be that bad.

2. I prefer the look of the Ricketts notes sections. Little slicker. Footnotes is a little imprecise. REally our notes are more like footnotes. Only think is I prefer the term citations to references (as there is a bibliographic list as well)

3. Sorta related to 1, there are also a few areas where I was pretty brutal about putting notes right a nouns within sentences. NOt sure if thaat is needed or not. It's the moust sourcey traceable, but I'm sure they look better after a period.TCO (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CE Culture

No big change that I think anyone will worry about. Just firmed up the thought into more of a theme. Past and present. Government and private. I like it. Little better than just wikiglomming factoids. Will read well.TCO (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nesting for NYM

I'm trying to straighten this section out in terms of being completely clear to a reader. I've been studying these turtles now, but explanation just lacks a couple things.

Please reread ref 64 (or better, point me to where I can read it). Need to know:

1. We talk about temp of the female's body for nest prep, but then say if weather is not right she delays egg laying. I don't understand. Does she delay egg laying with nest done, or delay nest construction. Are you sure temp is for nest making, not egg laying? Also, what would be wrong with temp (too cold to hit the right temp or too hot, or rainy or what) to delay her?

Found it. From Ernst 2009 page 201: "The total nesting time may take four hours, and if the day is warm, turtles may nest later in the evening."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And from Ernst 1994 page 290: "Females may not oviposit if nesting conditions are not suitable. Hot weather and drought have delayed nesting for as long as three weeks during some years in Virginia."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like in VA, that they would be waiting for the night to cool off.TCO (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, they usually lay their eggs after noon anyways (to avoid the hottest part of the day), but they may lay them much later than noon if it's really hot.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Do we PLEASE have anythin else about the actual egg laying? NOt clutch sizes, but how they slide out of her body? How long it takes her? What hole they come out of? We should have more on how the things POP OUT. Look how much we discuss digging. I want to know about the slime, the grunting, the afterbirth, the pain the crying, the joy of childbirth! I mean digging is fun too, but we are biologists, right. Mystery of life...

It seems to me like this information would be best served in the turtle article. I assume it's the same orifice for all turtles. I've been doing some digging (in books, not dirt), and I can't find anything really unique to painted turtles in this regard (I'll check all Ernsts again to see if she positions herself a certain way).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

3. Oh and how is she situated wrt the nest? She kinda halfway dug into he hold (back underground)? Or is it just an open pit, that she drops eggs into. And does she do any covering up of the nest aftwerwards?

4. "The female can lay five clutches per year, but two is the norm,[64] and 30–50% of a population's females do not produce any clutches in a given year. In some northern populations no females lay more than one clutch per year.[64" This is still confusing to me, mathematically. Let me nail it to the ground. the max five is OK. "Two is the norm", what does that mean? Is that for the overall population, averaging out the fertiles ones and the non participators? Or is that for the 50-70% who have a clutch at all? (which by my sixth grade math, would about mean that there is a clutch per female, if you assume 50% not participating and 2 clutches for participators)?

Good catch. I looked back at the source and the '2' and '5' are for all painted turtles. In a given population, the average female will produce two clutches per year. Adjust the text to reflect this please.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I'll fix this, but we need clear paragraph breaks by topic. Not glomming couple nest sentences with couple egg sentences in the same para. There is plenty enough content to organize the paras so we don't mix things that way. This is actually kind of a long section on some less stirring biological content (no kill or be kill or turtle copulating) so we need to make sure prose shines so reader will not just ignore it. Predators it's kind of listy, but the topic is so cool people will want to read!  ;)

Final, final, final list of "to dos" for FAC. Everything goes here!

Please add any other todos in this section. And work on them and scratch them out. Let's make this the last, last list!

• A sentence describing the webbed/clawed feet would be welcome. (PS> I've been reading elsewhere). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC):That would be cool. Do you have any online source that says anything on this? I can't seem to find anything that isn't about all turtles.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I found some stuff. It's common to a lot of amphibious turtles, but worth mentioning for ours. A lot of other sites do. I'll get something up. gotta ref load, probably.TCO (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source I could draft something up (since you may be getting tired of looking at this darn page :-P). After something is put in I think we can submit for FAC.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

NYM, I know this is taking long. Give me an hour and then you can pull the trigger. I have a picture and refs and everything. This is what happens when you send me out into the Internet. I think you will like it and I kinda am halfway through. Will only be a sentence or so of text, but I need to do the Commons and all. Please wait, just a tad longer to pull the trigger.TCO (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, don't rush, I'm in no hurry, honestly.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's coming, boss. Had a file conversion issue, but I adapted and overcame like a Marine.TCO (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha...whenever your done you can nominate it, you deserve it. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Still coming. I will get the nom in. Feel free to sleep. We will co-nom. I honestly do not think I did more than 50% of the work, would tell you if I had. If they make us name one only, I would prefer you to take it as the "good cop". I can still support discussions and fixes. But I will try for the co-nom, first.TCO (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I love the picture. Info is great too. We can definitely co-nom, I just don't know if it requires anything more than us simply putting both of our names up there.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You showed me a ref a while ago that talked about chromosomes in turtles. They DID vary, but then a lot had 50. Could you please dig it out. Was in talk maybe? We are going to hit 150. I need that ref to support a claim, I know we had it. Not just padding. Honest, boss.TCO (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh...and a "general ref" on the philtrum as well. I want all three of those right after the colon in my new paragraph (the long sentence). I have one showing he general webbed feet already. Help, boss.TCO (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Got a chromosome ref.

Chromosome stuff was Ernst 1994 page 276: "The akryotype is 2n - 50: 26 macrochromosomes (16 metacentric, 6 submetacentric, 4 telocentric) and 24 microchromosomes ; however, DeSmet reported 24 macrochromosomes and 26 microcromosomes."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Philtrum stuff was Ernst 2994 page 277: "Chrysemys picta has an upper jaw notch bordered on each side by a toothlike cusp."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I want a source that talks about philtrums in GENERAL in turtles (or aquatic ones, close relatives, etc.). Basically we are calling out some features that are interesting to know about the turtle, but not picta distinctive (chromosomes, webbed feet, and philtrum). I already had webbed feet. I got the general chromosome source. Was 263 (you gave me in talk before). Trying to find a good one for philtrum.TCO (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

264 may have been for a different source. I think the painted turtle's philtrum is unique in this regard, otherwise I don't think Ernst would have pointed it out. Here's a bog turtle's (cute little) face: [3]. It's philtrum looks a little different.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I will move the philtrum comment then to where we have distinctive stuff, and then we are complete.TCO (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• make and upload a mirror image basking photo.

I think SunCreator can do this (as far as copyright laws are concerned). I don't know how.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a Commons account. Let me work on this one. You get all the refs on range and diet and we are done.TCO (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Used that tool, that SunCreator used (see file history), very nifty.TCO (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• check that all claims that need a ref have one.

I think we're okay in this regard as well.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

let me just swing through. I know all our work is referenced, but sometimes I have moved stuff around and so the citation ought to be at the end of a paragraph or sentence and isn't. Just a case of moving it a little further back. Let me look. You know they will.TCO (talk)

Oh yes they will. One I noticed was at the end of the first paragraph in range (dispersed population in US southwest).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Check locations of refs make sense. There may be some midsentence ones in sentences with no concluding ref (from when I was cutting and pastin your original writing) that could go to end of sentence. I will fix Capture when in there.
• Fix long citation lists (esp Capture).

• non-breaking spaces (seeing issues already)

For this one, do you mean between paragraphs?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Stuff with the percents or degrees or the like. It's a clerical thing like the en-dashes. It's just a little detail, but let's check we pass muster. I don't know the exact rules of when needed, but will look it up (or you can) in the MOS.TCO (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look it up and learn the rules.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Researched it a bit and now I understand. Do you think something like "100,000 to 11,000 years ago" would need one?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I hit all the ones except 'millions of years' (there were several) and ones in the section your ce-ing.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm out of that section now. Gut feel is yes between 11,000 and years, no on 100,000 and to. You know more than me, now, though. I have to look at the rules. Good man!TCO (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, will finish up and strike when done. Thanks!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Got them all. And good work with Gervais. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• TCO finish final CE.
• Answers to TCO content questions on nesting (at a minimum clarification of what Ernst says, ideally the added info on actuall egg pooping out). Is there a wiki article on this maybe? for turtles in general?
• Incorporate new info on birthing.
• Others review final changes (discuss, revise, etc.)

• fix ref 4. (Taxonomy for family)

[Here's a reformat of the one used: <ref> {{cite web | url = http://emys.geo.orst.edu/cgi-bin/singlespecies.plx | title = EMYSystem Species Page: Chrysemys picta | accessdate = 2011-01-01 | date = 2000 | publisher = The Terra Cognita Laboratory}}</ref>. Didn't want to put it in because you're hard at work] :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• fix IUCN and ref issue: Figure out what's up with its IUCN rating (least concern? Sources say different things)

Global Heritage Rank has them at 5 (good). Also, this may have to do with the subspecies kerfuffle or something. Lots of times there is sort of a political driver for calling a subspecies a species as it gets protection then. Donno though. I wonder if useing the latest taxonomy stuff is affecting that designation. Since we use a wait and see on the Starkey debate, this may affect what we use on the IUCN rating. Donno...totally speculating.

Once you figure out the IUCN, might need a sentence in Conservation if there is one of the rating agencies that has the turtle more threatened. Also, you might check while you are in Gervais and see if she covers IUCN (is a review paper, so she might have a comment).TCO (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Current says "Least Concern (IUCN 3.1)" problem with this is that the reference says "IUCN: Not listed/Least concern (1996). TFTSG draft 2010:Least concern". Checking on the redlist and you'll find it's not listed. . With "(IUCN 3.1)" - the 3.1 part means actually means it's done since 2003, but the reference we have says 1996. So the 3.1 and the reference don't match we want to say 2006 somehow, but I can't work out how. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Found a way to say IUCN 2.3 which is in the 1996 time frame. Issues fixed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I put a clause about it in conservation.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Check the Gervais pagination that the pages really are correct and have the info. Spotcheck.

Ref #91, citation b, concerning salmonella and poor genes, I couldn't find this in the source. Reference 86, page 36 of Gervais, I don't see this info (exactly in the way it's used in the article). Reference 87, citation c, didn't see road sign stuff on page 34. That's it, all others check out.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes to read the content. I think some (other refs) may have moved, or it has to do with wether we tagged stuff in the sentence or at the end.TCO (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

fixed the first one. Added the "IN FG pet" ref, which covers diseases. I think salmonella is main one and have seen it elsewhere, but IN says diseases, so generalized which is fine. Also, wikilinked later to salmonella as we lost the wikilink. Also, checked if ordering affected for the other instance of IN FG pet ref, and it was not. On genetics, gervais adresses this towards the end of the page, so that ref only covers the genes part. On to the next one.TCO (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

removed second Gervais ref, and went and inserted a better ref to prove the claim.

• ref date formatting (some still seem different, scan all of them)

[ones I've noticed, pleas fix as template is up: 24, 91, 112-116, 119, 123-126, please fix TCO, we'll worry about dashes afterwards]--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

dude, I need the help. Am humping. Please go ahead and edit in the sections I'm not in and just make this task your baby. Nail it!TCO (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Got them all. Look good (don't know about dashes though).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You killer! I can do the dashes. Just get all the refs. Like check Gervais. Etc.

Right, he's next (I love ctrl+f function!)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• ref ordering, some out of order numbers

I'll do this one, what needs to be fixed, citation ordering? i.e. something like [74][65][98]?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find any problems with this. Will strike for now and fix any stragglers along the way.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the bot that wandered in, fixed them all. They were of the sort you mentioned.

• n-dash, hyphen patrol (manual is fine, if we don't get a script weenie).

Ask User:Malleus Fatuorum to stop by, he use some dash script. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• archive the talk page

Will be archived in next 24 hours. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have a bulleted line item 100% done, please be bold and cross off so we see progress. If it is only 99% done, don't cross off though.TCO (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I crossed off the whole editorial section at the top. I think given my rewrite along with NYM's content clarification, we have enough. If we ever get more on the "egg pooping out" we add it then. but it reads FA good enough now.

Okay, this is like the only thing Ernst doesn't go into incredible detail on (otherwise I would have included it). I'll continue to check sources for anything new that can be incorporated.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a danger of being too Ernst-reliant. I really think we hit it well enough though so that the reviewers won't flag it, here. But a thought for you in the future, just in terms of really driving for the best ultimate work product.TCO (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Gamble communication (finished off)

Tony Gamble wrote back to wrap up.

• He does not want to release the "diagram". Thinks he probably "could", but would rather not as issue not clear. No biggie, we are fine. And probably don't want to have even a rightfully free image, if at all contested.
• No updates in Minn other then what was done in 2002. No more studies, news, restrictions (other than maybe something minor wrt eggs). Basically, it is business as usual up there.
• Was unaware of any studies or publications on the effect of occasional taking of painted turtles by individuals, but his opinion would be no impact, given the harvests are so much more intense anyhow.

(no impact or change for us, just sharing the wrapup.)

TCO (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Shame we didn't get that photo, would have been a great addition to an article already full of superb images. We're almost there everybody!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it is nice to have different types of images, not all photographic. That said, one we have is painted turtle specific and ties well to the text. After picta (and a rest), I might go get diagrams of the different traps and write an article. There is a company that makes them and I could ask them for some images. Low priority, though.TCO (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be nice, I'm compiling a mental list of articles that need creating after wikiproject turtles gets created (which will be soon incidently).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

reference check

(easier to discuss this in a new section)

I went and did a pass through and found some places where I would like us to put specific references. (probably my fault for moving sentence order around, to imrpove prose.) I can sometimes guess what ref would cover the area, but I want to list them here as you have the Ernst books and I do not.

Description

• let's put a specific ref at the end of the sentence about the "streak". It is probably 18. Just will make more sense, since that para has a lot of different things referenced and the setnence after might or might not be from same source. So let's label each.

Got it, Ernst 1994 p. 276.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Distribution-range:

• I think 24 needs to move up to the end of the first paragraph. I can put a better ref (PA FG or Conn on the second para to prove the claim about co-occurrence.

I put one here, the webpage has a map which reflects the thought of that sentence.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the comment about co-occurence. I do remember seeing it somewhere, but it was just a state site or such. Probably PA as marginata is "moving in" on picta there. I think intergradation is the more significant issue for fuzziness. Just looked at some primiary literature and it was all emphasizing intergrades and couldn't find stuff on co-occurrence. I want a couple better refs for that fuzzy comment. Will add. HAven't started the pictyre yet.  :(TCO (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I wasn't entirely sure what you meant by co-occurrence (overlap of subspecies?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Like having different distinct subspecies in the same pond. Like different races of people in the same country as opposed to only mixed-race people. I sorta read that somewhere else at one time. I just did a pretty good search and looked at histograms in primary literature and that is not the way it works, in general though. Intergrades dominate, rather than co-occurence. Didn't get enough to really write a para on it, but instead am adding a few refs and a thought or two on intergradation. It will help that sentence/para anyhow to develop it more. Give me 30 mins.TCO (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. The only thing left is SunCreator's most recent comment. Do you have any source that discusses feet anatomy?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Dim memory of seeing it or hearing about it, but right now, don't even know exactly what he wants. Try google or google scholar. There is a HUGE amount of primary literature on picta since it is so easily studied and all. You'll get a paper. Probably even one that is readable right off the web. Let me get the intergrade done.TCO (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Need a ref for the end of the eastern subspecies para (probably 29).

Carr page 215 had it (not in words, but his map backs what we say). Odd that no Ernst book had it...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Curious that 29 is not listed for the western para (if it covers it, would like to add it as well so one ref covers all. but only if it really talks about it. 8 could stay if it's adding something.)::I added ref 15, (WCSU species) for each para (looking at it, it has range info for each subspecies and was already on some paras and in the header. Will leave the other extra ones as they gave some more info, but I think it is better to have at least on central ref that supports each range as is said in leadin para. Also, I'm done with the intergrade stuff. I think just claws and photo flipping, now.TCO (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That should be it. BTW, there are a few places where we have a ref (same one and only one) repeated in a paragraph and on some sentences, but not all. Could probably get away with just using it at the end of the para. My inclination is to leave as is, but if you want me to spiff this up, let me know and will do so.

Yes, I noticed this as well. I left them as is only because a lot of things were getting moved around, so I didn't want a sentence to lose it's citation. After FAC, if we pass, I can remove redundant ones.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

References section

I thought about it and your way of putting all the note "stuff" in one References section, with subheadings is nice. Like to stick with that, vice how that other guy had it. I would like to make one change (will do so, just explaining first). I don't like the term "footnote". Technically, it means a note at the bottom of a page of paper text and may be citing a source or be explanatory, both or either depending on usage. I think it is kind of inexact to refer to it when writing on the web. Is it really a footnote because at the bottom or an endnote because at end. Probably functionally it is more like an endnote. Also, it seems strange to say note, then footnote, as your notes could very well be footnotes if in a journal article (where citations tend to go to the end and explanatory notes are more likely true footnotes at the bottom of the page). So I want to call them citations. That's what they REALLY are. Citing the literature. No other changes.  :) TCO (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me, just doing what was done with bog, since nobody said anything I assumed it was the most proper thing to do. Change at will. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

nominate it

Please nominate. If you liked my cute write-up, feel free to grab it. I had been scanning the FAC archives and there were comments from reviewers about how people should be more motivational when doing the nomination (to get reviewers to want to review the article).TCO (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, let's scrap something up right here. Perhaps something like: "User:NYMFan69-86 and User:TCO have worked together extensively on this article over the past month to bring it to its current state. The painted turtle is the most abundant turtle in North America and is biologically and culturally important. We have nominated the article because we feel it meets all criteria. Thank you,"

Feel totally free to tare that to shreds, I just wrote it and it's 2:45 in the morning (and please add some of what you had written).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's cool how it is. I thought about mentioning the work put into the preparation, but decided better not to dwell on that. Let the results show. And what I read, they like the direct approach better rather than the "we are nominating because". But, I really don't care, and if you prefer any other opening statement, just go edit what's up there to what you prefer.TCO (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I was about to add you as conom, but glad to see you got it. Well, at least, I know how to nominate something if I ever need to again! Now, I sleep. Good working with you, Metsfan.TCO (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The nom looks good and see you tomorrow (the work has just begun :-P).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. We will be on top of it and comply with needed revisions. I feel good about the level of care and effort and content and all though. We are at least as clean as we could get it on our own.TCO (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's a beautiful piece of work regardless. Here's to FA!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

copyright on BC turtle crossing sign

May need to cut this image, because of the copyright for the sign itself.  :( Would replace it with Gervais quotebox that I had before (not as good, but something). (Personally, I think it would fall within fair use, like if I were running a newspaper I would not feel afraid to post photos of road signs, but I know wiki avoids invoking that, so it will probably need to go.) Just waiting a sleep cycle to see if I get any other input. TCO (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It really is a nice image, I hope it can stay. If it can't, the quote-box would be nice in its place.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Some good pictures of egglaying in action

Shell subpage. Actually, while it's a great sequence, a lot of the pictures seem grainy. But check out 0720. You can see the egg squeezing out the back of her. It's interesting to think about a general article on nesting and egglaying of picta. There is a huge amount written about nest selection in the primary literature, locations and all that. And could include the whole narrative and all. Not pushing you, just a thought, since we had a long section there, and I come across a lot.

Oh...oh my god...that's so gross!!! No, joking, that's a great picture. Maybe a separate article could be created...I mean if you say there's enough out there (and I would help out of course).  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll add it to my list of article ideas in my sandbox. Low priority. Not sure if it makes more sense in the context of picta or is better discussed as part of the general life cycle of turtles.TCO (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mm...curious. Maybe a 'Stages of painted turtle life cycle' or something. Can talk about hatching, maturation, reproduction, and nesting. Just a thought, I'm also unsure about what would work best.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Good book on reptiles of New Mexico

See page 102 and it shows the two exact river valleys where picta is seen, in detail. http://books.google.com/books?id=r-Liq4O4udsC&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=distribution+and+habitats+of+turtles+in+new+mexico&source=bl&ots=4LOKx0tIWb&sig=rh7assnJIiCnRAGhPh2E_X6vhg8&hl=en&ei=-D8hTev3CoGdlgfem6y0DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=painted%20turtle&f=false I've also seen a 1974 article on turtles of New Mexico a lot as well. This book probably has same dope and more updated though.

No action needed, just sharing. When I get headed off into the Internet looking for help in one area, sometimes I find something that helps elsewhere. TCO (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's cool. Also of note, that source says the only U.S. states the painted turtle isn't found in are Nevada and Florida...hmph.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah, that pretty much matches our map. Especially give that they mention in California it was introduced (not native) and we cover that.

I liked how they backed up the "extreme" part of the Chihuaha range. Been bugging me to really nail that, and given as they border with it, I feel better using this source to back that up.

plus just figured it might help you elsewhere in the future, if needed. Is really pretty thoughtful book based on my quick scanning.TCO (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it truly is. For turtles that are found in New Mexico, that'll be the first source I use. Thanks for sharing!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

individual discoverers

Can we please discuss (here among us), who discovered and classified the species (and subspecies) first? How did that all go down? Like if we wrote a para on it? For instance was Bell the discoverer of the western subspecies or just honored? I know that even if he did not come to the US, he still might have been the guy who gets credit. He did incredible things with the samples from the Beagle and lots of people (even know) work on samples others have collected.TCO (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the classification is still hairy, I'm a little unclear on it as well. Johann Gottlob Schneider first named it 'Testudo picta' in 1783, than from their the subspecies were identified. This page talks about it:http://people.wcsu.edu/pinout/herpetology/cpicta/taxonomicinfo.html. Or, more accurately, lists it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And, on the bottom of that page, you may like the "Museums with Specimens" bit. ;-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See Fritz, 2007 page 176-178. It's a bit cryptic but more details then I can find elsewhere. You can also use Google books with the info there. So for example you ask was Bell the discoverer of the western subspecies or just honored? Well It' was written about by Gray in a section of a publication by Griffith and Pidgeon called Animal Kingdom. baahh.... different book. You maybe able to find it on Google books. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. This can all be hashed out fairly easily now. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I like how we are talking it through here. Let's see if we can use that reviewer kvetch to push ourselves a notch better (and draft it all, here, before we stick it in), since the whole section has a logical flow to it. I could see some sort of logical story that went in this manner:

• First classified by Schnieder but with different name.
• Then name changed to C. picta by "X", whoever that was, maybe Bell.
• Then the four species classifed by Y. (Or by Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4. Or X and Y and even Bell, may all be the same person.)

But something like the above would be a little para, probaby on its own, at front or maybe conjoined with the family discussion. (That's minor and just depends on how much info we have.)

Actually, we may end up putting this a bit more towards the end of the section. I think right before we talk about the etymolygy. It sorta fits with that, as its not about the animal itself, but about how we as humans have discovered and named it. And it makes more sense to get into it after you know what the subspecies are. But this is a detail. Let's get the para and we can work it out.TCO (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

NYM, do you mind to draft a para on this topic and then just put it here for 3 of us to discuss? I need to deal some more this road sign that is now causing commons issues (they don't WANT to delete it!) and then work with some little details that I got on Chihuahua and SW dispersion (removing sand in carapace, teensy upgrades, but helps explain something that might be puzzling, puzzled us at least). It's probably a sentence or two, but will be some work to cite refs and all.

Look at Fritz, 2007 page 176-178, it's to much to summarize here. Key points: First classified as Testudo picta by Schnieder in 1783. Genus changed to Chrysemys by Gray 1844. History with each subspecies. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Capital. I'll go through the sources, come up with something, and post it here by, say, 10:00 p.m. Eastern time. Thanks everyone. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I love you man (but you can't have my Bud Lite.TCO (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmhm...alright, here goes:

"The painted turtle (C. picta) is the only species of Chrysemys, although it was originally described in 1783 by Johann Gottlob Schneider as Testudo picta. The turtle was given its current taxonomic name by John Edward Gray in 1844. The four subspecies were recognized as follows: the eastern by Schnieder in 1783, the western by Gray in 1831, and the midland and southern by Louis Agassiz in 1857.

Now, Schneider first named it Testudo picta, than Gray came along and called it Chrysemys picta...but the taxonomic name is attributed to Schneider. Is there something wrong with this? Is this because he first discovered the species? The few sentences I just wrote can be incorporated in the first paragraph of taxonomy and evolution.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I like it, but let me put it a little later as a paragraph on its own. It was fine, when it just a one clause parenthetical of one dude, but now that we have fleshed it out, I prefer that we mention it after describing "what" the four subspecies are themselves. Watch the magic...TCO (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing friend, just make sure you don't include repeated information. I stole my first sentence from the first sentence of the section.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I kinda would like it before Starkey, right after we discuss how the four subspecies evolved. Than we can say that Starkey rejected the classification of dorsalis renamed it its own species (at least in his head). What do you think (you have an keener eye for organization than I do).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's an idea. The thing with this stuff is any org scheme has advantages and disadvantages. You have to pick the one that has most good and least bad, but nothing is perfect. I prefer to leave the glacial theory right before Starky as the latter plays off the former (I have now read the 1950s glacial papers as well as Starkey's 2003, may be adding a ref.) There really is a strong direct connection between the two, you see it if you read the 2003 paper intro. The initial discoverer stuff either belongs at the very beginning or as more of a feature-y afterthought. The latter is how I prefer to play it (similar to the etymology). It's kind of cool, but, not really relevant nowadays. To me, it's "topical". Not pushing, just explaining.TCO (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see that; we explain what the four are, offer someone else's (mildly accepted ideas), than hark back to the system everyone knows and loves. It shall stay.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Kinda get your point a little stronger now. I donno. Think about if you were carving this thing into a few sections. What would you want with what. If you like it better, move it. Serious. Let me work on some refs in the Southwest. I have figured out the scattered distribution, but my head is kinda hurting.TCO (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I was agreeing that your way was good.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you were man. If I moved it anywhere, I would move it to closer to the front. (probably second para, and detach a sentence on subspecies to go on first para. Let me cogitate. I think I can actually make all those paras mesh better. It's not just the new one, but also fossils and etymology are a little out of place. Let me think, before we tweak it again.TCO (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cool. All the information's there, now it's just organization.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

publisher thing

Can you explain what it means to be the publisher of the web citations (so I do it right in the future)? I was just kinda saying an institution in the past, but then in the FAC seems like there is talk about looking at directories or home pages. I'm a little confused and just want to know how to do it next time, so it is right ahead of time.TCO (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in no position to give advice, I confuse publishers all the time. I generally look for institutions (as you say)/organizations or the like, but it's not an exact science.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the directions in the cite template too. Asked on the FAC, just so I get it right next time.TCO (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

new ref on the western painted turtle status in Canada

Sort of a Gervais for Canada (maybe not quite there, but still). Anyhow, readoing through it now. Probably has relevence to at least the daughter article. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CW69-14-505-2006E.pdf TCO (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Very cool, I remember using a sister source for Wood turtle: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/ec/CW69-14-1-2008E.pdf

It was really helpful.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...very much paralell reports. Guess you start to see these patterns.TCO (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be really great if they had one for every turtle in Canada (Spotted turtle I'm hoping).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, been too busy to do any work on the article but you seem to have been busy little beavers in the meantime. I had already cited the COSEWIC report but someone changed it so that it linked to the webpage rather than to the pdf of the report itself. NYMFan, there are COSEWIC reports for all of species at risk in Canada (that is how they get to be species at risk) including all the Canadian Turtles except for Painted Turtles east of BC (which are the only ones not officially at risk. 70.54.10.93 (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Great (not that there are that many endangered turtles in Canada but, you know, that there are the papers on them)! And...er...do I know you? :-o --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That was me, but apparently I was signed out when I wrote the comment. There are 8 (used to be 9 before extirpation of Western Pond Turtles) native species of turtle in Canada. Matt Keevil (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the FAQ on COSWEC. Interesting. I think that Matt's COSWEC doc belongs in our article as a ref. I understand having the other refs as well, as, per FAQ, COSWEC is advisory and the government rulings are dispository. We should have both though, given the really valuable content in that report. It's a reasonable deeper ref that a reader would want to go to. Right now, that sentence actually has 5 refs in it. 3 at the end and then 2 in the middle. Would be 6 after adding that. I just felt some sensitivity to backing up what we were saying about BC loving the turtles and the danger and all. What I want to do is a little nb note and grab all 6 and put them in that note. Sort of like done for the FG refs (nb4 and 5), but with even a little bit of commentary (COSWEC gives science observations and rec, dispostory rulings are here, provisions for conservation are HAT, etc.). Have all the refs then down in that note. Could maybe junk the Nilsen ref, although I had a reason for it, don't junk it before I think. The HAT one should stay as they support the claim about funding going to save the turtles. P.s. you had something better to do on the 25th than Wiki?TCO (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The 25th... There was something pressing going on that day...I like the COSEWIC reports (some better than others, depends who writes them) as they provide a good general overview. I think that the issue with whoever changed the citation was that they didn't want to link to the pdf directly. Is there a rule/guideline against that? Oh, the 8 species of Canadian Turtles doesn't include the Sea Turtles. Matt Keevil (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll add it back, Matt. Linking a pdf is irrelevant, I think. (Maybe I need to learn that, too, though!) Yeah, I actually think the Oregon report is higher quality (just as scholarship), but the COSWEC is pretty decent and obviously has the full detail for Canada (and BC is a significant part of the "story"). In any case, it's a valid citation, even if it wasn't on the web at all and the citation would have more info than just the url. Little tired, so give me a sec.TCO (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had nothing but good experiences with the COSEWIC sources, very informative. Either source is fine (or both), each is reliable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)