![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Just in case you haven't been following Wikipedia:WikiProject TypoScan, Reedy got this working again. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 02:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The article for Tortoise itself lists testudininae as a subfamily of the family testudinidae. This supported by several recent sources including [1] MMartyniuk ( talk) 12:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved without redirect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Heya, am finding refs for the Myuchelys page, added two more hopefully will saticfy your citation request. But I will get more. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 12:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Thanks for your contributions, SunCreator. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
Does the redirect † Geochelone atlas have any purpose? Can it be deleted? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 22:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be confused with sub sp.
Mississippi map turtle.
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
There are no articles for the sub-sp. I redlinked them - the
Mangrove terrapin link is wrong - I will add a disambiguator.. I will include the sub-sp synonyms, but sub pages would be better. The page refs will need tweaking if that is done.
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
Pseudemys nelsoni has synonyms with a leading "?" - what to do with these?
Rich
Farmbrough, 03:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
I'm occasionally supplanting existing lists, where there is apparent value, even if it's just the authority links, I'm leaving them in comments.
Cyclemys shanensis has been merged, I left the formatted subsp. synonyms at Talk:Oldham's leaf turtle.
Rich
Farmbrough, 15:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC).
Emydura australis Gray, 1841 is either
Australian Big Headed Turtle (or
Australian Big-headed Side-necked Turtle) or the
North-west red-faced turtle, or possibly both. There may be a subsp. the
New Guinea side-necked turtle or
Emydura australis albertisii. Any ideas?
Rich
Farmbrough, 03:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC).
I have added the Fritz stuff here, commented out (as in one or two other articles)
Of the extant synonyms I suspect that
is someone from IUCN mis-reading TOTW, 2011. I leave it in your capables.
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
I am relying on the redirect here.
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
Pre-present synonyms need merging here. Based on reptile database, which is more authoritative? Or do we just merge the tow lists?
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
Ok little bit of 101.
The name of a species is made up of parts. It is assumed when reading nomenclatural text that the reader understands the methods used. That's just the way science works, hence some things are assumed to be understood.
The species name is the lower case last part and is independent of the genus name. So when doing a synonymy you have to do one for each level. In a species synonymy the genus names are put in for clarity but have no bearing on wether or not two names are a synonym. Using the one I commented on as an example. I described the species Chelodina burrungandjii Thomson et al., 2000. After this paper came out some started separating the genus Chelodina into its three evolutionary linneages (I recognise them as subgenera). Hence Artner moved the name burrungandjii out of the genus Chelodina and into the genus Macrochelodina however the species name is still Thomson et al., 2000 the name is still attributed to the original authors. So this is a recombination. All you are really comparing in a species synonymy is the species name, ie burrungandjii Thomson et al., 2006. Since this time the name has been moved back to Chelodina.
So if you want to place the name Macrochelodina into a synonymy you must do it in the genus account for Chelodina where it is a junior synonym. It has no bearing on any of the species within that group as far as species level synonymy goes. If you want a see species and genus level synonimies then I suggest follow Rhodin et al., 2011, you can use mine (Georges and Thomson, 2010) for more detail on the Chelids. But make sure whatever you write agrees with Rhodin et al., as it is the more recent review and is hence the more correct one.
Hope this helps a bit, am going to point Rich to this also. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 23:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
what is happening here?
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
Basically there's a bunch of phenomena, mostly predictable given human fallibility, all of interest, and a few that we actually need to know to do the job, together with the terminology - some of which I have picked op from doing some botanical stuff.
- for example is given for Cuban slider and Jamaican slider. Now I can see that Gray had an off day and described one species, calling it, Emys rugosa only to find it was already described, and then, swearing softly under his breath, and dropping the letter from the London Zoological Society into the oubliette, described another species, giving it the same name (which was also previously described). And I can also see that we need to list both of these usages. I am surprised though that there is no systematic distinction between them.
Rich
Farmbrough, 14:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC).
I noticed you added a copyvio message in Tricarinate hill turtle. I assume you had a problem with the range list (the type locale was also copied). I also noticed that this list came from The Reptile Database, that's why I added the link. Generally, such a list is not considered a violation especially when it is not printed exactly the same. It might have been plagiarism but not after the link was added. You should only use copyvio for longer sections of text. Dger ( talk) 16:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sun, important comment for you, and anyone else interested Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Turtles#Chelonia more to follow, Cheers, Faendalimas talk 19:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey dude, per your recent edit on the article The North Stands for Nothing, I was wondering why you changed the classification from mini-album to EP? I wasn't sure what to use as a classification for the album when I created the article because the band themselves and reviewers refer to it as a "mini-album" but per EP it is kind of still technically an EP. I mean the original is less than 25 minutes, but then... it has 8 tracks - at least 5 of those can be considered 'full-length' tracks and not just interludes. I originally did use the terminology "EP" to describe the album but decided to go with mini-album since it's what the band and media refer to it as. I guess I'm just asking for your opinion on the matter, really. REZTER TALK ø 01:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup on the Marion Dufresne article, my first full-scale editing experience. There is probably something wrong with Wikipedia if they let someone as dyslexic as me do this kind of thing. Something will come of it I'm sure. If you have time I have a couple of questions posted on the article's Talk Page.
Regards,
--
Atani (
talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
You moved Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni to Pinta Island tortoise. This is not the most common name. IS there even a source for 'Pinta Island tortoise'? The relaible sources (taxonomist based)(i.e. [3], IUCN don't mention 'Pinta Island tortoise' as an option. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 13:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I was overly hostile in my discussions earlier. Thanks for helping come up with a solution that it appears like everybody can agree on. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 23:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Well received has been well received (not well-received), if you have questions about this rule please talk to User:Chris the speller. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply to this. The answer to your query was not simple and so I couldn't answer straight away and then I run out of time before I went travelling. We've had advice that leaving copyvios in history is not a problem legally (I've lost the link to that again but if you're really interested I'll try and dig it out - I do remember it was somewhere odd) and of course before RevDel we didn't really have much choice. Since RevDel was implemented obvious and serious copyvios have been RevDel'd at the discretion of administrators. Things like how likely it was to be re-introduced was also considered. As with most uses of RevDels people started off by being cautious so as to find out the community's limit. More recently I have seen nearly all copyvios deleted and this is what I've started doing myself. The only example from the last month or so I can think of where I've left the text is where I removed text because I thought it was highly probable, rather than certain, it was a copyvio as I didn't feel happy RevDeling under the RD1 criteria.
WP:CP and {{ copyvio}} is really for the more difficult copyvio cases. Examples include ones where there's a reasonable possibility of permission and ones where the person who spotted it isn't sure how to proceed, perhaps because they're not sure it's actually a copyvio. In general more obvious cases can be reverted on sight and then {{ copyvio-revdel}} can be used to request revdel. At the moment this isn't much used - I'm not sure whether it's because people don't want to or know how to deal with copyvios or because the copyvio instructions aren't very good (and probably a bit outdated). I suspect it's probably a bit of both. Those of us that work in copyvio know the instructions etc need updating but if you look at the backlog at WP:CCI and WP:CP you're get a good idea why this hasn't happened yet!
Hopefully that's answered your questions but if not feel free to ask more although please be aware that I'm still travelling so replies may not be quick. Dpmuk ( talk) 22:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Just in case you haven't been following Wikipedia:WikiProject TypoScan, Reedy got this working again. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 02:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The article for Tortoise itself lists testudininae as a subfamily of the family testudinidae. This supported by several recent sources including [1] MMartyniuk ( talk) 12:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved without redirect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Heya, am finding refs for the Myuchelys page, added two more hopefully will saticfy your citation request. But I will get more. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 12:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Thanks for your contributions, SunCreator. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
Does the redirect † Geochelone atlas have any purpose? Can it be deleted? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 22:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be confused with sub sp.
Mississippi map turtle.
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
There are no articles for the sub-sp. I redlinked them - the
Mangrove terrapin link is wrong - I will add a disambiguator.. I will include the sub-sp synonyms, but sub pages would be better. The page refs will need tweaking if that is done.
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
Pseudemys nelsoni has synonyms with a leading "?" - what to do with these?
Rich
Farmbrough, 03:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
I'm occasionally supplanting existing lists, where there is apparent value, even if it's just the authority links, I'm leaving them in comments.
Cyclemys shanensis has been merged, I left the formatted subsp. synonyms at Talk:Oldham's leaf turtle.
Rich
Farmbrough, 15:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC).
Emydura australis Gray, 1841 is either
Australian Big Headed Turtle (or
Australian Big-headed Side-necked Turtle) or the
North-west red-faced turtle, or possibly both. There may be a subsp. the
New Guinea side-necked turtle or
Emydura australis albertisii. Any ideas?
Rich
Farmbrough, 03:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC).
I have added the Fritz stuff here, commented out (as in one or two other articles)
Of the extant synonyms I suspect that
is someone from IUCN mis-reading TOTW, 2011. I leave it in your capables.
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
I am relying on the redirect here.
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
Pre-present synonyms need merging here. Based on reptile database, which is more authoritative? Or do we just merge the tow lists?
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
Ok little bit of 101.
The name of a species is made up of parts. It is assumed when reading nomenclatural text that the reader understands the methods used. That's just the way science works, hence some things are assumed to be understood.
The species name is the lower case last part and is independent of the genus name. So when doing a synonymy you have to do one for each level. In a species synonymy the genus names are put in for clarity but have no bearing on wether or not two names are a synonym. Using the one I commented on as an example. I described the species Chelodina burrungandjii Thomson et al., 2000. After this paper came out some started separating the genus Chelodina into its three evolutionary linneages (I recognise them as subgenera). Hence Artner moved the name burrungandjii out of the genus Chelodina and into the genus Macrochelodina however the species name is still Thomson et al., 2000 the name is still attributed to the original authors. So this is a recombination. All you are really comparing in a species synonymy is the species name, ie burrungandjii Thomson et al., 2006. Since this time the name has been moved back to Chelodina.
So if you want to place the name Macrochelodina into a synonymy you must do it in the genus account for Chelodina where it is a junior synonym. It has no bearing on any of the species within that group as far as species level synonymy goes. If you want a see species and genus level synonimies then I suggest follow Rhodin et al., 2011, you can use mine (Georges and Thomson, 2010) for more detail on the Chelids. But make sure whatever you write agrees with Rhodin et al., as it is the more recent review and is hence the more correct one.
Hope this helps a bit, am going to point Rich to this also. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 23:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
what is happening here?
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
Basically there's a bunch of phenomena, mostly predictable given human fallibility, all of interest, and a few that we actually need to know to do the job, together with the terminology - some of which I have picked op from doing some botanical stuff.
- for example is given for Cuban slider and Jamaican slider. Now I can see that Gray had an off day and described one species, calling it, Emys rugosa only to find it was already described, and then, swearing softly under his breath, and dropping the letter from the London Zoological Society into the oubliette, described another species, giving it the same name (which was also previously described). And I can also see that we need to list both of these usages. I am surprised though that there is no systematic distinction between them.
Rich
Farmbrough, 14:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC).
I noticed you added a copyvio message in Tricarinate hill turtle. I assume you had a problem with the range list (the type locale was also copied). I also noticed that this list came from The Reptile Database, that's why I added the link. Generally, such a list is not considered a violation especially when it is not printed exactly the same. It might have been plagiarism but not after the link was added. You should only use copyvio for longer sections of text. Dger ( talk) 16:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sun, important comment for you, and anyone else interested Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Turtles#Chelonia more to follow, Cheers, Faendalimas talk 19:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey dude, per your recent edit on the article The North Stands for Nothing, I was wondering why you changed the classification from mini-album to EP? I wasn't sure what to use as a classification for the album when I created the article because the band themselves and reviewers refer to it as a "mini-album" but per EP it is kind of still technically an EP. I mean the original is less than 25 minutes, but then... it has 8 tracks - at least 5 of those can be considered 'full-length' tracks and not just interludes. I originally did use the terminology "EP" to describe the album but decided to go with mini-album since it's what the band and media refer to it as. I guess I'm just asking for your opinion on the matter, really. REZTER TALK ø 01:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup on the Marion Dufresne article, my first full-scale editing experience. There is probably something wrong with Wikipedia if they let someone as dyslexic as me do this kind of thing. Something will come of it I'm sure. If you have time I have a couple of questions posted on the article's Talk Page.
Regards,
--
Atani (
talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
You moved Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni to Pinta Island tortoise. This is not the most common name. IS there even a source for 'Pinta Island tortoise'? The relaible sources (taxonomist based)(i.e. [3], IUCN don't mention 'Pinta Island tortoise' as an option. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 13:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I was overly hostile in my discussions earlier. Thanks for helping come up with a solution that it appears like everybody can agree on. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 23:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Well received has been well received (not well-received), if you have questions about this rule please talk to User:Chris the speller. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply to this. The answer to your query was not simple and so I couldn't answer straight away and then I run out of time before I went travelling. We've had advice that leaving copyvios in history is not a problem legally (I've lost the link to that again but if you're really interested I'll try and dig it out - I do remember it was somewhere odd) and of course before RevDel we didn't really have much choice. Since RevDel was implemented obvious and serious copyvios have been RevDel'd at the discretion of administrators. Things like how likely it was to be re-introduced was also considered. As with most uses of RevDels people started off by being cautious so as to find out the community's limit. More recently I have seen nearly all copyvios deleted and this is what I've started doing myself. The only example from the last month or so I can think of where I've left the text is where I removed text because I thought it was highly probable, rather than certain, it was a copyvio as I didn't feel happy RevDeling under the RD1 criteria.
WP:CP and {{ copyvio}} is really for the more difficult copyvio cases. Examples include ones where there's a reasonable possibility of permission and ones where the person who spotted it isn't sure how to proceed, perhaps because they're not sure it's actually a copyvio. In general more obvious cases can be reverted on sight and then {{ copyvio-revdel}} can be used to request revdel. At the moment this isn't much used - I'm not sure whether it's because people don't want to or know how to deal with copyvios or because the copyvio instructions aren't very good (and probably a bit outdated). I suspect it's probably a bit of both. Those of us that work in copyvio know the instructions etc need updating but if you look at the backlog at WP:CCI and WP:CP you're get a good idea why this hasn't happened yet!
Hopefully that's answered your questions but if not feel free to ask more although please be aware that I'm still travelling so replies may not be quick. Dpmuk ( talk) 22:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)