Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turtles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Common names

[1] This is an interesting publication, turtles start on page 18. Maybe we could put it on the project page and say it could be used for common name dilemmas. SunCreator, I know you encountered this source here.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

er, no. I can't take it seriously. It has the 'Northern painted turtle and the Southern painted turtle. You explain that one! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not crazy for it for same reasons. Have been on other parts of their site. They are very opinionated. I guess we all are, but I just didn't like how they tried to push their slant.TCO (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

seriously stick with scientific names use the commons as a cross reference, best way with reptiles. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, worth a shot (didn't look that close at it to be honest). But if we can find a source that lists the official common names it could clear up the whole dispute of some article titles. Obviously that source has yet to be found. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sticking with scientific names is a recipe for disaster on Wikipedia. It's also against the WP:NAME policy. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. Scientific names change quite a bit, more so then common names. In practice you need to know both common name(s) and scientific name(s) for the article contents and both are required to puzzle out what is what. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem is there are no "lists" of common names because herpetologists in general do not use them. I mean even when the original authors propose a common name in the original description it is rarely followed. In our paper describing Chelodina burrungandjii we proposed the common name Sandstone Longneck, that name is rarely used it is usually called the Arhnem Longneck, Escarpment Longneck or Burrungandj, and Longneck may be exchanged with Snakeneck for any of those combination's. You will not find much consistency in turtles with this. They are not birds or mammals where common names are more usual. I imagine the Wikipedia conventions, which I have read, were written with mammals and birds in mind, not reptiles and amphibians. In all seriousness, more people know these species by there scientific names than by their common names if they even have one. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the Latinate is more definitive (although not completely, classification is I think an inherently manmade distinction...reads somewhere that the only real biological distinciton of note is at the species level). But it's also more biology-intimidating to the average user (and I feel a warm affection for the lay reader, want to help him learn the content, but not pound him on the head with terminology that obstructs learning. My experience in upper level math and physics was that you can learn new terms or learn new concepts, but when too much new concept is thrown in with new terms at the same time, it becomes too painful of a jump.)

For obscure subspecies or the like, sure maybe the Latinate is more common. But I think we lose a lot of people if we have articles on cool (and intersting to the public) animals like "snapping turtle" talking about serpentina.TCO (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Basically in cases where the scientific name is still the most commonly used then it's fine to use the scientific name. Most turtle literature moves out of the scientific papers and enter mainstream publications. At that point whatever the common name that is established wants to be used. Chelodina burrungandjii and Chelodina canni are both under the scientific name because they are still largely covered only in scientific papers. Not having a list of common names is not an issue because by it's vary nature you should be checking many sources to see which is the most common name. By the way if you want to have a common name like Sandstone longneck established. Add it to the relevant Wikipedia article is perhaps not a bad idea.  ;-) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now realised that the Northern/Southern painted turtle naming is based on David E. Starkey's view of elevating dorsalis and collapsing the others. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

GA articles with interested contributors

Reading between the lines. This is a summary or what people seem to be contributing to. Of course feel free to do whatever you want, just a guide.

• Alligator snapping turtle - User:TCO
• Box turtle - User:L.tak
• Common snapping turtle - User:Dger
• Diamondback terrapin - User:Goodvac
• Glyptemys - User:NYMFan69-86
• Green sea turtle - User:NYMFan69-86
• Leatherback sea turtle - User:SunCreator
• List of U.S. state reptiles - User:NYMFan69-86 and User:TCO
• Pleurodira, Cryptodira, Tortoise, Chelidae, Elseya albagula, Chelodina burrungandjii or Chelodina canni - User:Faendalimas
• Spotted turtle - User:NYMFan69-86
• Turtles of Chihuahua - User:TCO
• Turtle racing - User:Qrsdogg

The following are assessed(sections above) as good to do but so far no one is doing them:

• Blanding's turtle
• Desert tortoise
• Emydidae
• Florida softshell turtle
• Gopher tortoise
• Kemp's ridley sea turtle
• Marginated tortoise
• Olive ridley sea turtle
• Red-eared slider
• Yellow-bellied slider

Perhaps User:TCO can indicate articles of interest. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am loving this! Was waiting for you to put the plan in front of us. It practically seems doable when you list it that way. Very much appreciated to have a "campaign page". And that you called me out! Extra points for that! Hmmm...gotta think. Since I got shot down on the Greek incest girl and the BYU curator. (kidding, wink wink) I want to mess around a little and "help" editing (rewriting and such, if y'all think it additive, not painful). But I also need to have something that I'm working on. Because I am a firm beleiver that the "bottleneck" is fundamental research and initial composition. Is a little intimidating actually. Was so convenient when I could rewrite NYM's biology. Give me a day or two, or better give me suggestions! Alligator snapping turtel could be one. Or something with turtle trapping (but that is more work with scope definition). Hmm...sorry to be a prima donna, but advice?? TCO (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of a reach (sorry tired) but if there were something really tractable wrt Chihuahua or maybe Mexico, that would intrigue me. Maybe an FL? TCO (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is total free associtation (pardon the indulgence) but just looked at your list of undone. In addition to the AST, the ones that seem interesting are the two sliders (yellow would be a little smaller scope than red-ear, but "local" and maybe the smallness would make it easier. But then downside is less "impact".) the other one that intrigeus is something on NA softshells. (FL seems to restrictive and am more interested in the species found in Midwest as it came up in context of meat trapping.)TCO (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alligator snapping turtles are right with your character. Desert tortoises you've touched on before(reptiles of texas?) and they are connected to an old familiar, File:Louis_Agassiz.jpg - and yes also Chihuahua, Mexico. You also spoke about sliders before. Anyway, don't matter what I say, the choice is yours, whatever interests you. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for playing along. and I even signed and all. Those are all good ideas. And association with Agassiz is interesting, like the human connect. That said, for some reason DT doesn't draw me. And all these creatures end up having famous herps associated. Doing all of Mexico would I suspect be too tough, because there are tropical and desert regions. Not sure if turtles of Chihuahua would be too narrow. I also am still reserving hope for finding the right "key" to getting PresN to throw in with us and jam out a list. Could really help our numbers and fits his skills. He is so kind and such a gentleman that I don't want to push too hard, but still...want to push...;-) TCO (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The desert tortoise is found in Mexico(Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Sonora) US(Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah). Softshells in America to my little knowledge are limited to Florida softshell turtle, Spiny softshell turtle and Smooth softshell turtle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Howzabout "Turtles of Chihuahua" as FL? (It will be sorta article-like but the FL people will love it even more for that.) That's kinda what is intriguing me. If I did a softshell, it would be whatever the main meat creature is. Spiney I guess. Or pulling a burly L. tak like ethnic cleansing of the mixed contintent general soft-shell article. But Chihuahua has got me most interested...TCO (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I put on the big boy pants. Will do AST, which is tractable and interesting. And forces me to go get Ernst from the library instead of rewriting NYM. And I'm down for an FL on TofC. (Thank you Sunnie for pushing us along!). TCO (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I showed up so late to the party! Alligator snapping turtle or common snapping turtle would be cool, they each get a great deal of views. Right now I'll be working on Spotted turtle and List of U.S. state reptiles primarily. By the way, besides alt text (which I'll get to eventually, sort of drudge work, but wait on me to do it if you don't mind), what more is really necessary before we gun for FL? I know there were a few small changes with the map and a few of the images were funky (licensing, the NM picture of the lizards), but other wise I think it's pretty well done. Oh, and maybe a separate list of "proposed" reptiles, like with U.S. state dog breeds. That should take no more then about a week though, right?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I just think it needs a really thorough brushover. There is oviously no mising content or refs. how about starting another list (just bring down old comments and let's pound it out. You're righ to push. Get the list started and it will focus us. TCO (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hot articles subscription

Your Hot articles subscription is complete. The daily list can be found here. Feel free to integrate this into your WikiProject page however you like. Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

2 edits	Nubian flapshell turtle
2 edits	Largest prehistoric animals
2 edits	2004 in paleontology
1 edits	Suwannee alligator snapping turtle
1 edits	2017 in paleontology
1 edits	2018 in reptile paleontology
1 edits	Red-eared slider
1 edits	Hermann's tortoise
1 edits	Ouachita map turtle

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last three days. Last updated 31 July 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

Nice! Will post this around a few places in a while. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Could fit well on the "campaign page". TCO (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool tool and great presentation, I like it!  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

turtle forum

I went and got an account at the ATP turtle forum. Asked for a couple images. Just letting you all know as it may be a way to get info, images, etc. Most of the forum is hobbyists.TCO (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

not all of them its a combination. I am an admin there. Sorry having been at this for a couple of decades, I have been up to my neck in most things turtle for years. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Anything about distribution maps? Those may be hard for us to generate for each and every article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Here is the link: [2]. BTW, I sent an email asking for an image from Cheldonian Trust and no response.TCO (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that looks like a cool site.  :-) And I hope they at least reply, if we could tap into their images...oh man. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Some interesting fossils here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that site. Was thinking about adding an external link to the skiull and skeleton page. WAs a little torn as it is a super cool tool, but then when I played with it, I didn't get miuch out of it. And the size of the graphic as opposed to all the controls is small. Just felt it might not be useful to send a general reader to. That said, if you think we should add to the ELs, let's do it. I'm all about completeness! For picta, the thing was not that helpful as the graphic is so bland (white on black) and then the clip is actually not a fossil, but bones. I'm looking for a pic like what I found at Hillsboro or got denied on, or like the sample that Smithsonian had stolen in 2005. Or even some of the NPS images of fossil turtles (but unfortunately they are sliders and I refuse to cheat even if no one could tell visually). Right now, I think best approach is to have someone who lives near Michigan State take a photo. Professor Holman (deceased) was the main paleontologist and has a lot of samples there. Museum would not take the snap for me, but would allow someone to visit and photo the sample. (It's scary I'm so into this.) I think there is a board somewhere here (or the pump?) where one can ask for a local person to take the snap! TCO (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Duméril and Bibron

These two occur a lot in taxonomy synonyms. There are two Duméril's. André Marie Constant Duméril and his son Auguste Duméril. Bibron refers to Gabriel Bibron. My question is can we show that 'Duméril and Bibron' refers to Gabriel Bibron with André Marie Constant Duméril and not his son. I'm a bit wary of making w-links but not being able to back up the connection. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In general they are refering to this paper: Duméril, A.M.C. and Bibron, G. 1834. Erpétologie Générale ou Histoire Naturelle Complète des Reptiles. Tome Premier. Paris: Roret, 439 pp. Hence are refering to André Marie Constant Duméril his son is usually cited as Duméril, A.H.A., as for example in Duméril, A.M.C. and Duméril, A.H.A. Catalogue Methodique de la Collection des Reptiles (Museum d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris). Paris: Gide and Baudry, 224 pp. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you . Which does the following refer to, and how can I tell? "1851 Emysaurus temminckii – Duméril & Bibron in Duméril & Duméril, Cat. méthod. Coll. Rept.: 16." from Fritz, Checklist of Chelonians of the World, 2007, page 173. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sunny, maybe you already tried this, but just sharing. I found with these old 1700 and 1800 sources that using google scholar in advanced moded (sometimes Google books) was helpful. You can restrict the date range and then just search by author. Try not to put too many restrictions on the title as a shortened version or translated terms may defeat the search engine. but author and time frame seem to lead to the meat. For some of this old stuff (see the refs in picta) the stuff is insides books or even museum collection reports. And it can be a little confusing with terse citation style especially when abbreviated. I did a quick search nd didn't get it, but if you play bet you can grab it. Had the deuce of a time tracking down some for picta but I finally got it done. I've even (not kidding) just looked at a 1792 reference IN LATIN for picta that is within Google scholar. (Not in article yet, but it has about 30 stunning detailed color paintings of all the important American turtles, that I want someone to download and Commonsize.) Again if you know all of this, sorry to say it. And my brain is on the fritz right now, so can write long talk but having an issue being the usual search mole! (good luck)  ;-) TCO (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok that example is a nifty trick used when someone employs a reference that they are referencing from another paper, they are taking Fritz' word for it. Dumeril and Dumeril published a collected volume and among the papers in it was one by Dumeril and Bibron, this volume was cited by Fritz and Havas 2007 and someone is following along with that. I dont have the paper on temmincki but for another in the same volume the full citation is:

Duméril, A.M.C. and Bibron, G. 1851. [Emys areolata, Emys berardii,Cinosternon leucostomum, Cinosternon cruentatum]. In: Duméril, A.M.C. and Duméril, A.H.A. Catalogue Methodique de la Collection des Reptiles (Museum d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris). Paris: Gide and Baudry, 224 pp.

So Duméril, A.M.C. and Bibron, G. 1851. [Emys areolata, Emys berardii,Cinosternon leucostomum, Cinosternon cruentatum]. is a chapter of the book :

Duméril, A.M.C. and Duméril, A.H.A. Catalogue Methodique de la Collection des Reptiles (Museum d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris). Paris: Gide and Baudry, 224 pp.

Check the literature cited in the Rhodin paper its very comprehensive. I hope thats not confusing. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Group FL, with Minglex?

Subspecies of Galápagos tortoise

TCO (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll see if he's interested. I mean, how hard could it be?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried that the reviews are getting to him. Has been pretty silent.TCO (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured picture

I put the "Painted turtle" map in for FP. Hint, hint. (No, Sandy, I would neeeever canvas via a project!) [3] TCO (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And a few supports! Yey!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

April 1 looming

1. What can we throw into review to get some more numbers for our goal? I think GA is the better idea than FA, time-wise. Are there any ready, basically now? Just unrated? How about Box turtle?

2. We need to get GT across the goal line. Biggest concern is the images. We should just find and upload replacements. I think a prose go-over would also help it. I was about 20% complete in going down and doing a solid CE.

3. State reptile is in queue now. My major concern is AL image. Sent out 3 emails today. Will try a couple more tomorrow. someone has to come through. We can't use a non-free image (I think that image is). And really don't think the drawing is good enough either.

4. Marginated turtle? to GA?

TCO (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Green sea turtle looks like our best bet right now, I'm about to continue with Spotted turtle, hopefully I can crank out a GA in a month.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Green sea turtle and Leatherback sea turtle could go for a review, maybe Box turtle, Turtle racing and Gopher tortoise also. Soory I'm not around, and unlikely to be in next month. :( Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Turtles to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Turtles/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Turtles/Popular_pages. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Darn NC

Always causing problems for VA: [4] TCO (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Got FP?

Yep! [5] TCO (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply here TCO. I'm giving you your love now! This should be put on our project page in place of the bog turtle map. Maybe we should have a subsection devoted to featured pictures of turtles (and maps of their ranges) as well. Do you want to design it? I promise it would be fun...  :-D --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to show featured visuals (and sounds if we ever get any). Let me think about how to do it. Might want to involve a picture guru. Also clearly, there is a lot of featured content prior to any of our efforts. Probably a lot could be done with galleries, but then like the picta pic NEEDS full size. I should consult Rex and FS. Also there is both Commons and Wiki FP to consider. All that said, it would be a worthy task. Just want you to know it is not simple (nothing ever is!)TCO (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right of course. And we have to worry about license stuff as well. Why are images so hard? Why do people have to be tight wads?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It can be done, man. I just want you to acknowledge the work involved in getting the quality product to market.TCO (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could team effort it. Make it sparkle for all to see. (And an image expert or two would be nice).  :-P --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Start it off for us. Add a section on the page. I think lower down makes sense, but don't sweat it. We can start trasnferring content there. I think there is WP FP, Commons FP, and maybe VP to consider as sources. Probably we want the stuff in chrono order (most recent towards top), with some sort of label. Actually now that I talk out loud about it, let me get RexxS in here. But get the the header going for us at least. Will start us going...TCO (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tried another FP

Not doing that well actually. They don't like the pics. But I still thought it was an important concept to show. Really something that shows what RexxS's help can do. Along with thinking of things more systematically.

[6]

TCO (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought you had something there TCO (again sorry about the incredibly late response). That scheme of images is very helpful, but I guess FPCs are meant to be a little different layout-wise. Also, quality painted turtle images are hard to come by; maybe one day you'll whip up something that'll pass for our little picta. But hey, at least you made a new friend!  :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was pretty innovative, although not new to the world. Still underused. I actually like the 3 saddleback type images on GT. I have seen one other bio example of a similar gallery now. And RexxS was very happy with one person's comments. bottom line the constituent pics needed to be prettier. But they seem ready for innovative graphics, not only "pretty pics". For instance they let the map through. So it is all good.TCO (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that map is beautiful, no doubt. Still sad this couldn't get passed though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Emydidae species...

...could be created and easily expanded. But then again we said State Reptiles was gonna be easy!!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still gettin my head wrapped around that family and its recent changes. I think an FA or an FL makes sense and would be good work for us to just clarify things. I don't right away know where the article belongs. But I bet if we do a good job, we can submit it as an article or a list.

Sorry, I am all confused since I have been so larticle lately!TCO (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, well I assume it would remain two seperate things. As with List of Testudines families and Testudines. It just seems like it would be a simple list to make shine...no bells and whistles really to it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

How abouts you push it forward? I seem incapable of not adding bells and whistles.  ;) I think I will be pretty consumed with TofT. And pleeeeze get GT over the goal line. Sandy means business, so buckle down. That thing has been there for a while. We need the refs perfect like picta was. Gotta make sure you read them in text and see what is actually being displayed.TCO (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Turtles of Texas

I'm going to do this. Appreciate any help or advice. [7] TCO (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Page move and merge

I've requested that Rafetus swinhoei be moved to Yangtze giant softshell turtle as per IUCN naming. I've also requested that Hoan Kiem turtle be merged with Rafetus swinhoei as it has been declared as a synonym. Rafetus leloii already redirects there. What do you all think? Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured Media

Greetings. I was just going to tell you that I was going to tag all of the featured media (Pictures, videos, and sound files) within the scope of your project and enable the featured media option on your banner. If you have an issue with this please contact me --Guerillero | My Talk 03:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.TCO (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Schoepff author abbreviation

"Schoepff" is the name given by Rhodin, Fritz and Stejneger. Yet over in the wikipedia articles List of zoologists by author abbreviation and List of botanists by author abbreviation the author abbreviation is given as "Schöpf". Looking for anything to clear this situation up. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"oe" is how you translate an umlauted o from German to English, if you lack an umlaut character on your keyboard (or are a lazy typist, not wanting to go to the symbol list). I would just use the umlauted o, as it is most correct. But just explaining the practice. It's how people would write on typewriters if writing about German subjects in English. It's not really "bad" or "wrong like an idiot". Just, we ought to use the most precise character since we have it available to us. Capisce? (no biggie, just explaining why it's there.)TCO (reviews needed) 16:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Replacing "ö" in "Schöpf" with "oe" gets you to "Schoepf"(one f), but the usage referenced is "Schoepff"(two f's). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 08:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

in this case his name is spelled Schoepff on the original document. I have seen an original. http://books.google.com/books?id=3g9OAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR1&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U2bzuNhC49J-LqX6li6kIdSOQImBQ&ci=42%2C163%2C724%2C679&edge=0 is a copy of the title page from the original. Don't know if this helps... Cheers. Faendalimas (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

good to see an original, It shows that we now know his name is spelled Schoepff in Latin (as that is what the first page of that book was)... I am afraid that this is one of those cases we do't know for sure. My best guess is, it was simply Schöpff in German, and had he lived today we would use ö (unless we would be too lazy...). But what the common use is here? L.tak (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's of any relevance(it may not be) the German wikipedia page uses "Schoepf"(one f) and says the author abbreviation for botany is "Schöpf" Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 08:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Keys to Species

Hey everyone,

I have had an idea of a way to utilise the wiki more and actually publish dichotomous keys to species. This would make WP a genuine reference for the identification of species of turtles. The way a website works is in tune with the way a key works ie.: you have two choices A or B and if it looks like B you click B to go to the next step in the key. The final link will be to the species page in question. This could be easily implemented. I have a published key to the Chelidae as an author of this I am fine with it be used experimentally to develop this idea further. Please leave comments with your thoughts on this. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an outstanding idea :) I support it. Would you propose it be in mainspace or as part of the project or portal ?? ZooPro 03:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My thought would be that it would have its own page that is aptly named to be search-able, but also clearly linked from the portal and also in some of our templates that add links to relevant topics. So mainspace I guess but very clearly linked to the portal and to the main Turtle subject page. No point having a key if people can't find it. Faendalimas (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Have added another userpage (User:Faendalimas/KeysTest) to test out ways to do this, have put a key to the genera of Australian Chelids there to work with. Its a work in progress.Faendalimas (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Give it a go. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Common box turtle

Common box turtle is on the main page WP:DYK right now, complete with picture. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, couldn't find it. Tried the link too. Dger (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, DYK changes often. Here is the link to the archive of it =>Wikipedia:Recent_additions#31_July_2011, although being last day of July tomorrow(August) it gets moved to Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2011/July#31_July_2011. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Malaclemys terrapin maximus‎

The article Malaclemys terrapin maximus‎ seems a possible hoax. Can anyone clarify? See also the related Jonathan Tucker (scientist)‎. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would go for delete I see no evidence this is a valid taxon.. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 00:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoax hoax hoax. Delete and WOW it has been on here for a while makes you wonder what else is creeping around :/ ZooPro 08:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a Yellow eared slider? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This slider hybrid exists although naming unclear. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:TCO

I have only just realised that User:TCO is gone?? Could someone explain what happened?? I am shocked....ZooPro 05:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone

Just wanted to check who was still active here. I know Sun and ZooPro are around but is anyone else still working on this? Also sorry I have been a bit inactive. Stuff happening in my private life is interfering with my time on computer. However I will struggle on. Cheers. Faendalimas ^talk 22:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I do hope this project doesn't fall into inactivity. I have over the years seen projects come and go and this one was one I hoped would last the distance...... I try to be as active as possible across all the animal related projects ZooPro 07:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for extinct or prehistoric turtles

Does anyone know of any reliable and up to date sources for extinct or prehistoric turtles. Today I stumbled upon eight(or was it nine) extinct genera of Dermochelyidae, an article that had previous thought to have only one genus. Three issues, sources are required for the Dermochelyidae to work out the family and genera taxonomy; two of the multiple source that exist already there is considerable conflict, which source to use?. Three a more general problem in that piecing together extinct turtles is required, many of the other language wiki's are ahead in this respect but they tend to have little to no sources for the clade diagrams that are shown in there articles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I imagine this could be very difficult to resolve. Many palaeontologists do not do their work with the living taxa in mind, and many specialists in the taxonomy of living species are oblivious to the extinct forms. You may have to rifle through the literature. I would look to papers by Eugene Gaffney, France de Broin as a starting place. There are many other fossil turtle researchers but these two tend to do reviews. I will dig up a few for you and see what I can find. If you want I can email you some helpful pdf's contact me if you want these. Cheers. Faendalimas ^talk 17:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

ps. we need a page for Birlimarr gaffneyi at some point its an extinct Chelid. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 17:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Have started a to create list Wikipedia:TURTLE#To_create. That's only a small amount of them, seem more missing then created so far. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Taxa problems

Geoemydinae (taxa template)

Just one of several examples, the subfamily Geoemydinae is not used in Turtle taxonomy working group/Rhodin(2010) yet various extinct sources refer to it as a subfamily of Geoemydidae. It's not clear to me whether Rhodin just ignores it because all the extant genera in Geoemydidae use it or whether it's been dropped. Without being able to determine it's status implies original research. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the abstract and intro for Rhodin 2010 it seems that they may be doing a similar work to that of Mammal Species of the World, covering only the extant and extinct within human history taxa while not addressing the fossils. If one looks at MSW3 they dont list any ranks between family and genus for Equus even though taxonomists accept both subfamilies and tribes for Equidae due to the evolutionary complexity of the family. Looking a little further on the Geoemydinae topic, it looks like the group was reassessed in this paper, with at least Geoemydinae being redefined into a clade but not given any formal Linnaean rank??--Kevmin § 01:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Rhodin covers extant and recently extant only. The Oxford journal link makes a good read; will read again later when off phone and back to a computer. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Checked again and now can't view the file without paying $32 or some such thing. I seem to think it makes no reference to extinct turtles. Is that correct? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have provided two references before in the taxonomy template which discusses both Geoemydinae and Batagurinae. One of them is the link Kevmin gave. And yes probably paraphyletic, but they both exist as taxa. The links there might still work. Also note that Rhodin also did not mention the subfamilies of Testudinidae and thus it was probably simply omission, not invalidation.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I went back through Rhodin 2009, 2008 and 2007 hoping that may shed some light on it as well as Fritz 2007 which is partial source for Rhodin 2008. None of them mention Geoemydinae. Omission or invalidation it's not at all clear. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The work of the TTWG focuses primarily on resolving synonymies and whatnot of primary ranks, so I'm not really surprised that their coverage of the less stable secondary ranks are not comprehensive. That is, after all, the realm of specialists. Again, notice that it's not only Geoemydidae that has subfamilies missing, but the subfamilies of Testudinidae are also not mentioned. And yet two subfamilies (of Testudinidae) are clearly recognized by a more specialized paper by IUCN/SSC TFTSG. Although it differs from what we have in Wikipedia, again underlining the fact that these taxa have unstable recognition, but are by no means invalid, merely depends on which authority we prefer to use. Rhodin's work isn't a specialist work and should not be treated as such. Neither is it really the final authority on everything. Something they freely admit if you read the introduction, specifically this paragraph:

It is important to note that this list does not constitute an official recommendation by the TTWG or the TFTSG or the IUCN regarding the validity or non-validity of any included or excluded taxonomic names or systemativ relationships, as such matters are generally best left to specilaists working in these areas.

From page 5, first column, first paragraph of the 2010 checklist.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the clearly recognized source is that it's from 1989. That's a long time ago in turtle taxonomy and indeed IUCN conversation status, stilll you maybe correct. I guess that you propose that all extant genera of Geoemydidae have in the taxonomy templates a parent of Geoemydinae? Anyway, I welcome your input, stick around. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Was just making an example. That might explain why it didn't match the Wikipedia page. Anyway, rest of the rationale still stands.

As for the existence of the taxa, seems like Geoemydinae and Batagurinae were first proposed by Gaffney and Meylan (1988). so they definitely exist[ed]. I have no idea what its current status is, like Kevmin, but I also wouldn't quite call them not existing in TTWG's checklist as original research. There are plenty of sources that do mention them. TTWG may have simply not included them in the checklist precisely for the same reasons we're having this discussion - that their status might be unstable or unclear. Without a concrete replacement or explanation, I think it's best to leave them as is and only change them if we can find a source that explicitly invalidates them.

Sasaki, Honda, and Yasukawa have published several papers about phylogeny within Geoemydidae recently, so they might be the most probable authors to look into for clarification. But I can't access them, aside from those I've given previously. User:Bruinfan12, the creator of the two articles of the subfamilies may also be able to tell us the references he used for the subfamily list, maybe try asking him too -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Found an interesting thing when looking for Batagurinae. "Bataguridae or Geoemydidae: Both names are being used to refer to this group of predominantly Asian testudinoids. McDowell (1964) used the name Batagurinae for this group (as a subfamily) which was changed to Bataguridae (as a family) by Gaffney and Meylan (1988). Bour and Dubois (1986) showed that Geoemydidae has priority, and David (1994), Spinks et al. (2004) and others have embraced this view. However, this approach was questioned by Joyce et al.(2004) who, working in a rank-free phylogenetic taxonomy framework, recommended the continued use of Bataguridae. In the interest of reconciling phylogenetic nomenclature with traditional Linnaean rules of priority, Parham et al. (2006a) endorsed a phylogenetic codification of Geoemydidae". So Batagurinae became Bataguridae, which became Geoemydidae. Interesting. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Invited User:Bruinfan12 to comment. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. It was Gaffney and Meylan who elevated the previously demoted Bataguridae (now Geoemydidae) back to family status. In doing so, they also proposed the two subfamilies under it. This new Batagurinae and the current Geoemydidae are not synonyms, though the old Batagurinae and Bataguridae are. See Honda, 2002.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I knew this would come back to haunt us all. Give me a day going to sort some articles fior you. You probably all need to ready the Taxonomy Working Group papers that outline their scope and methods. I am a member of this so can get all this for you. Will provide pdf's... Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that would be great.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry been delayed on this, day after I said I would do it my partner went into labor. Will collect the papers and make links for you.Faendalimas ^talk 07:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

ok sorry for the delays, have a new daughter..., anyway.

TURTLE TAXONOMY WORKING GROUP [BICKHAM, JOHN W., PARHAM, JAMES F., PHILIPPEN, HANS-DIETER, RHODIN, ANDERS G.J., SHAFFER, H. BRADLEY, SPINKS, PHILLIP Q., and VAN DIJK, PETER PAUL]. 2007a. Turtle taxonomy: methodology, recommendations, and guidelines. In: Shaffer, H. Bradley, FitzSimmons, Nancy N., Georges, Arthur, and Rhodin, Anders G.J. (Eds.). Defining Turtle Diversity: Proceedings of a Workshop on Genetics, Ethics, and Taxonomy of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises. Chelonian Research Monographs No. 4, pp. 73-84. [pdf]

cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 16:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What sort of tortoise?

• The above file has recently been renamed. I'm not sure where this was discussed and unsure if the outcome is correct. What type of tortoise is it? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats an Aldabran Giant Tortoise. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 16:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, ss Faendalimas says its an Aldabrachelys gigantea--Kevmin § 18:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

And what about this one?

This one is a Galap. Some people tell the difference by the presence or absence of the nuchal scute, this is unreliable, though more often it is present in Aldabs and absent in Galaps. The best way is to look at the profile of the face. The Aldab has a "Roman" nose so to speak whereas the Galap has a high and angular profile to the nose. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 16:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Batagurinae or Bataguridae

There were some older sources that had this group as a full family. I will check again with the latest ones. I will hopefully be able to read them for free at my university. If any of you editors subscribe to more recent publications, please bring them to my attention. Thanks. Bruinfan12 (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect Phrynops zuliae

Redirect Phrynops zuliae goes to Zulia toad-headed sideneck. The redirect was initially created by a bot and adjusted for capitalisation. Looking at es:Phrynops zuliae conservation status it appears doubtful if they are the same thing. Hence I wonder is the redirect is correct. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

At various times all south american short necked chelids were placed in the genus Phrynops the redirect is correct, the current combination is Mesoclemys zuliae. The Spanish site has it in the wrong genus. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 22:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So incorrect(old of date) genus and incorrect conservation status also? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The conservation status listed at es.wikipedia is not an IUCN one, but that on a Venezuelan list. —innotata 23:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Carapace and Plastron

I have made a suggestion on the talk page for Carapace which is a parallel to Sun's recommendation on the Plastron page. These articles should be brought together under the turtle shell, with sections for each and use dissambiguations to point to this aarticle and its relevant sections. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 19:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead turtle id

This dead turle (carapace about 2.5 ft long) in the Arabian Sea seems to have been killed by propeller damage. Can someone identify the species ? File:Turtlekill2.jpg File:Turtlekill1.jpg. Thanks Shyamal (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Olive ridley sea turtle imo. Neck to thick for hawksbill sea turtle, shell to flat for green sea turtle, shell pattern not like a loggerhead sea turtle or leatherback sea turtle. No other turtles found in Arabian sea. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Image added to Olive_ridley_sea_turtle#Threats. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Request to be checked.

Hi, I am about to start writing a page for Turtle shell it already exists and currently redirects to Turtle. I will leave the redirect in for the time being and will add our template to the discussion page. I need to make a disclosure here. The osteology, anatomy and function of the turtle shell is my specialty in turtles. There are about half a dozen scientists in the world who study this part of the turtle, I am one of them. Obviously I will draw on my own research to do this however, my rule on this is that I can only use my own material if I have actually published it. That is you all could read about it in a journal paper, not just hear it from me. As such I would appreciate it if several of you could watch what I write and confirm that I do not accidentally slip in information that would be considered a breach of personal research, ie unpublished observations. I will begin writing this page tonight. Thanks everyone in advance. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. You may as well edit over the redirect. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

ok removed the redirect, have tagged it as under construction. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 00:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just reassessed the Turtle shell article to Start class of Mid importance. Would appreciate some feedback on the article and any thoughts on additional information others would like to see it contain. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 21:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'v reassessed it as C-class. I think that some form of copyright banner is required on the talk page because some content was merged see WP:SMERGE. Regarding new content the aging section has not yet been developed but there is some potential information to be found at Painted_turtle#Population_features, the image (added on right) maybe handy. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

New checklist

Checklist v4 here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprisingly the subfamilies of Chelidae (Chelidinae, Chelodininae and Hydromedusinae) did not get recognition. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Geochelone elegans

Hi,

I have done a small amount of editing on the Geochelone elegans page. I am an experienced keeper and thought my thoughts in the captivity section may be of some help to people.

Thanks,

MoMee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.54.204 (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fossil turtles

Does anyone know of any good comprehensive source of turtle taxonomy including extinct taxa? It seems our pages are completely out-of-date and contradictory when it comes to that. I can't decide if families like Thalassemydidae, Eurysternidae have been merged into Plesiochelyidae or not (most sources hint it is so). Much less decide where their actual affinities lie. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In short, no. I created {{Extinct turtles}} to get a handle on what extinct turtle articles exist. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You could go to AMNH Digital Library and go through the publications, largely by Eugene Gaffney, these would give you a lot of the information you need. Its a lot of work though. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 18:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Subfamily Testudininae and Xerobatinae

Taxonomy discussion is open Talk:Tortoise#Subfamily_Testudininae_and_Xerobatinae. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments required - Myuchelys

Could anyone willing please comment on the talk page of Myuchelys please:Talk:Myuchelys#Discussion_on_this_paragraph Faendalimas ^talk 05:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

To Create

Hi Sun,

I was not going to actually make pages for the subfamilies of the Chelidae not much to say on them. Will if you prefer though. As for Chelodina walloyanora I need to figure whats happening there, I thought it had been synonymised with C. burrungandjii though I note its inclusion in the latest checklist. Will check this one out. Faendalimas ^talk 13:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Up to you if you create pages or not. I've been encouraged to do the Pelusios species partly because templates are not suppose to have red links, but more that I noticed the articles in multiple languages and in some cases are extensive. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sun,

ok have got the information I was after. Although several authors, not just me recognised C. walloyarrina as a junior synonym of C. burrungandjii the checklist decided they would tentatively recognise it while awaiting the outcome of a more extensive genetic study. I think this is fair enough and hence we should create the page, though keep in mind it may be reduced in rank at any time.

The subgenera of Chelodina is a complicated issue and I agree with the checklists reasoniing. Basically their big issue is that depending on the decision of the ICZN on case 3351 concerning Chelodina rugosa it is possible that the name Macrodiremys may be invalid, ie a junior synonym of Macrochelodina this would leave the third subgenus without a name, so to avoid this they decided to not use the subgenera for the time being and let the ICZN make its decision first.

The sub family issue is over some misunderstanding and the competition of two hypothesis, one dating from 1977 and the other more recent one. I guess there has not been adequate publication to refute the older hypothesis so they are basically on the fence about it. I am planning on having imput on this with the revision later this year.

cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 17:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The subfamiles and subgenus are NOT necessary as article then; especially in light of the fact that the latest IUCN checklist is not using them. I revised the {{Pleurodira}} navigation to be flater without subfamiles and subgenus. It would be appropriate to mention them at the family and genus level and make appropriate redirects. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

A cleanup listing for WikiProject Turtles was generated on 27 May 2012, 19:17:01 UTC. Of the 2323 articles in this project 165 or 7.1 % are marked for cleanup, with 233 issues in total. http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/CleanupListingByCat.php?project=Turtles Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

I have added the project banner to almost all redirect talk pages. All pages can be found Category:Redirect-Class_turtle_articles. The watchlist Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Turtles/Articles has been revised with the additional redirects. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Instead of given redirect all importnace of NA I have started putting them from High(scientific name) to Low(synonyms and misspellings), but I'm not sure if there will be any side effects to doing so. For example Category:High-importance_turtle_articles would include some redirects, would this be an issue? Any comments on this? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Nominotypical subspecies

• Chelydra serpentina/Chelydra serpentina serpentina
• Deirochelys reticularia/Deirochelys reticularia reticularia
• Emys orbicularis/Emys orbicularis orbicularis
• Graptemys nigrinoda/Graptemys nigrinoda nigrinoda
• Graptemys ouachitensis/Graptemys ouachitensis ouachitensis
• Graptemys pseudogeographica/Graptemys pseudogeographica pseudogeographica
• Malaclemys terrapin/Malaclemys terrapin terrapin
• Pseudemys concinna/Pseudemys concinna concinna
• Pseudemys floridana/Pseudemys floridana floridana
• Terrapene carolina/Terrapene carolina carolina
• Terrapene nelsoni/Terrapene nelsoni nelsoni
• Terrapene ornata/Terrapene ornata ornata
• Trachemys callirostris/Trachemys callirostris callirostris
• Trachemys decussata/Trachemys decussata decussata
• Trachemys gaigeae/Trachemys gaigeae gaigeae
• Trachemys scripta/Trachemys scripta scripta
• Trachemys stejnegeri/Trachemys stejnegeri stejnegeri
• Trachemys venusta/Trachemys venusta venusta
• Cuora amboinensis/Cuora amboinensis amboinensis
• Cuora flavomarginata/Cuora flavomarginata flavomarginata
• Cuora galbinifrons/Cuora galbinifrons galbinifrons
• Cuora mouhotii/Cuora mouhotii mouhotii
• Cyclemys shanensis/Cyclemys shanensis shanensis
• Hardella thurjii/Hardella thurjii thurjii
• Mauremys caspica/Mauremys caspica caspica
• Mauremys leprosa/Mauremys leprosa leprosa
• Mauremys mutica/Mauremys mutica mutica
• Melanochelys trijuga/Melanochelys trijuga trijuga
• Pangshura smithii/Pangshura smithii smithii
• Pangshura tentoria/Pangshura tentoria tentoria
• Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima/Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima pulcherrima
• Rhinoclemmys punctularia/Rhinoclemmys punctularia punctularia
• Rhinoclemmys rubida/Rhinoclemmys rubida rubida
• Kinosternon hirtipes/Kinosternon hirtipes hirtipes

Incomplete list from Fritz 2007 Should we have a seperate article when there is a Type speciesNominotypical subspecies? I noticed these cause much confusion, sometimes only a species article, sometimes both, sometimes a redirect one way or the other, a lot of mess with this. Also Fritz 2007 doesn't list any synonyms for type species but lists them at the subspecies level, where should be list them is we have two articles? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What are you after here? The type species is used to apply the genus name, ie it provides a type specimen to identify the group the genus belongs to. For example the type species of Chelodina is Chelodina longicollis so the genus is identified by that type. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 23:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that type genus then? Perhaps I mean 'type subspecies' then, whatever the terminology I mean when you have a subspecies which is the type for the species like all the above examples. Should we in such cases have an article for both? In the list you can see many redlinksfor the subspecies when no article currently exist, yet in some case there is both an article for the species and the subspecies. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

ah ok. Well if a species has been divided into subspecies then the population that is the same as the holotype in the nominate subspecies, ie it carries the same name as the species. But this is a given and should not cause confusion, usually. Where it can get confusing is if the holotype is not well identified. Sometimes there can be an issue if the subspecies was originally described as separate species, but in this case its just a case of priority, ie the oldest name is the nominate. As to make them both subspecies they are synonymised first at the species level. I don't think its oversly necessary, but can be included for completeness if you wish. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 23:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So I take it from the last message you would be happy with both Emydura subglobosa and Emydura subglobosa subglobosa becoming articles? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that would entail too much duplication, I meant the information on subspecies could be included in the parent species articles. For many these would be stub's at best and almost identical. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 00:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, many would, yet Trachemys scripta scripta and Trachemys scripta shows that in some cases seperate articles can work. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of an Emydura subglobosa subglobosa article would you put the synonyms on Emydura subglobosa(wouldn't that be confusing) or would you leave them out? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an item in the taxobox called "type_species" where you can add this information at the genus level. I did this for Chelydra as an example. Dger (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Dger, thanks for that, but none of the above examples are genus level, so a type species does not arise(I think), and there is no type_subspecies parameter in the taxobox. Such a taxoobox paramater would not resolve the issue of synoym placement anyway. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

ok the type species is used to identify the genus it becomes important if there is a review and the genus is split up, ie it determines which species gets the current genus name, other species may get put in new genera. I agree there are some sub-species that would warrant their own pages it would depend on how well known they are. What I would suggest for those where it is not warranted is to list the sub-species in the taxobox and discuss them in a section on taxonomic history. I thnk this should be done on a case by case basis. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Go look at Apalone spinifera. This is a type subspecies nominotypical subspecies(I think). Apalone spinifera spinifera is a redirect(no article) which goes back to the species level Apalone spinifera. The only synonyms from Fritz 2007 are for Apalone spinifera spinifera, does that make sense? Is it correct or okay to list the subspecies synonyms against the species? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that one seems reasonable, but I will say it is a common and well known species where the sub-species are well known, at least by enthusiasts. The way they have done it works fine if you feel you can justify individual articles at the sub-species level. Another option in other cases is to make the redirects (no articles) go to the species for each sub-species and just put all the info in the species article. This would give some length and decent reading to that one article rather than send people all over the place to read paragraphs. Like I said I think its a case by case issue. Cheers. Faendalimas ^talk 19:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you re-read the above again. Your reply doesn't match the question. Apalone spinifera spinifera is NOT an article it's a redirect. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry wrote all that badly, I agree with this approach of using refirects and keeping the artical at the species level, however, there are some species where articals ast subspecies level may be warranted, eg Red Eared Slider. Note I also replied to an earlier question of yours up the page a bit. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 21:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I also think it is useful to have two articles in some cases for example Trachemys scripta(article)/Trachemys scripta scripta(article).

Then for others like Apalone spinifera(article)/Apalone spinifera spinifera(redirect) having one article and a redirect from the subspecies is better. Still want to be clear with the synonyms display, as it is a confusing thing - at least to me. It does not make sense to me that Fritz 2007 does not list species level synonmys when a nominotypical subspecies occurs. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Synonym

How can the same name be a synonym? So how is Dermochelyidae - Lydekker, 1889 a synonym of Dermochelyidae - Fitzinger, 1843, http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Accounts/crm_5_000_checklist_v4_2011.pdf, page 000.174. I don't understand. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a new combination, both were based on the genus name Dermochelys but only the original usage counts, hence the new combination, albeit with the same spelling, is a nomen novum or junior synonym. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 19:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A new combination? I'm not sure I understand. Like having Dermochelyidae Dermochelyidae? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The name of a taxon includes its author and year, though these are often left out. So you actually have:

Dermochelyidae Fitzinger, 1843 and

Dermochelyidae Lydekker, 1889

These are not the same, both authors decided a family name was warranted for the genus Dermochelys, both proposed it, both ended up with the same name, but they are differently authored. The second one, by date, is a junior to the first one. Since both were proposed as new names, the are synonyms. Lydekker should have just referred to Fitzingers usage. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 13:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

So what about when the year and authority is the same? For example on Chelodina novaeguineae with Chelodina novaeguineae — Boulenger, 1888 Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It goes by date, then page number in journal if necessary. They can always be separated. As an example look at Elseya uberima when I reviewed these fossils I synonimised all the Elseya as one species, I did not feel there was any validity in all the species. They were all described in the same paper by C. W. de Vis in 1897.

Elseya uberima (deVis, 1897)

Chelymys uberima de Vis, 1897:3

Chelymys antiqua de Vis 1897:4

Chelymys arata de Vis 1897:5.

Pelocomastes ampla de Vis 1897:6-7.

So note the priority is determined by the page number in the journal. They can usually be separated by year, if not date, if not page number. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 19:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you list examples where the names are different? Please look at and comment on Chelodina novaeguineae. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Because if the names are the same they are not synonyms but homonyms. These are principals of nomenclature. Also in the case of C. novaeguineae you are listing a whole series of typos, these do not constitute new descriptions. Only actually proposed names appear in a synonymy. For example you have that in one of my papers I miss-spelled novaguineae but when you read it did I state that this was a new name? No its a mistake, you ignore it. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 08:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Two points on homonyms, one, there seems to be a lot of them in turtles. two, why would Fritz 2007 list a homonym as a synonym?

Mistakes like misspelling are listed in Fritz 2007 (p162) with the epithet “ex errore”, the same is being done on the Wikipedia article Chelodina novaeguineae with (ex errore). Are you saying Fritz is wrong and it's not a synonym? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

They can only be homynyms if they are in the same genus, otherwise its fine. He is not wrong he is listing known errors, that's fine, but they would not be considered valid names. A valid name that is a synonym will be listed as nomen nudem, or less often as nomen oblitum. Cheers, Faen

Chelonia

I thought 'Chelonia' is the superorder that overlooks the order Testudines. Then today someone added a reference to the turtle article that differs with the added reference here and one from a subpage. I would dismiss them as a students error however I could not find a suitable reference to say in effect "the order Testudines (the crown group of the superorder Chelonia)" or that Chelonia is a superorder. The taxonomy template shows no reference at all. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There are all sorts of mix ups here, even some that say the name Testudines is not valid, depends on interpretation. I will dig up some references for you, need a few days for this one. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 16:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Zoology(page 105) calls Chelonia an order, so definitely wants goods sources for superorder. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

[This paper] explains a lot of the issues and it does seem that the name Testudines is not in fact available. This would also appear to be applicable to the names Cheloni and Chelonia. At least in their current usage. Anyway one of the authors of that paper is a friend of mine and I have sent an email to him to advise me on exactly what we should name them and for the papers that conclude it. The exact name for the Order was beyond the scope of the paper I linked, as the ICZN code is not that useful either. I will reply again here when I have all the information we need, until then I suggest leave it as it is. I should have a reply very soon. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 18:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmborough's synonymies

I left a note for Rich Farmborough concerning the use of dashes in synonymies yesterday. Since Rich will be unable to help for the next month, I thought I should let this project know as well. In short, the synonymies which Rich has been added contain em-dashes where either en-dashes or, commonly, no dash at all, are required. All his recent additions to turtle taxonomy will need to be checked in detail against at least the source he was using, and perhaps against the updated version. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems fine. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for the general reader, so make technical articles understandable. The esoteric interpretation of a dash or its absence is not in keeping with the guidlines. I would agree to removal of all the synonym dashes on an article to reduce misunderstandings or alternatively is to explain it to the reader somehow. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Couple of things here too, first you must use the most recent synonymy when doing this, that is Rhodin et al., 2011. It has changes that have been made since Fritz and Havas, 2007. Also please when citing its Fritz and Havas, 2007 you cannot shorten it to Fritz, 2007. You have to show all authors unless there is more than 2 then you can shorten it to et al.. I agree with Stemonitis that all these synonymys need to be checked against Rhodin et al., 2011, I am also fine with a simplification as per what SunCreator was saying. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 13:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will remove the dashes in the next few days. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok will work around you and avoid AWB for a couple of days so we dfont interfere with each other. Also I am developing a better synonymy, it will cite both Fritz and Havas, 2007 and Rhodin et al., 2011. So will be up to date but include some of the information the more recent review ignored. Going to do it on Red side-necked turtle first. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 20:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Complete. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No, straightforward removal of the dashes is not acceptable. It completely misstates the authorities behind the names. In the case of Pelusios adansonii, for instance, the authority for "Hydraspis adansonii" is not "Gray, 1832" – he merely made the new combination; the authority is "(Schweigger, 1812)", as it is for Pelusios adansonii (contrary to the article's current state). This is a more serious issue than you seem to realise. It might be acceptable to remove the untrustworthy information, but for goodness' sake don't introduce new errors. I'm afraid someone will have to go over all the articles you thought you'd fixed and check them against the original source again. Authorities are by their nature technical information, and are not open to interpretation. No guidelines can therefore overrule their usage. If you're going to remove the dashes, you have to update the authorities; the simpler solution is simply to reproduce what is contained in the source – dashes where they belong and not where they don't. It's not hard, but it is time-consuming. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I am going to deal with this I am just deciding how best to do it. Unfortunately the source Rich was using was presenting the information as

• Genus species Recombination authority, year (decision)

I know this is technically inaccurate, but they have followed the way it was presented in a publication. I guess its up to us to actually present it correctly which would be:

• Genus species (authority, year) decision (recombination authority, year)

The brackets around the species authority would only be present if the genus is changed from original description, however I am thinking the recombination authority could be done using ref tags making it a link to a citation only. For example:

• Elseya novaeguineae (Meyer, 1874) new combination (Goode, 1967)

This species was originally described as a member of the genus Platemys. This is going to be a lot of work, and is a work in progress. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 14:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. The source Rich was using was presenting the information in one accurate and acceptable way (out of several possibilities), with dashes to indicate the people making the new combinations where appropriate. The problem was that Rich wasn't following the source exactly, but was adding dashes in all entries; a similar problem dogs SunCreator's changes, which removed the dashes from all entries. There are several solutions. One is to remove the synonymies completely; I doubt that the lay reader cares if one scientist once mis-spelt the scientific name, for instance. Another is to restate the authorities in the more usual way, with parentheses where needed. A third is to state it exactly how the source stated it. I can see advantages and disadvantages to each of these approaches, and I leave it up to the project to choose which to follow. Adding both the species authority and the recombiner seems non-standard to me (although required under the botanical code), but maybe herpetological practice differs from what I'm used to. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not standard in herpetology, herpetology follows the usual zoological practices. My own view would be to remove the Fritz and Havas, 2007 synonomies altogether and just follow the Rhodin, et al., 2011 one. Which is simpler and far more correct. I get the dashes and how and why they were used, problem is Rich did not. I am trying to meet this halfway as I dont feel like just undoing all these edits. I don't believe the ex error names adds anything to this, people make typos all the time and quite frankly the number of miss-spelled species names is enormous in the literature and far greater than those listed. Though Fritz and Havas, 2007, have seemed to restrict it to taxonomic reviews that made mistakes. I guess I can see their point but it is informational and of use to taxonomists, but the general reader I doubt could care less. I think in the end I am going to have to be ruthless about it. Sun my recommendation is to follow Rhodin et al., 2011 and only use Fritz and Havas, 2007 where they have information missed by Rhodin et al., 2011, and to also remove all the ex error ones. I am happy to do this if you like. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 14:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem now that dashes have been removed? Saying it's "not following the sources exactly" and "Its not standard", does not explain the problem at all. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Sun we were talking about it and falling into the trap of using jargon. You see the dashes in a synonymy are used as a notation, not for formatting. Rich was not aware of this and added them to them all. This made the synonymies inaccurate. However removing them all did the same thing. I will say though that the dashes are jargon too and I think they had to be removed as the general reader would see them as formatting, not knowing the jargon. What would need to be done is indicate which entries are recombinations, where it is assumed (more jargon) that the species authority is still the original author. I think though for the general reader we need to remove the jargon and make it simple and plain reading. I also think that the ex error entries can be removed as the general reader just would not care about this. See Mata mata where I have corrected this somewhat. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 15:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with removal of jargon and make it simple, question is how? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way the collapsing sections are best avoided per MOS:COLLAPSE. Technically speaking they show uncollapsed on any none java enabled computer anyhow. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I recommend just reverting Rich's edits in the turtle articles.64.134.168.97 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (TCO)

How silly and against policy WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with sun here this would be unproductive to just revert them all. They add good information just need to be fixed. As for the collapsible boxes, I like them for this section because its specialised and hence can be ignored by readers just not interested in synonymies. Most computers have java enabled these days, you cannot use flash, cookies or run web subprograms without it. Its pretty much needed to use the web now. I get the policy, but I think these synonymies within the taxobox are a good use of them. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 14:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Java is not required for cookies, or give it its full name HTTP cookie. To quote Steve Jobs "Java's not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. It's this big heavyweight ball and chain." Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger for comment please

I have proposed to merge the genus and species accounts for the monotypic genus Rhinemys here would appreciate comments. Faendalimas ^talk 15:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is common practice. Go for it. Dger (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo identification

This photo is not currently used but is this a Galápagos tortoise or Aldabra giant tortoise? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Its a pair of Galaps, you go by the nose, Galaps have a more angular nose, aldabs have a roman nose, if you know what I mean. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 13:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Good! I thought so also. Someone at Scientific America seems to think otherwise. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation Template for Rhodin et al., 2011

Hi I have made a template {{Rhodin11}} which will produce the following:

Rhodin, Anders G.J.; van Dijk, Peter Paul; Iverson, John B.; Shaffer, H. Bradley; Roger, Bour (2011-12-31). "Turtles of the world, 2011 update: Annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution and conservation status". Chelonian Research Monographs 5:000.165-000.242. Archived from the original on 2012-01-22.

You will still need to wrap it in <ref>..</ref> tags to use it in a reference list.

Figured this would save some typing for the turtle pages as its used so much. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 19:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Needs a page number. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

done. Faendalimas ^talk 16:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

added another Fritz07 which does the following:

Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2007. Checklist of Chelonians of the World. Vertebrate Zoology 57(2):148-368 ISSN 18640-5755. Archived from the original on 2010-12-17. Retrieved 29 May 2012.

same deal as above. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 16:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

For both of the above the page numbers wants to be an option. It's rare that an article would source the whole document. So the page(s) number just specified. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have thought of that and will probably add this function to it, but since it is rare that anyone bothers with page numbers I had not done it yet. I am only doing this with a few very well used papers, not worth it for most of them. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 18:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I specify the page numbers all the time as recommended WP:Page numbers Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on turtle talk page

Hi I have continued on a discussion started earlier with some findings I have made over the last couple of weeks. It was put on hold by the death of Lonesome George, but in any case I have made some suggestions, got references and discussed it properly now. Would appreciate feedback. Talk:Turtle#Dubious Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 14:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Tortoise in common name

I came across the Western swamp tortoise which isn't a tortoise(Testudinidae). Is this normal in Australia to use the word tortoise in this fashion, is there some logical reason for this naming? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Revised red-footed tortoise page- feedback and help?

I am trying to redo the red-foot tortoise page following the standards of the Project. May I please get some feedback and help?

If I am doing this right, the page is at User:Madkins007/sandbox

Help requested:

1. - General feedback for facts, writing, formatting, tone, etc.
2. - I seem to be referencing the same 3 sources a lot. What is the appropriate way to cite them when they are used that often? Every paragraph? Every section?
3. - Better photo for taxonomy box.
4. - How do you do range maps for the taxonomy box? I somehow cannot seem to find info on that.
5. - The old article has an extensive captive care section. Would it be appropriate to include a link about captive care? I don't want to ignore this important aspect, but also do not want to take a lot of time in the article for it.
6. - Could captive care be a separate but related article somehow?
7. - Exactly how do I put the WikiProject Turtles box in the article?

Thank you for any help, and for this project! Madkins007 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Writing and tone seems okay, but could be improved. Headings stand out as being an issue as they are not suppose to be uppercase and not even title case but sentence case, so for example Sexual Dimorphism => Sexual dimorphism. the in article linking to subsection is quite of weird, typically article are structured to read top to bottom without jumping about.
2. Referencing is fine. Technically one reference could cover everything, but in practice articles get edited and after a while which reference supports a part gets confusing so in practice most editors prefer to repeat references every paragraph or even every sentences. How you have it is great, but perhaps some more references in the Regional variations section.
3. Photos are often an issue. Do you have anything in mind, more are found at Commons:Category:Geochelone_carbonaria
4. I'm not sure what link you have in mind as captive care is not used. Many readers are owners and therefore this section will be useful to them. My advice is to first cut unreferenced or poorly referenced parts and keep the remainder.
5. Not sure what aspect your mean, but for the range map, you either create it yourself or request one here(or maybe here. Assuming you have a range source to work from. Range maps are then uploaded like images which is normally to Wikimedia Commons then can either be insert into an article using [[File:name fo file]] or using the range= parameter in the {{taxobox}}
6. Could captive care be a separate but related article? It 'could' but realistically unlikely, as it has to be a good reason for a separate article such as WP:SIZERULE or WP:LENGTH but I don't see that applies here.
7. WikiProject Turtles box (assuming you mean {{WikiProject Turtles}} goes on the talk page rather then in the article. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Other. cutting content from the original article may be contested. The subject matter is suppose to be bold in the opening sentence. To bold put: The '''red-footed tortoise''' and you would get The red-footed tortoise. It's unusual to list in the article detailed local names(as is done in the regional variants) especially if not in English, many animals(with big ranges) have hundreds of local names so I think this would be found to be WP:UNDUE. Possibly the same with the regional variations entirely given they are not recognised as separate species, is this the view of only one author or is there more? The lead section is not a summary of the article(per WP:LEAD), yet partly because some sections are incomplete for example the lead says it's omnivorous but the body of the text does not mention that. Don't be disheartened by the issues I picked out. It's the nature of such feedback I pick out issues. There is much good work in this revised version, the taxonomy section is particularly useful. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU, SunCreator! Very useful feedback which would have been improved only if I had asked my questions more clearly. - Changed section headings to sentence case - Bolded subject in first sentence - Cut local names for regional variants

I will work on the overall tone. I tend to get wordy and have a few bad writing habits- like using too many commas. I REALLY appreciate the links for the maps- that will help a lot. I will also add the captive care section that I described so poorly. (I was mostly referring to the original posted article.

I am still working on the description section- it made sense to me to describe a basic male of the most common type, then offer the gender and regional variations in separate sections. It DOES mess up a top to bottom flow, as you mentioned. What makes more sense- eliminate the links but otherwise leave 'as is', or restructure so the differences are in the description section?

Thanks again! Madkins007 (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Revised red-footed page, part 2

Regarding the rewrite for the red-footed tortoise- User:Madkins007/sandbox. When I submitted the article it was rejected since there is an existing article on the topic.

Is there a way to replace an existing article? I thought about editing the existing article, but it seemed like it would be a very awkward job to do well. Or, do I just go to edit, cut the existing material and paste the newer article in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madkins007 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, copy and paste it. Only you can do it as you wrote the stuff in the sandbox. Leave the stuff at the bottom of the existing article ( categories and language links) in place. It's possible someone might contest the removal of some on the previous stuff, if so I guess it will lead to talk page discussion. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, SunCreator! I really appreciate the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madkins007 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)