Jump to content

Talk:Conservation of painted turtles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

article is a subpage to Painted turtle

[edit]

That section was cut to half the content.TCO (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

put in a note to get the anomie bot in to fix the refs

[edit]

hope that will take care of. Otherwise will need to do manually.TCO (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sunnie!

[edit]

Thanks for the refs and rating and all that. I have some more content to add in each subpage, when I get to it, so they will get better (stuff I held off on for the main page, even before).

P.s. ref 2 is "early Ernst" and pretty relevent.TCO (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!TCO (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

[edit]

Sorry, I've been away from home for a while. This all looks great! Just one comment in passing, the article may need some context: as it sits, its like a main course without an appetizer. Some well constructed sentences in the lead I feel would help this {I'll start work soon). --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was a brutal cut and paste.TCO (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says MINIMUM one article, not maximum

[edit]

That said, if we need to cut it, this is the place to cut it.  :)TCO (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sad to see it go (if indeed it does).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it is fair use. I think it illustrates a point. You could say, why not use text, but then can say that about a lot of things. It's a normal illustration. I really don't want to have a pissing match though. I'm reading Canadian traffic statutes and the like right now. I kid you not. TCO (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my limited experience of fair use, editors are stacked against using images even when they are essential to the article. I would therefore see if it can qualify the image as free use or find an alternative. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, Sun. I'm researching all the sign designers and such now. It's not an official sign per the US (usually CA follows US) or CA traffic regulation manuals. It's probably some sign maker's design or maybe from an environmental group. There are some people caalled SHELLS that I come across who do a lot of community outreach and sign campaigns in US and CA. I'm 95% sure we will need to cut the image. Just leaving it up for another 12 hours, since I reached out for help and want people to see it in usage. I really don't want a junky image like an introduced species or habitat conversion. My fallback is the Gervais quotebox unless someone has something beautiful. I think I may track down the signmaker (is a company in BC or NY) and call them in the AM. If SHELLS controls the copyright, they might allow it to us. Doubt it will help for our timing, and just leaving image up to let things play out for another few hours. Then I will pull it, AND do an AFD on myself! at Commons. If we ever get derivative permission, we can put it back. I researched what the Wiki CA Roads projects do and they have a lot of fair use for road logos. Probably more "needed" for the articles than ours. Although I would argue we are further away from the media, as we show a structure in usage. They just actually use the logo itself. But anyhow, probably they are more justified. No biggie, I just want us to be as pretty as allowable, but will bend in the end. :) TCO (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could do something like what was done with File:TakeItBack.jpg. The uploader gave a whole list of reasons why it should be fair use. I don't know if I told you this already, but I have a very limited idea of how commons works, so take this advice with a grain of salt.  ;-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at File:TakeItBack.jpg you'll see it's use on a page that has no other images, it's used in the infobox and there is no way to create an alternative to the cover. With the image we have it will be thrown out for one or more of the following: 1) an alternative can be found or created (i.e the same thing in another more copyright friendly country compared to Canada), 2) it's not the only image in the article and so can be left off from an article that already has a good selection of images, 3) it doesn't cover a topic which is requiring a picture. 4) The image could possibly be described with words if necessary. So in short it will fail fair use. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, thank you. And farewell roadsign image, you will be sorely missed. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have seen other ones where people really need the sign for the logo (like the article is about the road itself, Garden State Parkway or what have you). Just leaving it up til mornings, as the CA Road Project is doing a little more digging. I'm 98.5% sure we will have a textbox in there in the AM. I actually did find some sign makers and the like and might get an image up, but it will be weeks later. Funny thing is I have all this content now and could go join the road sign project. Or even do a whole article on road mortality of turtles.  :( TCO (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort TCO. Who know's, maybe road signs will be your next thing. In October, did you have any clue you would have been putting a turtle article up for FAC on new years day 2011!? ;-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hehe...glad or sad you got the formerly permabanned CE that you got, NYE, after wandering in the wilderness? I checked and they all look signed to me. I have one where I did paragraphs, but I did them how people have told me to (signing the last one). I do miss that sometimes and will try to watch it, with the stern reviewers.  ;) Worried that we don't have more reviewer attention. Will get that photo fixed soon. Also, have new (small) content from this latest excursion into signage and road mortalituy. Honest, could write an article on it. Really don't want to be a road article writer though. I see that as kind of "churning". What I liked about "Painted turtle" was the hit count and the connection to schoolchildren and the like. Snappers or Terrapins or the like would be cool. I could do an article on turlte trapping too and it would be interesting, but not sure how many would read it. TCO (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about reviewers coming, they'll be around. Yeah, I like turtles because they're inherently interesting (at least to me) whereas roads and such seem like they would be a drag to right. If you do decide to create 'highway mortality of turtles' or 'capture of turtles' and the others you mentioned (not just here but in other places as well), they would be welcome parts of wikiproject turtles!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO, with your ideas for subtopics and related articles you are going into an hyperbolic spiral. A quick calculation shows that even a few lifetimes at the current rate of Wikipedia writing turtle articles is not going to get them all to even GA level. So far 1% of the 700 or so article are GA/FA - in maybe 10 years, you could say the last 5 years it got faster, more people - streamline process. In another ten years it maybe 3%. In 100 years maybe around 45-50%. It's kinda shows how unfinished Wikipedia is going to be for a long time. Whatever you choose to do, enjoy your editing! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my fear. Yeah the page would be created...than what? Maybe stubs aren't such a bad thing: at leas something is out there for people to read. There's much work to be done even if no more articles are created. :-(--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just put these little placeholders in my userspace. The only reason we got the daughter articles on picta was I wanted to cut to make those sections fit better in context, and had a lot of stuff. I think a general article on turtle trapping would be highest priority and would do for all species (probably NA centric, maybe formally so), but cover political debates, cage construction, all that. On the other stuff, it just makes my mind rest easier if I put something that might become an article, but so far has been mostly user. Actually one tjhat we really should get up would be at least a reputable stub on Ernst. I don't think every article needs to be GA or FA, although it is a good exercise to take some. And ones like picta, sea turtle, etc. ought to be, based on generality, hits, etc.TCO (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think stubs or start class articles are fine. Information useful to readers gets put on the wiki and it leaves the door open for someone to work on it in the future. Too many about one turtle may not be so good though (your two and maybe one more would be optimum I feel).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The trap stuff could all get morphed into a general article where I cover snappers and such as well. Leave it here for now, as I came across a lot of snapper stuff, but was weeding it out looking for picta at the time. Some good compare and contrast, could be done, though. That kills one article. The conservation one might die as well. ONly reason to keep it would be if someone wants to deeper on the issues in BC and Oregon, where they are threatened.TCO (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get WP:TURTLES started. At first a discussion of what is the purpose or aim is. Or maybe that comes before creation? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. I just need to quickly read up on the rules/regulations of project creations. I also need to figure out how to make it a 'daughter' project of AAR.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a little ass-kissing with Zoo-man would help us. I'm sure that group has a lot to offer. Also, better to make it a "win" for them, versus renegades breaking away (even if it is some of each!)TCO (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, you always know what to say.  :-) And I totally agree: this project isn't a secession from AAR, it's just meant to concentrate--editors interested in turtles/ideas for articles/work for wiki editors. As far as layout and the like, perhaps something similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of note is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs is a subproject of WP:AAR. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Conservation of painted turtles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservation of painted turtles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservation_of_painted_turtles&oldid=1198349592"