Talk:Sugar glider

message: Archive 1 created: ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Sugar_glider/Archive_1|'''Archive 1''']]: <small>04:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)</small>

message: *Several refs are simply weblinks and need to be formatted.
*Photo(s) should be found showing S-glider within native setting, and/or while gliding. 
*The range/distribution is slightly inconsistent between the lead [Brit: lede] and the article.
::The lead should be slightly less specific, i.e.: ...and various associated islands.
::The article should be more specific regarding islands, etc. -- Btw, I'm having a hard time verifying Indonesia based on available data. ~E 74.60.29.141 ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc:

message: Would the following be useful, misleading, or trivial? ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what "| synonyms = " in the taxobox at the top is for.  Just list them in the taxobox, and if you have sources, you can talk about the taxonomic history in detail... if you're up for it. – Maky « talk » 21:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomic history table

message: This topic is likely to resurface; rather than starting from scratch, I will attempt to summarize the discussion thus-far:
Judging from the archived entries and  'Viewer feedback', readers would like to see more information relating to them as pets. The consensus among editors seems to be that more specific information on the subject would be inappropriate for this article.  It has been suggested that a separate article be created for sugar gliders as pets. If created, this article would require careful scrutiny to avoid it becoming a pet care guide or advice column. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problem with discussing them as pets, as long as it makes mention of conservation issues, if they are collected or bred in captivity (or both), the special nature of their diet and what happens when they are fed improperly, what typically happens when they are abandoned, and the behavioral issues they might have (e.g. they are nocturnal, so their sleep cycle conflicts with most pet owners).  It should also be noted that they are a very popular exotic pet, and if statistics are available, that would be great.  What a lot of people want from the "Viewer feedback" is a how-to guide for caring for one, or information on where to buy one, even if they don't state it explicitly.  However, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, so if they are looking for that, then they need to go elsewhere.  So unless there is a mountain of information out there regarding the kinds of points I just listed, all of it can go into this article.  At this point, I would strongly oppose the creation of a new article.  Otherwise I strongly encourage you to thoroughly research the pet topic and write up something comprehensive. 21:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Information from reliable sources needs to be added, before too many editors with good intentions put up a lot of [other stuff]. Perhaps there could be a non-live auxiliary page for compiling information to be added? ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Please feel free to edit that workpage at will, and/or leave comments, suggestions, etc. here. ~Thanks, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't want to discourage the addition of cited material for this section - please do!  However, for information to be sourced later (perhaps), please use the workpage link (above), ~thanks, ~Eric F 
Modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{button|[[Talk:Sugar glider/Pet|As a pet]]}} 

message: I've added a new image, but am not thrilled with it. Sugar glider nest, in eucalyptus tree hollow John Gould, 1861 in 'Conservation' section. At least it shows gliders in natural setting. Opinions? ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sugar glider. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://veterinarycalendar.dvm360.com/avhc/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=638213&sk=&date=&%0A%09%09%09&pageID=5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My cited edit updating the legality of sugar gliders as pets in NYC was undone. I believe this was a mistake. The cited source states "No person shall sell or give to another person, possess, harbor, keep, or yard wild or other animals identified in this section." The list of illegal animal includes "(17)All marsupials, including, but not limited to... sugar and greater glider." I believe this is unambiguous to the legality of sugar gliders in NYC.
Dbsseven (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay -- Sorry, I missed (§161.01; a:17).  I undid my undo. --107.15.152.93 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: legality as pets in NYC

message: We seem to have a misunderstanding of the meaning of endemism here. It merely means "restricted to a particular region", which allows applicability to any unit you would like - indeed, up to and including "planet Earth". While the latter would of course be pointless, describing an organism as endemic to bioregions, ecozones, or continents is entirely proper usage. In the case of the sugar glider, it is correctly described as endemic to mainland Australia and biogeographically associated islands.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems is that "endemic" refers to restricted to one region. You coud say SGs are endemic to the Australasian biogeographic region (albeit this is so broad that the term becomes basically meaningless); however, the expression "endemic to mainland Australia, New Guinea and certain Indonesian islands" makes no sense, nor does "endemic to both Australia and New Guinea" (incidentally, wikilinking the same definition twice is contrary to good wikipedia practices). The only expression that makes sense is "endemic to [one and only one particular region]". Why would we need that expression, anyway? If we remove it, people know nothing less about SGs. If we keep it in, in this context, we're just confusing people about endemism: pretty words are not a goal in themselves and keeping them in just because we can lawyer ourselves into the fact that they are technically correct is no good reason, either. complainer (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - well yes, it does make sense. "Endemic to Matawi Tepui and Autana Tepui" would be perfectly acceptable and informative, even though there is no single collective name for just these two mountains among the local group of tepuis. To stay with bioregions, consider the fynbos, which is disjunct over various non-connected areas in South Africa. There are plenty of specialists that occur in all of these areas, in which case it is of course easy to say "endemic to fynbos"; but there are also plenty of species that occur in only a few of them, in which case a correct phrasing is "endemic to Table Mountain and the Hottentots Holland Mountains". In the same manner, a species occurring only in parts of the Australasian bioregion can be described as "endemic to Australia, New Guinea and some associated islands". - Your understanding of the usage is not representative, and I wouldn't ascribe the same misunderstanding to prospective readers.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endemism 

message: The natural range map is inaccurate, as it includes Tasmania as the natural range of P. brev.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, those are introduced (e.g. ). Hence I've removed "natural" from the range map descriptor. I think this may be preferable to having a map that excludes Tasmania, as the population is established. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural range map inaccurate

message: The “sugar glider” in the top photo has a white tail tip, which would make it actually a photo of a Kreffts glider (see the section on distribution in the article on P. Notatus), and the misidentified photo should be replaced. 108.250.162.158 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done I've restored the previous main image. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Incorrect 

message: text with citation needed; Each colony defends a territory of about 1 hectare (2.5 acres) where eucalyptus trees provide a staple food source. is from https://kids.kiddle.co/Sugar_glider ;) Ji vun (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed