User talk:Chiswick Chap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The octopus ... seeks its prey by so changing its colour as to render it like the colour of the stones adjacent to it; it does so also when alarmed. — Aristotle

PLEASE ADD ANY COMMENTS AT THE END OF THIS PAGE, e.g. by pressing the "New section" tab above.

Archives[edit]

2011 2012 2013 2014

TALK AFTER ANY EXISTING TALK[edit]

The Signpost
25 February 2015

Photo ID[edit]

File:Cucurbita_2011_G1.jpg, in that photo there is definitely C. pepo. I'm think the one at the back is C. moschata. Maybe some are C. maxima. What do you think? Some of these are very hard to distinguish from just a photo. I think we can post at FAC within a day or two. HalfGig talk 14:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea, it's quite a specialist identification task. If they are species already illustrated then the image is redundant, and we'll be told so quite firmly at FAC. But I agree, we're basically ready, not waiting for anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to give it a day or two in case a MEDRS person pops back in. I really like this photo so I'll poke around for more positive ID too. HalfGig talk 14:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, do that then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
See related thread at User talk:Sminthopsis84. HalfGig talk 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita redir hit[edit]

See [this redir hit and my last couple edits. I can't find what's causing it. HalfGig talk 21:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because C. ---> squash bee ---> bee ---> C. ? That isn't really a fault. Automated tools only suggest possible faults, after all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Giant clams etc.[edit]

When dealing with things like copyright issues I am a bit at sea so thank you for your intervention on my talk page. Do you think I acted correctly in removing the three chunks of text mentioned on Jechma's talk page and which I had interpreted as copyright violations? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think so, yes, and it seems he basically confirms that they are his, so unless he demonstrates a CC-by-SA or other suitable license for the passages to be used freely, we must assume they are CVs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

OW list[edit]

You asked why Merlyn appeared as an OW. In The Sword in the Stone it was explained that he lived backwards in time and that his youth was in the twentieth century. Among his possessions were typewritten duplicates from the Master of Trinity and a medal for being the best scholar at Winchester. I think that answers your question? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there a printed Win Coll Register in the public domain, with details of Asher, Gaminara etc? Or failing that, there must be surviving Short Rolls? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da): I was wondering the same, but I am really not sure about the public aspect of it. The address list of OWs is not to be shared, for instance. If you can get hold of some of these, and verify that we can make use of them in this way, then it will be the work of a few moments to add the necessary citations, and of course I'll be delighted to see the entries redisplayed. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
PS Register 1836-1906 is online at Archive.org. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gavin Maxwell edit=[edit]

Thanks Chip for your message. Yes, was making minor edit (improvement) to maxwell article and realised-amid suddent home distractions, Id forgotten how to footnote-had to stop,will make edit later,Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.102.172 (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A Reliable Source?[edit]

I'm working on Asa Gray. While this source looks well-done to me, I've not seen it before. Their article on Gray has some info I haven't seen elsewhere. Do you think it meets RS? Here is the link. HalfGig talk 14:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder. We are allowed to use tertiary sources like other encyclopaedias (even the dreadful old 1911 EB, with care), and this one at least comes with a decent bibliography. I'd say it was possible at a pinch, but if you can get hold of Dupree and perhaps also Rodgers as listed at the end there, that would be a whole lot better. And surely Dupree can be mined for a few juicy quotations, too. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, there's even an article on him: A. Hunter Dupree. A copy of the updated version of that book, 1988, is on Amazon. I think it'll be worth the cost. I'm going to order it. Thanks! HalfGig talk 16:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bananasoldier (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
That's very kind of you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Template: Socialism in the United States[edit]

Wondering if you could stop by "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:American_socialism" and offer your opinion in what to do with the people section, there has been no progress, so I have proposed that the section should be removed entirely, and then maybe developed slowly. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for List of Tolkien's alliterative verse. Not sure right now what else needs doing there (maybe the title needs tweaking), but if you need a hand let me know as I likely have a number of books that could help. I'll pop a WikiProject Middle-earth tag on the talk page (I think the scope of that project covers all Tolkien's works). Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Thanks to you. The list comes from the somewhat disordered state of the Alliterative verse article, which certainly looks a little better without it; it's probably in need of expert attention. The list itself is I think not too bad as it's almost entirely publication data; I already slimmed down what seemed to be opinion. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carl Michael Bellman[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carl Michael Bellman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iselilja -- Iselilja (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Great job on Carl Michael Bellman! It was about time that article had some TLC. Face-smile.svg Good Luck with the GA! w.carter-Talk 01:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What a surprise - Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) I'm also pleased that you included the fact about the lottery, a "trivia" that most Swedes know about. I thought about including it myself, but it was very late last night when I finished. I grew up around members of the Bellman society so I know the songs and the guy pretty well. I was just checking on a GAN of my own when I saw your entry and of course I got interested. Fingers crossed now, w.carter-Talk 09:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I've put in the signature. The article is nicely written and looks worth a more careful read, I'll take a look later. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita status[edit]

This is going really slow. I'm unsure of how we stand. We may never get enough reviewers. While we have two supports, the first two who commented have never finished and we don't have an image check, source, check, or copyvio check. I posted a request for these some days ago in the designated spot on the FAC talk page. HalfGig talk 21:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you probably shouldn't worry about the speed. There's no reason why we shouldn't politely ask the two who haven't finished if they could come back and say what they think. As for the small checks, they aren't likely to be critical obstructions; someone will appear to do the necessary, I'd imagine. What we can't do is solicit new reviewers to come along. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Done, see talk pages at Sasata and CorinneSD. HalfGig talk 22:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Corinne added some more things to the FAC. I fixed them all but search for my "I like that last wording too, but also don't know if it has to be the first word". Do you know the answer to the question we both have about item 2? HalfGig talk 00:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:HalfGig: I think I do, but the answer probably isn't what you want. The boldface title word doesn't have to be exactly first, but it should be as close to the start as is reasonably possible. You're both excited by this. BUT: the basic fact about Cucurbita is that it is a genus in the gourd family. The secondary fact is that it is native to A and M, and the tertiary fact is that it was first cultivated there. I am quite sure that C. must be the subject of the sentence, and that being a genus must be the predicate. You find this less thrilling. So hear me out: It would be entirely wrong to take 2ndry or 3ry matter as the main subject of the first line of the article. You were both right about the sentence's inelegance; I have split it into two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

C seems keener on continual copyediting than any substantive matters. Even if she supports, it isn't worth much as she is an involved editor (in the article). Still, it might help a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Bioluminescent Organisms[edit]

I added the reference. Thanks for reminding me! I have other references for Pyrocystis fusiformis if you need/want them. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics[edit]

The article Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shii -- Shii (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ding! GA review[edit]

Check it out: Talk:Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics Shii (tock) 01:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carl Michael Bellman[edit]

The article Carl Michael Bellman you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Carl Michael Bellman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iselilja -- Iselilja (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Alba in the Koinophilia article[edit]

Dear Chiswick Chap

I have been unable to find a decent or appropriate replacement of the the photograph of Jessica Alba for the Koinophilia article. I have used links to very appropriate material by people actually working on the averaging of faces, but the authors have not given permission to use their images in the Wikipedia article .

Would you mind having a look at the koinophilia article again, and seeing whether you think Jessica Alba's portrait should be removed, or whether it is appropriate enough to add some color to the otherwise featureless expanse of text that would result if the picture was removed?

You can leave your response on my User Talk page Oggmus (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maskirovka[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maskirovka you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Altenmann -- Altenmann (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking ahead[edit]

Would you be interested in taking Bioluminescence to FAC later in the year? I see the equivalent article is an FA in the Japanese and Slovenian Wikipedias, and we might be able to glean some further information from them in our attempt at comprehensiveness. If you are amenable to the idea, what are your holiday plans this year? For WikiCup reasons, I would be interested in nominating the article in August or September, with a view to the FAC being completed during September or October, preferably nominating it earlier rather than later as the time taken at FA is so unpredictable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's consider this carefully.

The article is tidy, happily stable, readable, and pretty well cited.

  • The Distribution section however needs more references. The curent statement "occurs widely among animals, especially in the open sea" is fine for GA but too vague and sweeping for FA; we will need to extend this to be comprehensive, even if many groups are mentioned in the Uses in nature section. The section will need a description of the taxonomic range - it might be an adapted version of the taxonomic tree in Haddock;
  • We would have to extend the Chemical mechanism section somewhat, add a diagram (maybe from Luciferase) on the reaction(s) and describe the reaction mechanisms; part of the work can be done by adding a "main" link or two (just added one). We might need subsections for Luciferin, Luciferase, Aequorin/Other photoproteins.
  • The History section needs some work; I think we'd have to investigate other post-1961 research rather more thoroughly.
  • I suspect the introduction to Uses in nature will need to be made more defensible; Haddock's views probably need to be supported by another review article and we need to watch out for words like "several" and "more or less definite", and for claims like "It is much easier for researchers to detect ..." - this probably needs a quote to prove it isn't just our opinion, and we'll need to be clearer on what is known and what isn't.

These changes might take the article from 46k to perhaps 70k (SWAG*), which seems reasonable.

I am not sure the other Wikipedias are up to FA standard. The Japanese one is only 20k long and they give a star to the English version, so I suspect theirs is equivalent to a GA only. The Slovenian is 40k and has plenty of example organisms; like German Wikipedia (spread there over a range of articles) it has more on the reaction chemistry, and it includes a substantial list of organisms (we link out to a less extensive list that I split off 2 yrs ago), mainly uncited, many redlinked; again, it seems to use star for GA. Overall, not much better than ours.

September is better for me than August. Of course I could work on it a bit before then.

@User:Cwmhiraeth: I'm happy to give it a go, if you broadly agree with me on the plan of work I've sketched above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Scientific Wild-A**** Guess. As opposed to a simple WAG.
Good. We can work on it along the lines you suggest over the next few months and consider the exact timing later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Per our talk[edit]

For your eddification and amusement: [1] Montanabw(talk) 03:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. We think of eating horse as a distinctly French habit. But then, they think of our food as totally inedible... mutual love and respect all round. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
And we Yanks, the culinary gods that we are (Rocky Mountain Oysters) think the both of you have issues. I mean, Yorkshire pudding, kidney pie, and stuff like Haggis? Really? (Of course, there are a lot of "traditional" dishes in any culture that are, basically, "the stuff poor people had to eat in times of famine" so...) Montanabw(talk) 21:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Londoners used to eat Jellied Eels for pleasure, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!!![edit]

Happy Valentine's Day, to you and yours! Cheers, Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

della Salda[edit]

This book seems to be in Italian, so I added the language parameter. Do you have an English version of it? I also can't find an ISBM for the 1993 version. HalfGig talk 18:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:HalfGig: I don't, and I don't think it has been translated, either. Italian publishers also seem to have been pretty relaxed about ISBNs - perhaps they didn't even apply for one. But happily, Wikipedia doesn't require sources to be in English. So I guess it'll be fine as it is. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea in culture[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sea in culture you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea in culture[edit]

The article Sea in culture you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sea in culture for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea in culture[edit]

The article Sea in culture you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Sea in culture for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bumblebee[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bumblebee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bumblebee[edit]

The article Bumblebee you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Bumblebee for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Plovers[edit]

It actually says spur-winged? Elsewhere on Wikipedia it mentions Egyptian plover as the proper bird, such as in that bird's article, also in List of symbiotic relationships and Crocodile bird redirects to it. The article for Spur-winged lapwing says: "The famed "crocodile bird" is sometimes taken to be this species, but it is actually the true plover Pluvianus aegyptius." Do both birds (allegedly) do this? 68.156.95.34 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.
  1. "It actually says spur-winged?" Yes, it actually does, and I've quoted it in full in the article, complete with exact page reference, so it can hardly be denied - for my claim to be false now, either I'd actually have to be a liar, or seriously confused, or be in possession of a book that looks like Scherren's but has in fact been cunningly tampered with by a demented Wikimaniac intent on disrupting my future edits by guessing what I am about to look for and supplying me with a specially-made book designed to mislead. I hardly think so.
  2. "Elsewhere on Wikipedia" - Be aware that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; articles must be sourced to other places which we have reason to believe are reliable: please read the policy in that blue link, because you have no hope of becoming a successful editor without it. The fact that a thousand errors have been made somewhere else is precisely no evidence that anything is wrong with a correctly cited claim, one that in this case is actually proven with a complete and verifiable quotation. (Yes, you need to go and study that blue linked policy too, it is absolutely central to how Wikipedia works.)
  3. "Do both birds (allegedly) do this?" Actually, the article carefully discusses which birds might do this, and shows that in all likelihood the behaviour is occasional and incidental. Since Scherren is a reliable source, and since Sclater was an excellent zoologist, I think we can be fairly sure that the plovers that were shot were spur-winged; and since Cook thought the shot birds were the same kind as the bird in the mouth, it seems very likely that the bird in the mouth was spur-winged also, but that is as much as can be said, and the article correctly implies no more than that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dragonfly[edit]

Having found a nice online book, I am going to use it rather than search around to fill any particular section. For the moment I am doing territoriality and have started a Behaviour section. The section headings can be changed around later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Cwmhiraeth: Excellent. I think that my quick summary in Ecology should be treated as the parent section as it gives an overview of the reasons for the group's distinctive feeding, mating and patrolling behaviours. So ideally we'll fit other sections around that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't like what you have done to the Berger references. You had removed the url entirely, although I have added it back now. But the citations I originally made led to specific pages of the book whereas, with the present arrangement, this specificity is lost. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for whatever went wrong. No reason not to have the URL, obviously; and the page numbers should be exactly as before, if not it's simply an error. The sfn references may have either individual page numbers (|p=123) or page ranges (|pp=123–125) so nothing should be lost. Feel free either to fix or let me know what to fix. Sorry for the trouble. This probably isn't the moment to say why I'd like the sfn system for the major books, except to say it seems sensible to list them as sources, and this way in fact allows automatic navigation to the source. So if done correctly (blushes) the method works better than any other. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I just checked, there was only one that was wrong: fixed it; all the other page ranges were identical. Sorry to have upset you. Hope you find it all right now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I haven't mastered the complexities of referencing and sfn. The url link I gave the book is not good, but if I click on your " Berger 2004, pp. 44–46.", or similar citations, I get nothing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Oh, I see. Try it now, you'll find it works as it should. The gadget needs a last= parameter, which I'd been using without realizing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, never mind. I thought the original referencing better but am not overly bothered.
I have just found a rather perplexing statement in Calopterygidae. The article said of a family of damselflies, "They often resident in places of high vexation and debris, favoring logic environment." The source said "Favoring lotic environments, this family seeks residence in areas of high vegetation and debris." I had to look up "lotic" and find it means slow-flowing water. Fortunately, the editor who added that sentence did not normally edit biology articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks... a somewhat obscure and highly vegetated style! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We Did It![edit]

See this. Great teamwork! HalfGig talk 02:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:HalfGig, congratulations! Worth the wait! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Insects[edit]

Do you intended to eventually bring Bumblebee are Dragonfly to FA? LittleJerry (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Hi, and thanks for asking. I guess so, if the right team is available... They'll both need some more work to reach there. You back in action and feel like helping? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)