User talk:Chiswick Chap

Mathematics and art: the Fraser spiral illusion (made of concentric circles) says something about visual perception, and is a forerunner of Op art.

PLEASE ADD ANY COMMENTS AT THE END OF THIS PAGE.

Archives

2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 - 2016 - 2017 -

TALK AFTER ANY EXISTING TALK

15 July 2017
News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers Op-ed: Why task forces are dying in 2017 Gallery: A mix of patterns Humour: The infobox game Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up
Single page Book Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Lizard

Probably will wait until later this week to start on Lizard and map out a game plan like sections and who will write what. Aside from the cladograms, I feel we should re-write it from scratch. I'm sure Cwmhiraeth will still join but I wonder if we find someone from WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles to help as well. LittleJerry (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I am currently working intermittently on Woodpecker and plan to do Sea anemone next. I really know very little about reptiles and do no have any useful sources, so I will be happy to leave this one to you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do. Sounds a good idea to get a herpetologist on the job! Just to let you know, I will be on hols from the 14th. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll start work on ecology/social behavior/communication later this week. Try not to get into those topics. :) LittleJerry (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I won't! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Signaling seems to me to be tied to communication which my book gets into detail on. Hence, the section I'm writing will probably replace the current signaling section. LittleJerry (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That's probably fine, the current source while just about usable isn't the best (and I didn't write the section). The anole lizard dewlap thing is I think worth a mention, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll be busier these next two weeks, but I plan to rewrite reproduction. Would you be able to improve morphology and perhaps write about senses? LittleJerry (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm running out of time before the hols, but I'll at least take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I can take it from here, but I think I'll have to wait for you to come back to work on more culture and human interaction. I'm in no hurry to get this to GA. What's important is that an article on a well-known and diverse group is in better shape. LittleJerry (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry - I reviewed the culture section and don't have anything to add to it. If you can find anything better, feel free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oxford dictionary entry for plant

The wording "offshoot of a family" perhaps seems a bit odd and "sprouting offspring of a family" seems better. The actual wording we settled on for the OXFORD DICTIONARY OF FAMILY NAMES IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND is given at http://plant.one-name.net/origins.html#2016 though that probably seems too formal for this Wikipedia page. Note that the actual surname meaning given is Child but, in itself, that lacks any metaphorical explanation to a modern mind.

2.27.1.241 (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Sprouting offspring of a family" is far too florid for Wikipedia, and falls oddly on English ears, too. It is interesting to hear that you admit an explicit conflict of interest with your role at ODFNBI and plant.one-name.net, especially given that you had more or less denied it earlier: you will have to take extreme care when editing any topic-related article such as on family names. You are surely correct, however, that excessively formal wording used specifically on family name websites is unlikely to be suitable here. Clearly "-branch" and "-twig" imply "Child" (or more generally "Descendant"); they may also imply "Younger Child" (not carrying the family's inherited title, for instance), but we are straying very far beyond due coverage in a general article here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, the usage is singular in the main Plant homeland, as in a eulogy to a newly trained Sir John Savage in 1621, "that hopeful Plant, that is the apparent Heir of all his glory, and this great Discent". (I expect the reference to "his glory" is religious). In detail, it is not just about any PEOPLE ARE PLANTS metaphor will do and neither was it I who came up with the specific meaning child which was in the form "young person" in Ernest Weekly's Surname Dictionary at the beginning of the 20th century as well as in the full version of the Oxford English Dictionary. You have called my involvement a conflict of interest but I have simply supplied factual information to those interested which has generally been received respectfully and taken into account. After spending 20 years carefully and rigorously researching this topic, it seems offhand, if not brutal, to be callously slapped down - though admittedly, I am not much familiar with Wikipedia. If I am to be allowed a further comment, all the professional onomasts that I know are far more respectful of the Guild of One Name Studies and far less respectful of the web pages such as "Last Name: Plant" in The Internet Surname Database. Is there some conflict of interest there or is it just a case of quickly serving up whatever is most easily available? 2.27.1.241 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahem. Let's leave rhetoric about callous brutality out of things please, it's not allowed here. You have a clear conflict of interest as a plain matter of fact – you are connected with the material you are citing, which could affect your impartiality as an editor on surname-related topics. I'll put a note on your user page about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Just as a correction, it is "young person" in the OED and "young offspring" in Weekly. Also, the ODFNBI actively sought help from the Guild of One Name Studies while retaining editorial control, acknowledging that more is required than just linguistics (e.g. full records, especially medieval ones, and, where appropriate DNA testing).2.27.1.241 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sory for bold lettering, my bad.2.27.1.241 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Be vewy, vewy quiet

You might very well be right. However, in context of WP, you'd need a cite for that interpretation, or a contradiction of his actual words by contemporary action or document. As for the quote itself, I normally disapprove of keeping them, because they don't add anything material; in this case, I'm glad I hadn't deleted it yet... So... I'm glad to see you'll discuss, rather than just revert. Elmer Fudd ^{what's up, Doc?} 09:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've found and added another source (Wilkinson himself), with (shh!) a vewy brief quote that directly supports the "primary" claim. I'm not a great fan of quotes in refs either, but in this case they do seem useful. The point, perhaps, is that since (unlike, say, disruptive coloration, where there is abundant evidence for the clearly stated function) both the function and evidence for it have been disputed, it is of interest to know what exactly the man responsible for it thought he was doing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Teleost scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Teleost article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks!

@Cwmhiraeth FYI. I'll be out of office. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will check the blurb and keep an eye on the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ruth Robbins listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ruth Robbins. Since you had some involvement with the Ruth Robbins redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Parnassus Press listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Parnassus Press. Since you had some involvement with the Parnassus Press redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Vanamonde (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh whoa I didn't realize you had created these, CC. In anycase, they appear to have rather strange targets at the moment, hence the RFD. Nothing personal, I'm sure you realize.

In other news, I have sent A Wizard of Earthsea to FAC. Since you provided a rather thorough GAR for that page, I thought I'd let you know: any feedback you have would be valuable. Vanamonde (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)