User talk:Chiswick Chap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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, e.g. by pressing the "New section" tab above.

Archives[edit]

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

TALK AFTER ANY EXISTING TALK[edit]

The Signpost
3 February 2016

Teleost[edit]

Cwmhiraeth: nice work: it's starting to look rather smart. Do you think the Phylogeny with its emphasis on Diversity should go immediately after (or before) the Diversity section? It would made sense, I think. Anything else I can help with? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By all means move the phylogeny, but I think it would be better after Diversity rather than before it. I thought the images were better before you put them in a gallery and now that the diversity section has changed, the best images to choose may need to reconsidered. As for what needs to be done, I'm not sure. The others may have some ideas. My latest participation elsewhere in Wikipedia is in the Lead contest, so I propose to improve the lead of Teleost as an entry, probably tomorrow morning. You don't enjoy that sort of contest, I gather? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I have no preference for galleries, but the images were spreading down into other sections. I'll see if that can now be reversed. Will put Ph. after D. Chiswick Chap (talk)
I think Anatomy (perhaps renamed) should go first as we should start with what defines a teleost. Maybe we can have someone make an diagram of teleost mouth movements, possibly comparing it with more primitive fish, like here. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, you may be right, but I suspect that it will be difficult to define teleosts purely by anatomy: the clade is defined by its genetic distinctness (on multiple genes), not by a single anatomical difference. The 'completeness of bone' of the name teleost is not a particularly accessible distinction - while it's obvious that the cartilaginous sharks aren't bony, it's far less visible that bowfins and sturgeons have not-totally-bony structures. I think therefore that we're probably right to lead with diversity and phylogeny, whether in that order or the reverse. After all, the point about the teleosts is that they are a phylogenetic clade.Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Then we should probably start with a taxonomy section. This textbook has a taxonomic history section for fishes, including teleosts. LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I think if we can't start with the anatomy, then we should start with a taxonomy section. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Modes of reproduction[edit]

I was going to link Fish reproduction to the Reproduction section, but looking at that article, I think it is giving incorrect information with regard to Ovuliparity and Oviparity. It gives salmon as an example of the former but if you look at the article Salmon, it just states that the female spawns eggs and the male discharges milt on them. And the statement "Oviparity is where fertilisation occurs internally and so the female sheds zygotes (or newly developing embryos)into the water, often with important outer tissues added. Over 97% of all known fish are oviparous" is wrong in most particulars. Do you agree? Actually, looking back at the article history, it used to be correct but has been vandalised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds as if that article needs work. Salmon definitely shed eggs and milt as you describe. I'd say it was worth linking anyway, and if we can do a quick fix on the other article (rvv vandalism) then so much the better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The article Oviparity has similar anomalies and I have brought it up on the WikiProject Fishes talk page. I don't think it was vandalism, just a lack of judgement on correct terminology. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It sounds easily fixable. I'll take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@User:Cwmhiraeth: I've revised Oviparity to describe the 3 traditional modes and Thierry Lodé's 5 revised modes. Oviparous birds do indeed have internal fertilisation, and then lay eggs, not into the water; under the trad. scheme, fish were also called oviparous, even if they had external fertilisation! In Lodé's revised scheme, fish and arthropods with external fertilisation are called "ovuliparous", which may be a bit less confusing. I guess I'll take a look at Fish reproduction next. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if some things were deleted. You guys are free to make any changes. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Cwmhiraeth: This is what was deleted. Much of it, including the references, may well be useful in the article: Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Three-spined stickleback males (red belly) build nests and compete to attract females to lay eggs in them. Males then defend and fan the eggs. Painting by Alexander Francis Lydon, 1879

In nearly all teleost fish, the sexes are separate, and in most species the females spawn eggs that are fertilized externally, typically with the male inseminating the eggs after they are laid. Development then proceeds with a free-swimming larval stage.[1] However other patterns of ontogeny exist, with one of the commonest being sequential hermaphroditism. In most cases this involves protogyny, fish starting life as females and transitioning to males at some stage, triggered by some internal or external factor. This may be advantageous as females become less prolific as they age while male fecundity increases with age. Protandry, where a fish transitions from male to female, is much less common than protogyny.[2]

Most teleost families use external rather than internal fertilization.[3] Of the oviparous teleosts, most (79%) do not provide parental care.[4] Viviparity, ovoviviparity, or some form of parental care for eggs, whether by the male, the female, or both parents is seen in a significant fraction (21%) of the 422 teleost families; no care is likely the ancestral condition.[4] Viviparity is relatively rare and is found in about 6% of teleost species; male care is far more common than female care.[4][5] Male territoriality "preadapts" a species for evolving male parental care.[6][7]

There are a few examples of fish that self-fertilise. The mangrove rivulus is an amphibious, simultaneous hermaphrodite, producing both eggs and spawn and having internal fertilisation. This mode of reproduction may be related to the fish's habit of spending long periods out of water in the mangrove forests it inhabits. Males are occasionally produced at temperatures below 19 °C (66 °F) and can fertilise eggs that are then spawned by the female. This maintains genetic variability in a species that is otherwise highly inbred.[8]

Some teleost species show no signs of mate selection beyond the correct sex and species, while others display male preference for higher female fecundity, which is usually related to size. In many species, females select for better nest sites which are usually occupied by larger males. In species showing male parental care on dense spawning grounds, males on adjacent territories often fight among themselves, most likely for females.[3] Some species, like the desert pupfish, exhibit lek mating, wherein males aggregate along spawning territories and compete to entice visiting females that survey prospective mates.[9][10]

FWIW, I've created a new article Modes of reproduction which I hope sorts out some of the mess on that topic. I've trimmed the other articles to point to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Very good. I'm not sure that the new names have caught on. Google produces 715 results for Ovuliparity and 50,000 for Oviparity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if I can write the "Development and growth" subsection. I was thinking we could model it like Amphibian or Frog. LittleJerry (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we should keep it very brief, focussing on what is different about Teleosts; most aspects are surely shared with other fish? I'm a bit shocked at the scrappy coverage of articles in that whole area, and have just created Parental care which was missing altogether. It provides brief coverage of most of the major groups involved... everything was very human-centric, to a degree that just seemed bizarre to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try and make an overview. LittleJerry (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this my be ready for GA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we should try to fit this information into the article. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, it looks significant, but it's only one primary research paper so if you're thinking FAC then caution is required, a la "Recent research suggests...". Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Dorit, R.L.; Walker, W.F.; Barnes, R.D. (1991). Zoology. Saunders College Publishing. p. 819. ISBN 978-0-03-030504-7. 
  2. ^ Avise, J.C.; Mank, J.E. (2009). "Evolutionary perspectives on hermaphroditism in fishes". Sexual Development 3: 152–163. doi:10.1159/000223079. 
  3. ^ a b Pitcher, T (1993). The Behavior of Teleost Fishes. London: Chapman & Hall. 
  4. ^ a b c Reynolds, John; Nicholas B. Goodwin; Robert P. Freckleton (19 March 2002). "Evolutionary Transitions in Parental Care and Live Bearing in Vertebrates". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 357 (1419). doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.0930. PMC 1692951. PMID 11958696. 
  5. ^ Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The Evolution of Parental Care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. 
  6. ^ Werren, John; Mart R. Gross; Richard Shine (1980). "Paternity and the evolution of male parentage". Journal of Theoretical Biology 82 (4). doi:10.1016/0022-5193(80)90182-4. Retrieved 15 September 2013. 
  7. ^ Baylis, Jeffrey (1981). "The Evolution of Parental Care in Fishes, with reference to Darwin's rule of male sexual selection". Environmental Biology of Fishes 6 (2). doi:10.1007/BF00002788. Retrieved 16 September 2013. 
  8. ^ Wootton, Robert J.; Smith, Carl (2014). Reproductive Biology of Teleost Fishes. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-89139-1. 
  9. ^ Fiske, P., Rintamaki, P. T. & Karvonen, E. Mating success in lekking males: a meta-analysis. Behavioral Ecology 9, 328–338 (1998).
  10. ^ Loiselle, Paul V. (December 1982). "Male Spawning-Partner Preference in an Arena-Breeding Teleost Cyprinodon macularius californiensis Girard (Atherinomorpha: Cyprinodontidae)". The American Naturalist 120 (6): 721–732. doi:10.1086/284026. 

Your GA nomination of English cuisine[edit]

The article English cuisine you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:English cuisine 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 Worm That Turned -- Worm That Turned (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Henry Worsley (explorer) has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Query[edit]

Hi Chiswick,

This is Aryaman Kochhar and I made a contribution recently to the Digital art page of Wikipedia. My contribution was removed shortly after as you said it was not constructive enough. I would like to know what I can do to make future contributions more constructive and educational. I have gone over Wikipedia's policies to familiarise myself with them. I wanted to know if you had any input/advice on contributions and what makes them fruitful. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaman96 (talkcontribs) 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, good to meet you. The issue with what you wrote is that it had the quality of a personal reflection or essay, and was apparently not derived from reliable sources such as published textbooks or scientific papers. Since anybody can edit, it is essential that all contributions are verifiable, to enable other editors to check that what is written is correct, balanced, and reliable. Do read these standards and understand the basis of Wikipedia. As for the digital art article, I'd say that tools for digital art deserve at best a very brief, reliably cited mention there, likely with links to other articles, as software is a different topic from art. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Hi[edit]

Thanks, Chiswick, you're very helpful! Deletion of Alice non lo sa is not a shock for a me, but I think that is unfair that it is not on Wikipedia and other less important albums (such as those I alluded to) are on it. Anyway, I thought that notability of the singer would mean notabilty of his official studio albums, but it seems this is not true. So, which are the parameters to decide if an album is worthy of a page on Wikipedia? --Almicione (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Almicione, The criteria specially for albums are at WP:NALBUMS, but the more general answer is that notability is determined by "multiple, reliable sources", such as three or four textbooks or other trustworthy places like those I mentioned earlier. Notability is actually not determined by the number of references in an article, but many editors think so, simply because the easiest way to prove that sources exist is to use them. So, if you'd like to add a few more sources to the article, and say in the AfD that you've done that, I think the article will be safe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Perfectly clear! I'd like to create articles about each studio album by De Gregori: do you think that this is good? Moreover, I believe that I'll add references to his own article. What source is more reliable among Discogs, AllMusic and iTunes? --Almicione (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Discogs is probably unusable; ITunes and AllMusic may be usable with care; more and better sources are needed from history books, newspapers and magazines. Any source that the public can edit (like YouTube) is considered totally unreliable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to English cuisine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • were arriving from distant countries, too: ''The Good Huswifes Jewell'' introduced [sweet potato]]es alongside familiar Medieval recipes.<ref name="Albala2003">{{cite book |last=Albala |first=Ken |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of M. C. Escher[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article M. C. Escher 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 Feitlebaum -- Feitlebaum (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The Accomplisht Cook[edit]

The references to mulled wine on this page are incorrect.

The 1660 edition of The Accomplisht Cook does not contain a recipe entitled Mulled Wine.

The A Taste of Wine website is incorrect to allege the recipe they quote "in full" is mulled wine, by modern definition and understanding.
The recipe mentioned by the A Taste of Wine website is for Ipocras and the recipe from the 1660 edition of The Accomplisht Cook (p261), in full, is:

"To Make Ipocras: Take to a gallon of wine, three ounces of cinamon, two ounces of slic't ginger, a quarter of an ounce of cloves, an ounce of mace, twenty corns of pepper, an ounce of nutmegs, three pound of sugar, and two quarts of cream."

No mention of mixing it in a pot, neither is there mention of heating it.
Ipocras was named after the medieval Latin name, vinum Hippocraticum (wine of Hippocrates), because it was filtered through "Hippocrates' sleeve", a conical bag of cotton, linen, or flannel, used as a filter or strainer.[OED]
I have not made any changes to the page, but will do so if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.37.199 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked the original, and indeed the Taste of Wine site has invented the heating; they have of course ignored the fact that we don't mull wine with cream either; so I've removed the claim. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of M. C. Escher[edit]

The article M. C. Escher 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:M. C. Escher for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Feitlebaum -- Feitlebaum (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of M. C. Escher[edit]

The article M. C. Escher you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:M. C. Escher 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 Feitlebaum -- Feitlebaum (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

For your extraordinary work at M. C. Escher[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.svg The Original Barnstar
You really did a remarkable job with your work at M. C. Escher. Perhaps this barnstar is a bit late, considering when you nominated the article, but you're just as deserving, nonetheless. Keep up the good work! Feitlebaum (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That's really kind of you! Much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mudéjar[edit]

I beg your pardon, C.C., but I was still working on the illustrations.

  • It is not useful, to illustrate a style with three images of one single building.
  • It is better to use examples of several buildings from several regions.

But I would be grateful, if you improve the structure of the text. Have a nice Sunday :) --Ulamm (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ulamm: Well, I wonder. Why not? One could start big, wide-angle; zoom in; show a detail -- it seems entirely reasonable as it shows how the details fit into the architectural whole. So in principle it's a sensible and good thing to do. Of course, we want to balance variety (different types, different places) with explanation (possibly details of the same place).
However, there are still FAR TOO MANY (excuse shout) images in the article, and I am not sure the gallery is justified at all. So, by all means go on working on the illustrations, if that means cutting down and selecting to a well-chosen minimum. Perhaps an article of this length should have 5 or 6 images altogether. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I think, I am more fond of images than you, but I use them didactically.--Ulamm (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I use far more than many editors, and am exceptionally fond of visual articles, as you'll see from my user page. But every single image has to be justified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)