User talk:SP-KP/Talk page archive 2006 a

This is where I've archived messages posted to my talk page in Jan - Mar 2006

To Do List

Didn't mean to poach all those birds off your to-do list there! Miwa 21:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

a couple new articles

hi. I created stubs for Cocos Island Finch and Scarlet Robin. I see your todo/birds page points to both of them, but I can't actually get that page to open. Tomer^talk 11:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Steve, I can't get the page to open to delete it. If you ever manage to open it, split the content across two or three pages, and let me know so I can delete them then, jimfbleak 06:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

try http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Developer jimfbleak 18:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

When you get around to editing, if you're looking to remove these birds from your list, I recently created Regent Parrot as well. Tomer^talk 03:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean up of Chew Valley Lake

A couple of days ago you put a clean up tag on a page for Chew Valley Lake I've done quite a bit on - suggesting it reads too much like a tourist brochure (which is probably true).

I'm still fairly new at doing things on Wikipedia & would appreciate a bit more guidance as to the sorts of things to take out & what to leave. Rod 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and guidance - I've done some more editing & hopefully taken into account the points you made - do you think I can remove the clean up tag yet? Rod 20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the further help & I don't mind you being "picky". I would appreciate help with "standardising the presentation & wikilinking of species names, as I'm getting lost in Latin v UK names & how to present them in text which makes sense but links to the proper article titles.Rod 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with Chew Valley Lake & particularly the advice on "English names / scientific names presentation" I hope I've taken these into account & have removed the clean up tag I'm still having problems with Chironomids (aquatic midges) & corixaeare - any help appreciated. I've also put it up for a peer review & would welcome your comments. Rod 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again - you changed the grid ref for this page from 10 fig to 6 fig but when you click on it still goes to more detailed map - any ideas? Rod 19:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing the map scale was a good idea but still doesn't work - I've put a question about this on [[1]] & will wait to see what the map experts say Rod 11:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Chew Valley Lake had failed FAC. As you suggested I put it to the editor who made the decision - see comments on User talk:Violetriga Rod 18:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything else that needs doing to it from the (limited) comments - would you have a look & if you feel it's appropriate resubmit - I'll then try to get people to support Rod 18:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment Re: footnotes - what else do you think needs doing? Rod 20:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: footnotes - there are 23 numbered references in the text, but only 15 actual notes -that is because several notes in the text come from the same references Rod 08:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just spend a coupleof hours trying to sort the references/footnotes in line with the guidance you suggested & hope it all wrks now - is there anything esle you think needs doing or would you be willingot put it up for FAC now? Rod 13:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done for sorting the footnote problem - can you copy this into the actual Chew Valley Lake page rather than me going through & adding "label" to all of them Rod 15:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've sorted the red links you created (by starting stubs) - I also think I've now sorted the multiple uses of references - except the last ref in the history section, about the flood shouldn't point to Ross (No 5) but to a separate ref - the links all work but it still shows both as having the same number & I'm at a loss to see why - If you have any ideas I'd be really grateful Rod 21:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments I put up a request for help with the page in general & referening issue see Wikipedia:Featured Article Help Desk/Requests/Chew Valley Lake Rod 10:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Higher-level bird taxa restricted to the Neotropics, etc

Great idea for a category, but are you sure about genera? The afro tropical and neotropical areas are going to have dozens of unique genera, particularly those south american families. Sabine's Sunbird 16:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, there is a whole suborder of passerines that is almost completely restricted to the neotropics, including the tyrant flycatchers,woodcreepers, ovenbirds, antbirds, antpittas and antthrushes, gnateaters, tapaculos, cotingas, manakins and asities. Those are multiple genera families. As for if anyone is going to write those articles, I'd say not yet. I certainly haven't done many genera articles, except for the albatrosses (and that was only to get it to FAC status). But the new articles for birds in general seem to keep coming, and people often write the genus articles rather than do one for every species. I don't think it will hurt to leave genera in, to be honest. Like you say if it gets to be too many like you say we can deal with it when it happens. It's nice to see lots of bird endemism articles going up too!

On a completely different note, while I think about it, there needs to be a discussion at some point about the taxonomy in the albatross article (either on the albatross talk page or in the project:birds page). With the exception of the few species articles I need to do (which constitute the last redlinks on the page) it is the last dealbreaker before I try for FA for it. Sabine's Sunbird 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• • the point of contention with the albatrosses was the number of species - you were uncertain about the 21 species, but I felt that 14 (as suggested by HBW) was far too low and that 21 was the most consistent number as used by Brooke and IUCN/Birdlife International. Sabine's Sunbird 15:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with i) and iii), but I dislike ii) (a NPOV scientific name e.g. Diomedea (cauta) steadi), although I can't think of another way to address your concerns. To my mind it doesn't distinguish between the more marginal splits and the solid ones (and at least with the Wandering Albatross complex the papers I have read make a really good case for the split, less so for some of the mollymawks), and biases towards the lumpers. When I see a species described that way I always subconciously think of it as a subspecies that some would elevate to species rank, rather than a species some consider conspecific. Maybe that's just me though. I guess that in the interim it will do, but I am begining to itch to find a taxonomy that isn't HBW - this isn't the first time I lhave locked horns with it (one of my first conversations with Jim was about their outrageous assertion that the wrentit is a old world flycatcher rather than an old world babbler. Sabine's Sunbird 21:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ruth Kelly

The voice trivia is under attack. Would you like to help defend it ? Frelke 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

'Tis done already Frelke 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Whaddya think? Frelke 07:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Discussions are usually concluded after about five days to prevent a backlog. A "high level of support" is not enough to overturn a consensus. The article is now in the WP space, where it satisifes both those who claimed it was "interesting" and those who said it was "unreferenced", "POV" and "unencyclopedic". -R. fiend 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One should keep in mind that like AFD, DRV is a discussion, not a vote. A consensus to do so may have moved the article back into the articlespace, but one should also keep in mind that policies such as verifibility and NPOV trump any votes. The move to the wikipedia space, given the article itself and how the voting went, and having already been done, was the proper thing to do. -R. fiend 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

List of interesting or unusual place names

Following the deletion review, the page was relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). -- User:Docu

Replied on the talk page: Talk:List of interesting or unusual place names#Removal of standout places. Thanks/wangi 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Category naming

I've nominated two categories you created, Citizen Science and Ornithological Citizen Science, for speedy-renaming per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories):

Standard article naming conventions also apply; in particular, do not capitalise regular nouns.

I thought I'd give you a heads-up in case you weren't familiar with that guideline. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Category: British Ornithologists

In response to your enquiry about why I edited links to category Ornithologists, I found a number of references to people who were A/ not ornithologists in any way shape or form e.g. Harold Wilson, B/ birdwatchers or bird hobbyists who have birds as an object of regard rather than of scientific study and who more properly belong in the category of birders e.g. Lee Evans.

It is difficult to know where to draw the line for the B group but I applied the criteria that follow to retain those I regard as British ornithologists: academics whose subject is birds, publication of more than one peer-reviewed paper in recognised scientific journals such as Ibis, a doctoral thesis on some aspect of bird biology or ecology, well-accepted historical involvement in the development of the subject.

The problem with adding hobbyists to the list, or those that make a living from servicing the hobbyists, is that there are potentially several thousand out there. If they begin to add themselves and their friends to the list, ornithologists will disappear from the radar of anyone doing a search for the real thing.

You might like to know that I added Sir Peter Scott to the list, rescuing him from an apparently redundant category labelled English Ornithologists. I moved two Scottish Ornithologists from another redundant list at the same time. I supposed that for anyone searching, more likely than not they will home in on British.John H, Morgan 18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Can you expand the stubs on the four gents you mention as worthy of inclusion, as there is nothing in the articles to suggest I can apply the criteria to them.

DIM Wallace is probably OK for inclusion as I seem to recall papers of his some years ago containing ethological studies of birds, but it needs to say so in the article, I feel. When I get home to my library in March, I'll search a bit more. The stubs on the other three only I/D them as birders (albeit first-class) and any ornithological cred is not shown. Can you help with this?John H, Morgan 18:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think the qualifications you have listed for Steve G. show his expertise to be in birding rather than the science of ornithology. If you consult the work of e.g Alan Knox on Crossbill speciation, you will find (hopefully) what I perceive to be the scientific approach in avian systematics as contrasted to the birder's approach to this subject. I would only rate the men who first discovered the different species of orange-billed terns as ornithologists because their work was pioneering. Perhaps 100+ years from now, some, but not all, birders will be recognised as pioneering and their work used as scientific reference. At present we can only wait and see.

The proliferation of categories attached to some individuals actually detracts from the value of the category e.g. Bill Oddie is categorised as a British painter but I know of no gallery where he has ever exhibited any artistic offering. Interestingly, the attempt to replace this category with British Illustrators (see the discussion page under his article) seems to have ended up with him being both, when he is probably neither.John H, Morgan 08:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the details you left on my talk page are ideal for inclusion in the article. However, I would like to see additionally some indication that the research was done with first-hand scientific expertise. i. e details of field work, collaboration, institutional involvement, indeed anything that can highlight the position that this was original work and not simply drawing together, or inferences based on, the work of others. It's a pity it was published in a magazine, rather than a journal with more scientific cred and a referee panel.83.130.105.73 11:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible solution: "Cat: Birders by nationality". That would separate out those folks who are seen more as "birdwatchers" (I utterly despise that term) as opposed to scientifically trained ornithologists. You might also get some duplicates, as some self-proclaimed birders also ARE published scientists. Something to chew on, too -- the situation in the United States seems to be significantly different from the UK, as amateur birders are often called "field ornithologists" and "citizen ornithologists" (not just by fellow birders, but also by scientific institutions) and are encouraged to participate in large-scale nationwide projects such as the Christmas Bird Count and Great Backyard Bird Count. Perhaps the Audubon Society and the publication of books such as the Sibley Guide and Kingbird Highway have led to a more positive view of birders in mainstream media ... or perhaps the line between "serious ornithologist" and "birder" is more blurred in this area. Far less of a "clergy-layman" attitude here. Thoughts? -- Miwa 20:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Gantlett,Shirihai and Oddie

I did not understand the object of red links . Thanks for your explanation.

I'll be quite happy to see the ornithological cred of Steve G. when you have added it to the text. Perhaps you could then go on to add a few more missing British ornithologists to the list. There are a number missing - Derek Goodwin, Peter Colston, Robert Spencer are certainly more widely published than some (scientifically accredited) birders who I would see as more marginal ornithologists. Do Steve Gantlett et al. have any publications in, say, Ibis, Wilson Bulletin, even Bull.B.O.C., Bird Study or Ringing and Migration?

I hope I am making a point here. Birdwatching and twitching are regarded as a joke pastime by the media. If this (as seems to be the case currently) is taken as synonomous with ornithology it becomes difficult to convince Jo Public that ornithology is actually a scientific discipline, with all the bells and whistles that these words imply. Putting pure twitchers into the category is obviously OTT but there exists all shades of professionalism from thereon up.

How about if we create a new category that encompasses those whose ornithological studies are outside the area where scientific methods are required? I am thinking here of Bill Oddie. I don't know him as well as some, and I haven't seen him for some years, but I would guess that if I asked him,"Do you consider yourself an ornithologist" he might well give the same answer that he has already published in his "Little Black Bird Book". And as a British painter, or as a Britih Illustrator, I would expect that well-known, idiosyncratic laugh of his would rend the air. I'll add these thoughts to the discussion page of his biopic. Can you do a back up of the same? Maybe then we can make an edit that has already been proposed in the discussion, carried out, and apparently revertedJohn H, Morgan 08:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bill O. Can you add something to the painter discussion that already exists on his article.

I'll have to have a long think about category. It needs to be something that suggests a person between birder in the twitcher sense and a scientific ornithologist i.e. a birder in the recorder and surveyor sense. Probably I'll wake up one morning with the required word on my mind. That's usually the way it happens. Or I could thumb through Roget!

I see a definition of twitcher exists and I don't think a category would be in order - otherwise we could have categories for all kinds of hobbies and then find the entire world list of hobbyists - several million, I imagine - was stuffed into Wikipedia. The servers get to be unobtainable a bit too often already. John H, Morgan 07:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Since writing the above I've had a further thought. What about sub-categories under British ornithologists? I can see two or possibly three - Academic Os, Field Os and Birders/Twitchers. Each category comes with a header explaining what we identify as the differences between them, noting that the categories are not mutually exclusive and that e.g. some academic Os go twitching, or that Field Os can graduate to Ac.Os as they progress within the field of O. John H, Morgan 07:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll kick off the discussion at the top level as you suggest, and make reference to this on the other levels below. John H, Morgan 12:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Malplaced disambiguations

My subpage was just a temporary storage location. See the actual project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages for the rationale. Bo Lindbergh 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A place-name for your unusual places page

In case you are interested in adding to User:SP-KP/ToDo/salvage2 with the unusual place-names, might I suggest Braggadocio, Missouri? Every year when my wife and I drive through the southeastern corner of Missouri to visit her mother, we laugh at the name.

Also, Teec Nos Pos, Arizona.  :) -- Miwa 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Resub for FAC Chew Valley Lake

I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a Featured Article Candidate - would really appreciate your support. Rod 19:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ted Parker bio

Thanks for looking at Theodore A. Parker III. I've taken out two of the places you might have been thinking of as too gushy, so now I would appreciate you telling me any specific places where it can still be improved. —JerryFriedman 23:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Woodland and scrub communities in the British National Vegetation Classification system

Hello. I've posted a question or 2 for you at Talk:Woodland and scrub communities in the British National Vegetation Classification system. Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 09:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Albatross

I'm almost there. I am tinkering with the morphology section and split out the distribution at sea section. I am now trying to finish referencing, the last two species articles, and fill out some of the lighter sections - although quite frankly I am going to have to write separate articles on 'albatross dance', seabird exploitation' and 'seabirds and long-line fisheries' before I go back into the field.

Would you mind looking it over one more time to let me know what still needs major work. Where I have been able to I have done most of what you asked for in the peer review - I haven't inclusion of current threat statuses for each species would be a useful addition as it's covered in the individual pages (and I think it looks horribly cluttered on family pages) and How about brief descriptions of the morphological characters of each genus? - I don't even know where to begin with that and still make it concise and readable to the avarage punter. Sabine's Sunbird 11:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've thrown Albatross to the FAC wolves, I'd appreciate either your support or constructive critisism. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sparrow

Sorry, I overlooked your comment - I'll merge the two under sparrow jimfbleak 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

the article mentions American sparrows and hedge sparrow -are there any others to deal with?jimfbleak 16:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake FA & Bristol Resovoirs

Thanks for all your help in getting Chew Valley Lake to Featured Article Status (& adding the star to the top of the page). I also like your little box to link all of the Bristol Reservoirs - I must investigate how you did this as I'd like to do one for all the items linking the Chew Valley together.

I've been asked to write a piece for the Chew Valley Gazette on the Chew Valley Lake article as their April edition is going to be a special to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Queen's inauguration of the lake on 17th April 1956. I'd like to recognise your contribution to the article (& all the others to demonstrate collaborative nature of Wikipedia) but I don't even know your name (? Steve). Could you email me to discuss. Rod 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

re: California clapper rail cleanup tag

I'd have been more inclined to be "patient" if you hadn't used a blank edit summary and instead said something like "needs work, putting reasons on talk page now" or put the reasons down first and then put up the tag. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

where would you prefer this discussion to take place spkp? have you read the endangered species page yet? i dont understand your sense of priorities. there are hundreds of other biology articles with much more serious cleanup needs. the research in this article is thorough and well referenced. very difficult to understand your sense of impatience regards Anlace 20:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving disambiguation pages

Often, the " (disambiguation)" is superfluous, see Malplaced disambiguation pages. Thanks. --Commander Keane 06:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is reasoning on the talk page. Basically, this is an encyclopedia and uniformity is important to some people. It's a bit like the capitalisation rule for naming articles. It's not really essential (because redirects can still get people to the right place) , but we are an encyclopedia and thus uniform. --Commander Keane 06:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Least Tern

Thanks for the tip - I put in the Little Tern link too. jimfbleak 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sulawesi

Hi I finally got around to that Sulawesi map, I did it without the surrounding islands because I thought it should focus more on Sulawesi itself rather than Peleng etc -- Astrokey44|talk 06:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Dunnottar Castle

please respond to comments on Talk:Dunnottar Castle...the tag you placed indicates there are reasons for the tag on the article talk page, which is not the case...please respond to comments on that talk page where everyone can see them and where they belong...not on my talk page...have you been to this site and read its history??...sincerely Anlace 14:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Template

I'm happy with your revisions moving Blagdon into nearby villages etc but not sure about Folly Farm as "other locations". I like Woodland & Wetlands but note you have Litton Resovoirs in but I thought these were out of the valley by the true geographers definition? Rod 20:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment I will add in Litton resovoirs to the general Chew Valley page (when I get back from the next few days working in Yorkshire). As far as the template goes we could call it nature areas or something & add in Burledge hill etc so it's not so lonely? Rod 15:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

County flowers

Hi SP-KP - thanks for the note; I'd guess my first observation is why not combine the two pages? - the county flower page is very short (and I doubt much more could be added), and it wouldn't make the page too long just to put the list on it, rather than as a separate page. Otherwise, it's mainly going to be checking that links go to the right place (e.g. [[Heather]] leads to a disambig page; it needs editing to [[Calluna|Heather]] to go to the page about the plant). There are probably a few other similar cases, which I can check through for. Quite why Newcastle is in that list I don't know, as for flora recording purposes it is part of Northumberland, but that's a question for Plantlife, I guess! - MPF 22:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cats

Off the top of my head, User:Shyamal and User:JerryFriedman are regular contributors, jimfbleak 06:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)