Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

World Bird Names says Amazons...

OK folks,

World Bird Names calls all members of Amazona Amazons rather than Parrot, but still seems to consider "Conure" a nomina non grata for some reason....Anyone have any issue with me renaming all the species Amazons (as does Forshaw)? The AOU (a North American organisation) still calls them (South Amercian birds) "Parrots", and the IOC say they are listening to AOU argue for the changing of North American bird names.....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. Go for it. Why not make an executive decision and reinstate Conure as well. Cheers. Maias 13:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I say change it :) Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Change it. It helps distinguish different parrot types. Totnesmartin 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Conure is probably unliked because of its association with the pet trade. No reason not to use Amazon though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Another ID

Who am I?

I photographed this in mangroves near Morón, Cuba last month and can't identify it. I even went as far as producing the list of Cuban birds to try and narrow it down, but no luck. Sorry for the lack of scale, it was probably about 2 ft head to tail. Any ideas? Yomanganitalk 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is the time to admit that I've spent my entire life dodging the identification of immature Black-crowned Night-Herons and Yellow-crowned Night-Herons. Looking at pictures on the Web, I'm thinking this might be Yellow-crowned, but I don't really know. —JerryFriedman 16:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was little on the large size, but you could be right. Thanks. Yomanganitalk 23:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

What's all the carry on about creating redirects? Is there any need to create a redirect for Blackbird at blackbird? They both link to the same article do they not? Richard001 03:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Grenada Dove

This page is getting a lot of edits (mostly from anon IPs) due to the ongoing conservation/development battle in Grenada regarding the selling of a reserve to create a resort. I suspect it'll need some cleaning and bias factchecking. I'll have a go at this later but would appreciate other eyes to watch it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done some tidying but have left the content largely untouched so far. I agree that the conservation section needs work. Maias 05:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Raven or crow?

A Raven scavenges a small dead shark in Kumamoto, Japan.

Any ideas? It was put into Common Raven but questioned. It seems kind of slight to me, but the bill is thick enough. Anyone have a bird book of Japan? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: After discussion on Talk:Common Raven, there seems to be consensus that this is a Jungle Crow. Kla'quot 02:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Images and Photos on commons

I can see that many of you have uploaded a number of photos. I am currently working mostly on wikispecies and trying to fill out the bird section. If you add new bird photos would you be willing to put them on commons so that we can link to them from wikispecies? Thanks so much Open2universe 00:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles needing attention

Microformat

Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nominee Kereru

Hi, I've listed Kereru as a GA nominee, so if you haven't contributed please feel free to rip into it...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bird vocalization

Bird song may be a little restrictive and perhaps we could incorporate a few other topics if the article was instead termed Bird vocalization. This would include things like call mimicry, call semantics, acoustic niches, behavioural isolation and the use of vocalization in systematics etcetera. Comments please. Shyamal 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor. —JerryFriedman 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe bird call? Anyway, why is it suddenly fashionable to put messages here instead of the talk page? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like there are many who are interested in birds who are on the project page, but who do not keep many bird pages on their watch list ! The response is definitely better here than on article talk pages. Similar even on WP:TOL. Shyamal 01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
No I mean why is it on the project page rather than the project talk page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It must be the signatures. I guess there should be no content on the project page with signed sections. I fell for that too. Now moved here. Shyamal 03:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Have done a work over on Bird song, needs some restructuring and copy-edits. The number of links to Bird song are daunting, so have not considered the move to Bird vocalization yet, but the current content deserves the new title. Can also do with some examples of bird calls (media files) and their corresponding spectrograms. I do not have good open source calls to do this, but can generate the sonograms if someone can point me to good media that exemplify whistles, buzzes, alarm calls and some complex song etc. Shyamal 10:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ornithology

This article has remarkably stayed unimproved for a long long time. While bird covers the facts, this article should cover the fact-finding. This could presumably have more on history, field and laboratory techniques. The article could outline and link to other main articles matter including

  • Museum techniques - collection history - eggs, skins, freeze-drying, DNA
    • morphometrics, moult (I am up for illustrating this part)
  • The historic role of birds in the development of the concepts of species, geographical isolation etc.

and species.

  • Field techniques
    • ringing, colour marking
    • population estimation techniques
    • behaviour, territoriality, calls
    • migration studies
  • Laboratory techniques
    • endocrinology (?)
    • flight studies
    • pathology
  • Conservation approaches
    • in-situ
    • ex-situ

Shyamal 06:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and add population monitoring to field techniques (and long term life history data collection) and genetic studies to labe techniques. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Fleshed out the article. Please do go over it. It needs more illustration and citations. There is an ugly list of organizations and journals that needs to be somehow dealt with in a better way. Shyamal 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tinkle, tinkle…

I'm having problems with Tinkling Cisticola.

SASOL, Roberts & ITIS have these species

  • Levaillant's Cisticola, Cisticola tinniens eastern southern Africa, reedbeds, sedges, rank grass, and similar wet habitats
  • Tinkling Cisticola, Cisticola rufilatus, central southern African savannah

whereas Birdlife international, Avibase & HBW have

  • Tinkling Cisticola, Cisticola tinniens
  • Grey Cisticola, Cisticola rufilatus

Tinkling Cisticola therefore appears to refer to two different species. I can’t see any obvious evidence that the confusion arises from a taxonomic split, so I’m a bit baffled. At present, I’ve written the one I’ve seen, Levaillant's Cisticola, and created Tinkling Cisticola as a disambiguation page with Grey Cisticola red-linked. Any alternative suggestions or clarification would be welcome. jimfbleak 09:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Zimmerman, Turner, and Person, Birds of Kenya and Northern Tanzania, has tinniens as Levaillant's Cisticola, if that helps. It doesn't include rufilatus or anything called "Tinkling". I don't see any better way to handle it than what you've done. —JerryFriedman 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that that rufilatus wouldn't occur in Kenya anyway, it's more central southern Africa. Thanks anyway, Jerry, I'll leave as it is by default, jimfbleak 15:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

redirect pages' talk pages

A lot of redirect pages' talk pages have the BirdTalk box. Is this OK? Dixonsej16:24 13 May 2007

I can't imagine any reason for it, but it wouldn't be my top priority to fix, either. —JerryFriedman 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New species

Gorgeted Puffleg. Critically endangered too. At least we discovered it before it went extinct. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If we don't get a fix on the original description ref from the Web, I'll be stopping by at Weller's (one of the describers) lab this summer and check it out. Dysmorodrepanis 15:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization conventions

Why does the chart say to make a redirect from blackbird to Blackbird? Redirects from lowercase single words to uppercase single words are technically impossible, because the Wiki software automatically redirects anyway. Try clicking on blackbird and reading the URL.

And why should the convention be to make everything uppercase? I don't think the rationale of avoiding confusion with common terms to be that compelling. Take Bald Eagle, which is mentioned here, as an example. Nearly all the articles it links have it as "bald eagle." Within the article itself, there are several lowercase instances, showing how confusing this rule is to editors. Is this really a "convention of ornithology"? A quick Google Scholar search shows that scientific (presumably ornithological) journals all have it as lowercase. --JianLi 04:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The convention is followed by many of the big ornithological journals, the Auk for example, the Ibis, the Emu, the Condor, as well as the Handbook of the Birds of the World, the Birds of the World: Recommended English Names, and most modern field guides and the majority of family and species monographs. As for Bald Eagle, it should be uppercase throughout. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Avibase lists

Avibase has lists of birds for all the world's countries, which is a good starting point for generating articles of the "list of birds of..." variety. User:Yomangani has generated dozens of these semi-automatically. However, these lists are unreliable (eg African Reed Warbler on the Luxembourg list.

Avibase uses US nomenclature and style eg Common Loon, African Reed-Warbler throughout the world. If I grit my teeth, I can live with that, except that the American names often refer to different subspecies or even species. For example Black Scoter appears on all the European country lists except those I produced, but Common Scoter doesn't.

Yomagani said he would produce a bot to fix at least the name problems, but hasn't done so. I lack the skills to do that and I'm disinclined to go through all the lists by hand. Any ideas? jimfbleak 07:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nestling

I made nestling, a re-direct to chick. Is there a better target? Andy Mabbett 14:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, both nestling and chick take you to the Chick disambiguation page. Seems like there should be a better target than that! MeegsC | Talk 14:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Birds Wiki

Hi everyone! I just found out that there is a separate wiki called Birds Wiki at http://birds.wikia.com/. It is an encyclopedia that aims to provide a better understanding of birds. Currently, I am the only person that is writing articles for it, and I would like some help. If anyone would like to join this wiki, just go to the site and start editing. You can go to my talk page on Birds Wiki and tell me if you want to help with it if you would like (optional). Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia, but now let's go and create an encyclopedia specifically about birds! ~ ɸSwannieɸ 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why would anyone spend time writing/editing about birds on wikia.com? Wikipedia already HAS a substantial "encyclopedia that aims to provide a better understanding of birds" ...and without any ads. Fredwerner 04:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Paleognathae

The taxonomy part really needs cleanup. Shyamal 04:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No doubt about that. I think the best way might be to have the ratite taxonomic discussion at Paleognathae. Too bad I don't know enough to do it. —JerryFriedman 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Raven FAC

Stopping by from WP:DINO to say good luck on your FAC! May both of our Projects one day have as many featured articles as the freakin Hurricane Project!! Heh. Sheep81 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Flight feathers

I've created a new article called flight feathers, and would like to suggest a redirect of Remiges/Rectrices/Pinion (feather) and THEIR associated redirects, as the new article will give the reader a far more thorough coverage of the subject. Any objections? MeegsC | Talk 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

looks good to me, jimfbleak 18:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree to all the redirects that are covered in the article.Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I've been messing around with some of the citations possibilities available on Wikipedia, and I'm wondering if we might want to switch to the HARVARD citation method rather than cite book etc. The reason I suggest this is that MUCH less information needs to go into the article itself, making it far less of a hassle to edit a well-referenced piece. Basically, you just put < ref> {{Harvnb|LastNameAuthor1|PublicationYear|p=pagenumber}}</ref > The only information you MUST enter is the author's last name and the year of the publication. You can still put ref name = "whatever" if you're going to refer to the same article more than once, and you can list up to four author names. So, for instance <ref name= "Raptors"> {{Harvnb|Ferguson-Lees|Christie|2001|p=23}}</ref>. (This would yield Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001, p. 23.) You can use the same <reflist|3}} template we're using now to create a Citations section, then add a Reference section with the expanded information that we're currently pasting into the article itself. You can still jump back and forth between the article and citations section like you can with cite book, and can also jump from Citations down to the reference section. (See the new Flight Feathers article if you want to see how it works -- but please be aware that I haven't put all the citations into the reference section yet, so a few may not work.) The only problem I see so far is that you can't easily indicate authors for something like HBW, which has many authors each contributing single chapters -- but then, we don't individually identify them now either, so I guess it's not really a problem! Food for thought... MeegsC | Talk 23:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to see the Harvard script/template straightened out. I tend to use unanchored Harvard refs, but would like to use anchored ones. But WP:NOTPAPER, and therefore the template must be far more flexible and compact. Perhaps, I thought, the best thing would be a very simple anchor tag, and formatting the ref itself entirely templateless. It would, arguably, serve things better than any one template could. Dysmorodrepanis 21:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

I'd like to get some clarification on the policy on capital letters. These edits of mine were reverted and this policy was cited as giving an explanation as to why capitalization is the right thing here. I understand the policy to cover article titles, not the body - the first article I check, Kingfisher, includes sentences like "The kingfishers were traditionally treated as one family", with a lower-case "k". I don't want to get into a revert war, so any guidance people can offer would be gratefully received — ciphergoth 14:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the bird project page and you refer to a cat page, so I suggest seeking specific policies with regards to mammals there, but I believe that they follow our convention of capitalising the common names of species (Ocelot, Madagascar Kingfisher) but the common names of groups, families and orders are uncapitalised (cats, kingfishers, passerines). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, FWIW the edits you made were entirely along bird SOP. HBW uses it so I guess HMW would use it too. Dysmorodrepanis 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to contest your project's insistence on capital names for species. WP:MoS#Animals,_plants,_and_other_organisms says: "Common (vernacular) names have been a hotly debated topic, and it is unresolved whether the common names of species start with a capital. As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable (except for proper names)." Please change your guidelines or change the Manual of Style to make them consistent with each other. -Pgan002 03:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) has it that Insofar as there is any consensus among Wikipedia editors about capitalization of common names of species, it is that each WikiProject can decide on its own rules for capitalization. It is worth pointing out that while ornithology articles use capitalisation, we don't impose that standard on other articles (for example contrast Nightingale with Ode to a Nightingale). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. I editted the Manual of Style to accurately reflect that standard from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Fredwerner 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I thought I was being bold, and doing everyone here a favor by replying to Pgan002, and editing the MoS on Capitalization of bird names as he suggested. But I may have just opened a small can of worms. Check out the current MoS, and tweak it as needed. Also check the talk page for a bit of the back and forth on this, and clarify or add links to places where this has already been discussed at length. Fredwerner 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been talking on the page and have suggested reverting your change Fred. We don't need to change the MOS so long as we can quote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), it was upsetting too many peeps. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

American v. British preference?

I'm relatively new to this discussion, but I wonder if the preference for "Bald Eagle" is a British convention v. an American convention, given that editors who prefer "Bald Eagle" tend to use the English version of "capitalization." Are there Americans out there who favor "Bald Eagle." On this side of the pond (i.e. the American side), "Bald Eagle" seems quite an unconventional affectation. Andrew73 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

They are both conventional in ornithology (I've worked in the US lots for the USFWS and private charities and they use the capitalisation too. Sibley Guide to Birds (definitive bird guide in the US) uses it also, as does the AOU. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As do Peterson and all the other American field guides I've seen, and I capitaliZe too.  :-) Of course the real reason to capitalize is not who does and doesn't use it—see, or don't see, my contributions and others' to that question elsewhere on this page—but the reason stated on the project page: that when you're writing a lot about birds, you need to be able to distinguish between "Mexican jays" (all 18 jay species native to Mexico) and "Mexican Jays" (Aphelocoma ultramarina), for example. —JerryFriedman 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info that both Brits and Americans capitalize! Andrew73 00:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Collaboration of the Month is...

Bird migration. A hard one, so later on we'll need to do some planning and lists of what needs doing to the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo!

Way to go, Common Raven collaboration team!! I see it's been awarded FA status -- and deservedly so. Well done everybody! MeegsC | Talk 10:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Making long citation lists nicer

Hey, I just found the long-lost template I needed! You may have noted that I, like some other folks, resorted to bolding to make the authors more "visible" in long references lists. But this is awkward. This sweet piece of markup:

{{aut| }}

will turn everything behind the | into small caps, as most scientific journals' reference lists do. It is a good piece of code, works like a charm in < ref > footnotes too and can handle internal links, for example if you want to cite something by Sibley & Ahlquist. This is the tool to make reference lists easier to browse and more professional-looking!
It does not work in cite templates, obviously, but small caps could simply be implemented there (if people would stop for once trying to build the megalomaniac uber cite template and do something that is usable IRL for a change ;-) ) Dysmorodrepanis 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

image placement

So, I'm engaged in a (trivial) argument over at African Finfoot about the placement of the image. Another user has placed it outside and above the taxobox rather than in it. As far as I've been aware the image should go in the taxobox or somewhere else, not above it. So, like, thoughts are appreciated. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Placement of images in or out of taxoboxes

There are no rules about this, but the concensus, as far as I can tell from the majority of bird and animal articles that exist on Wikipedia, is that if there is one image it goes inside the taxobox. One editor currently disagrees and is adding multiple (very attractive) images outside the taxoboxes along with a edit summary stating Image added - please do not place it in taxobox!!. So I was wondering what people thought and how we should deal with this? We need some kind of consensus. Personally I think they look better in the taxoboxes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm the editor who doesn't like images in infoboxes. To start with, I think infoboxes are unaesthetic, carry information that can be shown neatly without the awful box's being there and certainly don't need to be plonked in the top right corner where their warts and pimples can be clearly seen by all. Images, on the other hand, can decidedly improve the appearance of an article and can carry a tremendous amount of information that can be taken in at a glance, provided the image is at a scale where a microscope isn't needed - and that is what happens when it's shoe-horned into an infobox. I had a long fight with territorial editors at Jonty Rhodes about this, but the situation became tense and abusive (from both sides), so I backed down. However, the reasons for disliking small images, remain. As Sabine points out, there are no rigid rules about the inclusion of images in infoboxes (perhaps because it was thought that each case should be treated on its own merits, rather than having a rigid rule). To me the layout of a page is pretty important - the placing and size of images and headings can make or break an article. To mention just one aspect which is frequently ignored - the placing of an image where the subject is definitely looking left or right - if the subject looks out of the article, the image appears awkward. WP recognises this and gives a guideline at MoS/Biographies/Images, but few editors seem to be aware or care about this and yet the reasoning applies just as much to bird images. (See William-Adolphe_Bouguereau) Paul venter 03:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The comparison of infoboxes on biographical articles and taxoboxes is unfortunate. Your dislike of infoboxes is understandable since reducing information about people to a structured form is usually meaningless. The situation with taxoboxes is quite different. It is useful to be navigate to the genus and look at sister species and so on along well established taxonomic structural norms (since Linnaeus). It is always useful to know geographic range and appearance of the organism and this is why the provision for the image addition to the taxobox exists. If there is any problem with the taxobox formatting, then it would be good to discuss it at Template:taxobox. The size of the thumbnail image is probably settable somewhere (?), but in the case of the image of the African Finfoot -they appear to be of the same size both in and outside of the taxobox. cheers. Shyamal 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You've discussed a lot of points, Paul, and I'm going to try to address them individually.
  • You don't like infoboxes and taxoboxes in general. However, this really is a consensus, and I agree with it because readers who want that information know just where to look for what, and others can skip it easily. If you have ideas on how to make the boxes look better to you and maybe to others, I agree with Shyamal that Template talk:Taxobox is the place. (They look fine to me as they are.)
  • You don't like pictures in those boxes. I have to say that I think the pictures look great in the boxes, with no white space around them (unlike the picture of Jonty Rhodes). I'd definitely support a standard that there should be a picture in the taxobox as long as one is available.
    • In particular, you don't like putting pictures in the boxes because they get too small. Here again I agree with Shyamal is right—of the few bird images you posted that I looked at, all were the same size as the usual taxobox image. In any case, I don't think this is a big deal, since users can see a bigger version of the image (often too big to put in the article) just by clicking.
  • Layout is crucial to you. I must admit that it isn't very important to me, as long as it's easily readable. But you've got a real problem if you feel that way about Wikipedia, since people read it in windows of different sizes and thus in different layouts.
  • Images should not face out of the page. I mildly agree with you, and I think I reflected one of my few bird photos so it would face left. People might want to think about this where it applies. (On the other hand, I think that if I were looking at a lot of bird articles and noticed that all the images faced into the articles, I'd start to long for one that didn't.)
Them's my sentiments. —JerryFriedman 05:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
On a project, it's important to have a consistency of presentation, and I think that Paul has accepted that to the extent that images are not now being placed above the taxobox. I've also noted that some of the images are the same size inside and out of the the taxobox, and although this is subjective, I think if it is the only image it looks better in the taxobox than out.
Even if the image is larger out, it's only a one-click action to see the full-sized version. It is quite clearly standard practice that if there is one image, it goes in the taxobox. I've not pushed this myself (too many other issues on my plate) but I'm sure Shyamal is right on this.
I think we all appreciate what Paul is doing, especially for article where the prospect of a good photo seem remote, but, Paul, please bear WP:OWN in mind,and be prepared to accept a consensus even if it may not be what you want. jimfbleak 05:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It never occurred to me that an image facing out of the page was wrong, but surely that is easy to rectify in any image editing software (so long as the bird isn't sitting on a sign). And I'd also like to express my gratitude to Paul for finding so many great images. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's nice to know so many editors are concerned about the issues that have been raised, and I appreciate the brickbats and bouquets. Firstly, I'm not against infoboxes (or their subset taxoboxes), and I agree that they are useful for finding one's way around - what I don't like is their appearance and positioning. (It seems that some people actually are fond of their angular appearance and day-glow colours!) I do think that their original purpose was INFORMATION and not a vehicle for images. To address a point raised above that an image placed inside or outside the taxobox appears the same size, would depend critically on one's settings. The appearance of a page is NOT set in stone so that it appears the same to all browsers. If you click on "preferences" at the top of the page and then go to "files" you'll find that you can set the size at which you view thumbnails. Now unfortunately this feature only works if a size has NOT been set in the coding of the article, so that images that have been placed inside an infobox (see Monteiro's Hornbill which has been set at 250px) stay small, no matter what preferences you have set for your browser. As for only clicking once to see a big version of the image, not all of us are blessed with extreme bandwidth and why toggle between a decent-sized image and the text when you really can have it all on one page?. The ownership issue raised by jimfbleak is something which can take up volumes in discussion if one looks into all its ramifications. Cheers Paul venter 07:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The last point is a good one - not that I've ever been proprietorial about my any articles -perish the thought!. jimfbleak 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)