User talk:Chiswick Chap/talkArchive2013

The Template

I saw your edit summary; and I don't disagree, I think those first groups need collecting together under one heading. I put camouflage together on the basis of organising by "topics", and we appeared to have lots of camo units in play. But I am happy with anything you think is more appropriate. One thing I don't think works if calling the others "intelligence" units as they weren't really classed that way; for example Ops (B) (within a US-based system) fell under G-3 (operations) rather than G-2 (intelligence). The LCS was outside the establishment and 'A' Force was, umm, a force unto itself :D I've always thought of them under the general heading of "planning". Thoughts? --Errant ^(chat!) 09:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. I suppose by their very nature - secrecy, temporary wartime nature, ad hoc put together to meet sudden need, individualism - these things rather defy classification. Not exactly INT, no; not exactly MIL, even, though of course many were. Ops means little to most people.

How about "Deception Planning"? - true, descriptive, and "Planning" ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I've been a bit tied up the last few days. I've tweaked the template a bit based on our discussion - see what you think. I'm easy if you think a different format would be better. Also, military camouflage looks great, good look with the good article review. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, that looks much nicer! It shows what a wide swathe of operations, organisations and people were involved in deception, too. Great stuff. Thanks for encouragement about Mil Cam, it's taking its time but I live in hope! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Camofleurs

Hey CC (if you pardon it, I'm usually these days referred to as TRM, so I kind of get used to it), first off, thanks for your nomination which was inspiringly interesting and very much different from most of the lists we have at FLC. It's hard sometimes to shine amongst streams of discographies and lists of cricketers and as soon as I saw your list, my interest was piqued. But the biggest issue, the most obvious one, was that I had no idea what a "camofleur" was. So naturally I checked Wikipedia for the article on Camofleur just to be disappointed. As I think I tried to describe, I would find it strange to see a "List of X" if no "X" article existed. Indeed, I've seen several "List of X" articles transform into "X" during an FLC, they can stay as lists if that's the format required. An example of a list which encapsulates the entire subject (one of mine) is Dickin Medal. The entire subject is quite small, and dealt with in the lead, the award winners then in the list following. You can do that or move to write a lengthier explanation as to what a camofleur is and use the list as a spin-off standalone list accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi TRM, thanks for explaining. (And CC is just fine.) Do you mean that if I write a chunk in the lead explaining what a camoufleur is, that I can resubmit the list? A full article on camoufleur is possible but as you may imagine it's a project and a half. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for History of British Birds

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work keeping DYK on the road. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Mystery ship revert explanation

I saw you reverted my "good faith" edit as you put it...I just reverted your revert, and wanted to explain why so that you wouldn't take it as a revert war...The "Mystery Ship" is a very famous series of race planes from the late 1920s and 1930s, and is a natural search term for aviation researchers, but that term redirects to the Q-ship, which will then mask for the viewers that there is an article in WP on the airplane. At the top of the Q-ship article, there is already a disambig statement about the redirection of the term "mystery ship" at the top of the article, so it's a natural place to put a note for people looking for the airplane. As to your comment when you redirected that the airplane article doesn't mention Q-ship, that's irrelevent...what is relevant is that people looking for a famous airplane are directed to a ship article and, if you leave it your way, then have no where else to go. 157.127.124.15 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry, you're of course absolutely right. Many apologies. Thanks for the explanation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Military camouflage

Hello, In case you haven't seen it, I've posted a review of this GA nomination at: Talk:Military camouflage/GA1. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, no, I hadn't - it hasn't transcluded itself properly onto the talk page, and must have missed it in my watchlist. Have replied to the talk page queries... and will do yours asap today. Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Noël Paymal Lerebours

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Progress on WP:Snuggle and work log

I've been making some progress on Snuggle development recently and I could use your feedback. Specifically, I've created a work log that I plan to update every time I get a chance to work on Snuggle. My intention is that you'll be able to watch that page to track my progress so I can get your feedback on features when they are early in development. The most recent entry (also the only entry) discusses new functionality for interacting with newcomers via Snuggle. I posted some mockups in the work log that show how I imagine the new features to work and I could use some feedback before I start writing the code. Thanks! --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for History of British Birds (1843)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Thompson (engraver)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Dassault Rafale/ArchiveTo2012

Did you mean to do that? the latest threads were very recent and might be usefully kept for a while. And they were in fact after 2012. Or is not not possible to improve GAs? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mm, yes, I think so, though it could've been named better. Generally assume that we've swept up earlier discussions. If you want to restore any 2013 comments then go ahead. Of course GAs can be improved, FA beckons. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Phyllotactic Architecture

Hi, because of a very confused barrage of material on my talk page, I've taken the liberty of reverting an edit that you made on Talk:Phyllotaxis. You were removing spam, but as far as I can see, this may be the only way to persuade this user to stop accusing other people of permanently deleting material. Sorry about that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, he's been a right pain. If I can do anything to help, do let me know. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cleveland Ironstone Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pecten (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Water filtration article

Hi Chiswick Chap. Yes, the deleted citations were spammed into the article. Citations from books from the same publisher (Caister/Horizon Press) have been spammed into a number of science articles in Wikipedia, and I have been removing them whenever I run across them. For the article in question, I chose to retain the CV-source since that is what the content of the section was based on when the section was first created. CV is no longer an issue for this section because the content has been reworded. CatPath (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Natural history

I completely understand your concern about citations, but my edit was within the respective policy, which specifically says that it is not necessary to put a bookmark on each and every phrase (imagine how the text would look like; and there are examples of such texts where the issue is hotly debatable and every phrase must be indeed supported), if it is reasonably verifiable. In patricular, my addition is verifiable, since the artile "parson-naturalist" has adequate references (I copied it for your "cn"). Or do you have specific objections to the statement? Then you hav to discuss them in article talk page. - Altenmann >t 19:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

By far the best way of showing that a statement is verifiable is to provide it with a citation: so, thank you for adding it. I agree that minor statements of a more or less obvious kind need not be cited; but a stand-alone sentence (its own paragraph) on a distinct topic is certainly something that needs citing. And it doesn't matter how well cited some other article is, as these things are not inherited. (By your logic, a reader of an uncited article would possibly have to follow long chains of bluelinks to find the original and valid sources ... if they had been supplied anywhere.) As it happens I've read my parson Woodforde, but the last thing we want to encourage is uncited addition. Why, people might start adding any kind of nonsense to the encyclopedia............. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Makes sense. - Altenmann >t 15:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Camouflage FAC

I've replied on my talk page. DexDor (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Legg

Since you commented, I have tweaked my nomination to add one plus point: it occurred to me to search Wikipedia for his name, and he is mentioned in a considerable number of existing articles. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, it does seem he has a presence, and it ought to be possible to put something together on him. Whether it's actually properly documented on the web is another matter, of course. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Procellariiformes

I hadn't looked at this article in a long time. My initial inclination is, unfortunately, to speedy close the non. But maybe not. For the most part the article is there, although I notice two separate paragraphs of the morphology section deal with stomach oil. But I never wrote the section on diet and foraging, and that needs to be there. Taxonomy needs a rework, as it is rather incomplete. In fact it was taxonomy that made me put it aside, given the potential split of the storm petrels and the lumping of the diving petrels. I'm leery of committing to writing the feeding section within a short timeframe in case I can't, but I can at least make an effort without any promises. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that good, eh? Well, at least I can assure you I'm very happy to help - since I've already invested too much time on the project, I may as well waste some more.... delighted you are around, too. I think it's worth a go - we can only improve the article (and the encyclopedia), and very likely we will receive detailed comments from the reviewer, which in many cases I expect I'll be able to action, leaving you to do any new technical drafting. I'll merge the stomach oil mentions now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, okay. I'll read up, most of what I need is actually covered in the other articles anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Was it from Brooke? Uh, probably. I suspect more up to date info would be available on Birdlife International. As for contributing, it'll be harder during the week. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've had a go via what I could find on the web and will see if I can hold the fort during the week. In the real world news, the NZ Petrel's breeding colony has just been discovered! A real-time update during a GA... it does happen. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chiswick Chap. You have new messages at Talk:Hartebeest.
Message added 21:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review John Fraser

Thanks for doing the review, and sorry I'm late in responding. I've been back-to-back tied up this last week or so, but plan on working on this tomorrow evening, or thereabouts. Please know I'm grateful for the time you spent and have not forgotten my responsibilities. Cheers! — Sctechlaw (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

But we do need to make a start on this soon now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The GA has been closed by the admin. I'll happily review it again when you're ready. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Procellariiformes

Good job. If you feel like taking it to FAC it will need a hell of a lot more work though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nowhere near ready for FAC, but if you feel like improving the feeding section and the fossils a bit in the meantime, that would be much appreciated! I was wondering about putting in a box with a few lines from the Ancient Mariner, and Yarrell has a nice quote from MacGillivray, too. All the best, and while I'm here, if you need a semi-skilled hand on other bird articles, just ask! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Lightning page revisions

Hello, I see you had interest in this page recently, so I wanted to invite you to take part in the major overhaul I have been working on. Thanks for your interest. Borealdreams (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Chiswick Chap. I see you were asked last year, but I thought it would be worth asking again - how would you feel about running for adminship? I think you would pass RfA easily, and I can write you a nomination if you like. Let me know what you are interested. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I second this. I was very surprised to see that you're not already an admin. Wizardman 04:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

From the lack of any response, can I assume you're not interested? I think you would make a fine admin, but if you don't want to go through the RfA process I quite understand. Or does this deafening silence mean that you're considering the offer? :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the inquiries. I have indeed thought about it, and am of course flattered to be invited so warmly. I think at the moment I will stay as a content editor. I appreciate the urgent need for administrators and it may well be that there will come a time when I feel I should devote energy in that direction. I hope this isn't too disappointing. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, and as I said, I quite understand. If you did get the tools, though, it wouldn't mean that you would have to change your content editing, and I don't think you should, either. If you passed an RfA, it would be perfectly fine to go on editing as you have been doing, and to only use the tools if you happen to need them. My philosophy is summed up pretty well by WP:NONEED: "If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose." But anyway, my opinion is neither here nor there. If you ever change your mind in the future, just let me know and I will write you a nomination statement that will convince even the most hardened RfA sceptics. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Leonard Blomefield

I think I have updated the citations - could you have a look and see what you think? Also I have created a page for naturalist Robert MacAndrews, in my sandbox - how do I go about getting it approved? I am new to this and any help would be great! EllieBywater (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting Robert MacAndrew out! I am still on a learning curve here, your help is much appreciated EllieBywater (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, it only took a moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Cambridge University Museum of Zoology

I have a 'copyright violation' message on this article - I have been updating it, with material from the website - I work at the museum, and there is no problem with using it. Should I change the language? I wasn't aware it was promotional, which is why I have linked and cited it as best I can. Advice would be gratefully received. EllieBywater (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I see, I was wondering. I'm just going through the article now, removing anything which is copied or closely paraphrased. I am afraid that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and the fact that the museum says it doesn't mind, or that you work there, does not change the fact that copyright is being breached. The museum would have to publish the text under a free license like CC-BY-SA 3.0 - you can see a message about that at the bottom of any Wikipedia screen you are editing - and then it would be all right to use it. I'd be delighted if you could remove anything that you've added that falls foul of this. Thanks - and I know it must be a shock, but the person who tagged the article and your page was correct. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, thank you for following up on this. I've got to run errands now, but I appreciate your help in cleaning up the article and explaining the guidelines. Very best, 99.136.255.134 (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the advice, you live and learn! I will do my best to find out about CC licenses for images. Hopefully all the other pages I've linked to the museum collections will still be OK - none of them seems to me to be promotional? Thanks for all your help EllieBywater (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure... please check the other pages, given what you now know. If you've just linked to something, that should be fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just put thing like "specimens/papers/archives from XX's collection can be found in the Cambridge Museum of Zoology archives", which I hope is OK. I am creating a page for Francis Rex Parrington in my sandbox - if you have time, could you have a gander and see if it is up to scratch? A bit worried now I'm in over my head with this Wikipedia lark! EllieBywater (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, should be fine. It would be nice to put the source (just once) at the bottom (you can put a heading for Sources or Bibliography or whatever) and then all you need to put in each ref is <ref>Charig, 1990. p. 360</ref> and it'll be a lot simpler! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for the fine work. Parenthetically, I'm not impressed that Ellie didn't make an effort to clean up after herself. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We do our best. She's only just beginning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(Musing, and no response required) I know. But I write for pleasure as well as compensation, and it's not possible to confuse the act of writing with that of copying and pasting; only one is gratifying. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Given I've had one 2 hour workshop at the British Library about writing for Wikipedia, I can't expect to get it all right first time. I am a learner, and doing my best to get it right, and write some useful stuff here. Whether you are impressed or not about 'cleaning up after myself' is by-the-by. Attitudes like that - which I find hostile to say the least - is not the way to encourage more people to contribute their scarce time and resources. I was told the Wiki community was supportive... I have appreciated all of Chiswick Chap's support and kindness in helping me and will try very hard not to make any beginners mistakes again. EllieBywater (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ellie. We try to help, and there are many supportive frameworks here. Of course we all get snarky from time to time when we're short of a cup of tea and a biscuit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think EllieBywater is in a very strong position to take umbrage. Not only didn't she exercise due diligence by offering to revert edits at the museum of zoology article, she subsequently hasn't been forthcoming about having added copied text to the balance of articles she's worked on, some of which Chiswick Chap generously helped with (Chiswick Chap, if you want diffs I can supply a few, but they're numerous and can be readily found by Googling large passages that EllieBywater added to the articles she edited). Much of the content in these articles that refers to the museum was copied from its website, a smaller amount from jstor articles. As far as using newness to Wikipedia as an excuse: in which academic realm is copying and reprinting content verbatim acceptable scholarship, that one thought it would be okay here? What remains is the timesink for other editors to winnow through these edits to remove the violations. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Bolckow, Vaughan

Are you about to create an article on Witton Park Ironworks? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your message! I'm into railways, and just happened to stumble across it - but it would seem worthy of its own article. I have put in a redirect at present to the Witton Park Colliery article, and if I can collect enough information (quick search didn't show much more than is there at present; probably have to get to the books to do it justice), then conclude that yes it would be worth expanding. Are you working on one? Hope that helps - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! No, I've moved on from my Bolckow Vaughan, Lowthian Bell and Robinson Thwaites phase ... waist deep in long books of natural history at the moment! But curious to see how it progresses. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hi, I've begun discussion re: EllieBywater's editing at the ANI noticeboard [1]. Thank you, 99.136.255.134 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Bird migration

I saw your message on the talk page. I don't know how much time I can give to this since I currently have two FACs, a GAN and another collaboration on the go, but I'll at least try to fix or remove some of the uncited text as and when I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Super, at least there'll be two of us (some of the time). Look forward to working with you. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis Rex Parrington

Hi, I have (I hope) got the Francis Rex Parrington article sorted in my sandbox, but I can't work out how to do the referencing for the best. A lot of it is from the same source, but different page refs. Do you think a 'notes' section be best under these circumstances? Thanks for your help EllieBywater (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've done the first ref there for you, having put the citation into a bibliog section, where you can add the other sources and then call them out with brief inline refs. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah that makes it all very clear, thank you! EllieBywater (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Francis Rex is ready - would you be kind enough to have a look and check you are happy with it all when you have a minute? Many thanks EllieBywater (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks OK; one small thing, the refs should be immediately after the punctuation i.e. ".<ref>..." not "</ref>." nor ". ref"... You don't want me to check for copyvios again? — As long as it's your own words it will be fine. 08:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I will just go through and move the punctuation, and then if you could give it a once over, and diagnosis, that'd be grand. I have used all my own words! EllieBywater (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I have got it finalised!EllieBywater (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

West Coast Tas

The various issues are something I have a very large archive of. If you want an off wiki conversation I can elaborate, otherwise I must say that the intricacies of the politics of the era are something still played out in Tassie today (I lived there in the past) - those of us who have had intricate experiences of the area and the era are starting to die off (notably Helen Gee last year)... so its your call, it would be a bit of a haul, but amongst the material are the various bits and pieces. I have no idea of your knowledge of the locations or the era, but if you are interested I can elaborate further. sats 08:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is about the Franklin Dam? I have no personal knowledge of the controversy, but would like to see the article strengthened with reliable references before the facts are forgotten. I did my best last year to clean up the article, reinstated an image by writing a fair-use rationale, and I think managed to add one reference: if you can add one or two more (or even a few more facts, with refs) that would be really good. I doubt it's worth scraping about too far among the bits and pieces if that means trying to rely on flaky evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha - flaky evidence, I like it - the thing was the long term issues in Australian and Tasmanian politics that grew from the issue are insufficiently expanded upon in the article... the complexities in Tasmanian and Australian internal politics are hardly anywhere near explained adequately. It (the Franklin issue) is something that has had numerous books and articles written about all the issues. The big problem with writing a good encyclopediac article on something like this is to have sufficient local knowledge and the very hard to find WP:RS, to be able to tweak the nuances. I think it is well worth scraping around - even more so considering the lack of articles that expand adequately the complexities of something that doesnt really exist (it reminds me of the interpretation material of the mound of ground that once was Roxburgh Castle in the Kelso library in the borders - the castle was a very pivotal location - similarly the never built Franklin dam has the same importance that Roxburgh castle was...) sats 09:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well yes. It sounds to me as though you could add a short paragraph or two from the sources you mention, greatly strengthening the article. (There are plenty of articles on things that don't really exist - try epistemology for starters!). All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hahha - Early modern Scotland surely is an interesting parallel in that sense - Tasmanian history in its fullest hasnt the complexity of the 1600 and 1700s in the borders (which I know more about than other parts...), but close enough in the bloodletting - metaphorically or politically sats 09:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is copied from an IP Talk page. Chiswick Chap wrote:

Need for sources for Franklin Dam article

Hi. I expect that you are right in your personal recollections about the Franklin Dam controversy, but Wikipedia cannot accept people's personal knowledge if it is not verifiable. The rule is therefore that every statement that may be subject to challenge must be supported by a verifiable source, such as a book, newspaper or technical journal. Any editor may challenge and remove anything that is uncited; of course the best reply is to provide a suitable citation, and the matter is closed. All the effort of remembering and discussing is of no help to the encyclopedia unless sources are found. At the moment a substantial fraction of the material in this article is unsupported, which is why I have been asking people to provide sources. Nothing much else matters in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

and I replied:

I agree that this policy is something that makes Wikipedia great. However, another thing that makes wp great is that it provides a mechanism for recording facts and history that would otherwise be lost, and I think that that is something else that matters. The Franklin was significant history that occurred one or two decades before internet accounts. Thus I suggest that, so long as the 'citation needed' flags remain, it is useful to leave as is statements that no-one disagrees with even if no-one is prepared to do the legwork to find the paper source. If you look at the page's History and Talk, you will see that corrections and pruning have occurred as a result of occasional challenges. I appreciate your efforts, but (from memory, and no I will try to have a life rather than supporting this) there have been at least a couple of occasions where your stylistic improvements have introduced errors.

Bottom line is: I agree that "any editor may challenge and remove anything that is uncited", but I suggest that actual removals are best left to editors who assert that the assertion is wrong.

Dear Chiswick Chap, could I ask where do you propose to draw the line? Much of the Franklin Dam article is unsupported. Do you intend to slowly remove all of it? Or just all uncited numbers? Should we just copy the article, publish it as a web page, and then reinstate the article citing the web pages? What I am getting at is that the practice of challenging and removing stuff that one thinks is wrong (and then arguing about the reliability of sources) is a great way of arriving at the truth, but the practice of removing items just because they are uncited would be a sad destruction of shared knowledge and the sharing of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.186.86 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I had intended to draw the line a long time ago, and have in fact not removed any uncited claims for many weeks. I still don't intend to touch the article myself but have tagged up the items that it would be great if you and other editors like you with personal knowledge of the case could document properly with sources, as I have now said several times: the answer to sad destruction is thorough sourcing, not postings on other people's pages, which is coming very close to a breach of policy in itself. Clearly, if the article is left largely uncited, sooner or later someone will come along and implement the policy, which we agree is correct: I doubt it will be me as my interests lie elsewhere. I'm not sure if you know - it's only just relevant, but since you've come here - I worked to save the article from likely deletion by identifying sources (and encouraging others to do the same), and restored one of the images that others had deleted.

As it happens I disagree with your last reversion "stepped up a notch" which I consider unencyclopedic (it's a physical metaphor for intensified, based on some kind of ratchet or toothed adjustment mechanism); certainly it is not "more accurate". However, wanting to remember this conservation movement in the right way, I shall leave the article alone in the interests of peace and harmony.Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - your gentlemanly restraint is much appreciated. I agree "stepped up a notch" is a tad unencyclopedic, despite that the ratcheting metaphor is appropriate - people were prepared to dig in for a very long campaign. Perhaps "stepped up a level" would be more accurate (because imho "intensified" should be saved for the swelling numbers, actual physical confrontations and arrests etc). But I don't think it is worth making the change, because even minor changes consume the time and energy of monitors. I guess many people would like a spare week to trawl through micro-fiche newspaper articles and books, but maybe they are bushwalking or saving forests instead.

DYK for Kayoa

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Migration

Hi Chiswick: I'm happy to help with citations, etc. for the bird migration article, but I'm in the field until the end of April, and so will have only limited ability to contribute before then. More soon! MeegsC (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Super, I'll look forward to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ever considered WP:TFL?

Hello Chiswick Chap, your recently promoted featured list would make a very suitable candidate for main page inclusion if you would be interested in nominating it. We have a process at Today's featured list which enables us to create blurbs and then gather community support for lists to be presented on the main page every Monday. The process allows up to ten nominations at the submissions page, so if it's full you may need to wait, but it would be great if you could consider nominating your list, or helping out with those other lists that have already been nominated. Thanks for your ongoing interest in the featured list process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ooh! I confess I didn't know it existed. Yes, sure, I'll give it a go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool, well see how you go at the nomination page, and let me know if you need any help. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Deception in animals

Hi. I have posted a reply to your concerns about my editing on my Talk page. All the best.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sheiling

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify April Drive

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

DYK for The Malay Archipelago

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

World War II ship camouflage measures of the United States Navy

Yes, I'll get the cites in after I've finished the reworking. Cheers. Solicitr (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Manta GA

Thanks for the advice Chiswick. Do you think it should be passed as it is, or should we wait for improvement? Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 23:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's your call. I'd at least mark all the boxes as ok but for the one about the lead section; then we need to consider the lead, which nom has just extended (I think long enough). So it's ready to pass. Hope this helps. best - CC

DYK nomination of A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush

Hello! Your submission of A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chandan Guha (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Koala cladogram

Thanks for reviewing and passing the article. I have a few papers that show the phylogenetics of vombatiforms. I could send then to you and you could create a cladogram. Interested? LittleJerry (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think that's rather beyond a reviewer's duties. There are certainly people about who like doing such things. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for T. W. Wood

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Manta GA

Hey Chiswick, just so you know, today I passed the article as I am now satisfied it meets all the criteria. Sorry it's taken so long, but the raticle was quite complex, thanks for your help with the second opinion and the review as a whole, ★★RetroLord★★ 09:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of William Markwick

Hello! Your submission of William Markwick at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jrcla2 (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Pennant

Yesterday I started to work on Thomas Pennant which I hope to bring up to GA standard. Coincidentally I see you did some editing on the article. My interest in him is due to the fact that I am related to him and my family inherited the Downing estates when his direct line died out - my ancestor changed his name from Pearson to Pennant in order to inherit. I have a number of books by him in ancient editions and various other books on birds of the sort that would interest you. One of them is a dilapidated 1833 edition of Humming Birds, volume 2 in an Ornithology series published by the Naturalist's Library. This starts with a 39 page "Memoir on Pennant" which should provide me with plenty of material. Anything you may come across in relation to Pennant would also be useful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How fabulous! I inherited a nice old copy of Bewick's Birds... not quite on the same scale, but I've already started to use it in Pennant. I arrived at Pennant via Gilbert White, whose book contains many letters to Pennant, shame about the replies, and also William Markwick's phenology data. So I seem to be working on a whole pile of old natural history worthies and their books. I will have a go at digging out some more connections to Pennant.

I found another Memoir yesterday - Cunningham, G.G., ed. (1834). "Thomas Pennant". Memoirs of Illustrious Englishmen. Vol. 6. pp. 256–259. - not sure it adds much but will scan it now.

I'm seriously scratching my head about the state of Wikipedia - all Nat. Hist. books seem to have to go to "Biology and medicine" for GA, which is an awfully bad match for the topic - some of these old things could perhaps go to Literature instead, but it has a community with no Nat. Hist. knowledge. There's a real log-jam, with hardly any knowledgeable reviewers. We could start a WikiProject but that would only indirectly address the problem - it could increase recognition (very slightly) and might thereby bring in some more people... Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I can do one or more of your GA nominations but I try to vary the nominators whose articles I review so as to be seen to maintain standards. It would be perfectly possible, but undesirable, for two users to keep reviewing each other's articles. My most recent review was Pug. Also, I do not really know much about book articles and what should be in them, but I'll put my name down for another one anyhow, - your articles are always very competent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't touting for custom, and no, I'm totally against private clubs, but there is a problem. Maybe it's just the overall decline in numbers of editors. They're fine in Military History and a few popular places like film and pop music, but everywhere else I suspect is becoming a desert. But many thanks. I've found some juicy bits of Bewick on Pennant, btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There is much less of a GA backlog in Biology and Medicine than in various other areas of Wikipedia. And a backlog doesn't mean there is necessarily a desert, it merely implies that more articles are being created/improved than are getting reviewed. I got a bit mixed up with the artist Peter Paillou for whom I created a page. There are two artists of that name, presumably father and son. The younger is a portrait painter and the elder was the one who supplied bird and other paintings used by Pennant. I've corrected the error now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Insect images

Thanks for your suggestions on the Extatosoma_tiaratum image. It's rarely to see the insect during the moulting and even more rare to have it in clear view of the camera. So taking another picture with a better focus can take ages. ;-) I fixed the cropping however! I indeed enjoy being an Wikipedian, mostly with additions to the [NL] and in some cases on [this] wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdreijnders (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, and good luck with the insect photos... Dank u wel! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Images in Ship camouflage measures

Hi CC

Maryland: actually I think that the photo shows as clearly as any the combination of a dark gray ship with light gray director tops- as well as reinforcing the observation later in the article that most of PacFlt was still wearing MS-1 on Dec 7. As to being monochrome: besides the scarcity of color pics of any sort, I don't think B&W is much of an issue when depicting neutral grey shades! If either of the two photos should go it's that of Drayton, which was a one-off experiment and not really representative of MS-1 at all; it might I guess be relocated to MS-11 as at least an approximation of what the Measure looked like.

Duluth/Satatoga: I agree they're redundant; I left them both in because I'm reluctant to yank other people's pics, and because I suppose they show how a pattern designed for carriers could be adapted for a cruiser-- but that's pretty slim. Miami and Saratoga between them have it covered. (Maybe someday I'll do a separate page just on USN dazzle measures!)

Cheers,

Solicitr (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, well I think Duluth had better go then. If Maryland is staying (and Drayton going (down the page, perhaps)), then I'd suggest a brief note on what the reader should look for in the image. By all means do another article also... All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Max Weber

Just what the doctor ordered, thanks Chiswick chap! Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Pennant

I am puzzled by the autobiographical The literary life of the late Thomas Pennant, Esq. By himself. I understood it to have been published after his death in 1798 but it is in the list of his published works as 1793 with the footnote on his finishing his literary work in 1791. If you look at the work itself, the last few pages cover his global 14 volume effort so were clearly added around 1798. Any views as to which date is correct? I think the date for the Indian Zoology is also wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

TLLotLTP, Esq. By himself

The work is the obituary of his literary life, not of his whole life (he'd have had to be undead to write that!).

The title page says "Publis'd according to Act of Parliament March 1; 1793." so that date is not in doubt.

The "Advertisement" (i.e. Preface) says "THE title page announces the termination of my authorial existence, which took place on March 1st, 1791. Since that period, I have glided through the globe a harmless sprite; have pervaded the continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and described them with the same authenticity as Gemelli Careri, or many other travellers, ideal or real, who are to this day read with avidity, and quoted with faith. My great change is not perceived by mortal eyes. I still haunt the bench of justices..." so 1791 is not the date of finishing the book but of giving up writing; yeah, there's a catch in there too. Full text at The literary life of the late Thomas Pennant, Esq. By himself / Publis'd according to Act of Parliament March 1; 1793.

INDIAN ZOOLOGY

Indian zoology

SECOND EDITION.

[illustration]

LONDON.

Printed by HENRY HUGHS for ROBERT FAULDER.

MDCCXC.

Doesn't seem to be much doubt about the stated date; again there's an inconsistency between the title page and Pennant's "Advertisement" which says "March 1, 1791." on Page iv.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps he considered that his serious literary works had been completed in 1791 and that any further works were to be regarded as frivolous in nature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, and perhaps the above is worth describing and citing in the article, as it illuminates the man.

Also, we have almost nothing yet on how other people saw him, but he was widely admired, so perhaps we need something more than just Bewick and Gilbert White. We can look for reviews of his books, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added Cuvier and Dr Johnson quotes. I am planning to stop working on Thomas Pennant for the time being as I am going to concentrate on my entry to the Core Contest. Have you considered joining the competition? Last year in the spring competition I worked on the article Sugar and got a joint third prize This was a £30 Amazon voucher which I ploughed back into several biological textbooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of it... but why not?... the value for me would be collab. editing as I'm getting a bit lonely doing NH books! What were you thinking of working on, and would you like me to join in with you? Could be fun. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I chose that subject for the Core Contest because it will attract an enormous number of bonus points in the WikiCup], even at DYK. I don't need the extra points in this or the next round but come the final round, which runs during September and October, I will need all the points I can get. So my plan would be to expand the article x5, but not nominate it for DYK till the last permissible day so that it falls outside this March/April WikiCup round. If going just for GA, I would have chosen to leave it till the final round of the Cup. If we thought we could get it to FA I would like that to be in the final round and it wouldn't matter much if or when the GA took place. (PS. I don't want to discuss my WikiCup strategy on my talk page.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go along with whatever you'd like. I have no ambitions for the cup but would be very happy to join in (and for DYK, GA, ...) if joint entries are ok, not sure how it works. I've started at User:Chiswick Chap/seapit on the extraterrestrial stuff .. my goodness, the existing articles do have scrappy refs! If you'd prefer email, we can do that btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Looking at your sandbox, I see you do your web reference retrieval dates as "17 April 2013" so I will adopt that style to avoid the need to make changes later. I usually do authors as Bloggs, Jo; Smith, A. B. etc. Are you happy with that? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do Bloggs, Jo unless I only know initials, in which case I try to remember to use dots... so we'll add the materials to the article on which day? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

How about Friday? I plan to start a section on Waves as I have a very interesting book called "The wavewatcher's Companion". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. I have Encyclopedia of the Oceans... Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the compliments on the page! =] (probably not as good as what my sitto used to make, but here's some baklava) Therazzz (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That's nice. Keep up the good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Family trees

Hi Chiswick Chap,

Thanks for doing the French translation in the Tree documentation. Martinvl (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure; the challenge was the biology, not so much the French. Hope it's all ok. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

... and since I did neither biology nor French at school, I did not try to do the translation. Martinvl (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ref: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hang Ten!

Hi, you had no need to apologise for posting AfD, if you feel that an article is not up to standard you have the right to suggest an action. It's just that the Alternatives to deletion section of Wikipedia:Deletion policy implies that other actions should be taken first. If I have misunderstood then I am happy to be corrected.I am a novice editor and so am still learning. If my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hang Ten! implied I was upset with you then I apologise that's just my Autistic Spectrum Disorder showing. Robcamstone (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Markwick

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Henry Walter Bates, image

The best photograph of Bates we have in "Commons"

Bonjour,

Je vois que vous maîtrisez correctement le français, alors je me permets de m'adresser à vous dans cette langue, qui est la mienne.

Pardonnez-moi de prendre cette liberté.

Il y a quelques jours, vous avez cru bon de revenir sur un changement d'image que j'avais effectué dans l'article de la wikipédia en anglais concernant Henry Bates.

Votre motif était: "l'ancienne photo exprime mieux son caractère".

Vous avez de la chance de pouvoir dire cela. Moi, je ne sais pas, je n'ai pas connu ce Monsieur, donc je ne connais pas sa personnalité. Je trouve donc votre argument très subjectif, et désormais très isolé: c'est votre opinion, et ce n'est que la vôtre...

Mais je peux vous dire que l'image que je proposais est techniquement de meilleure qualité, qu'elle est d'une plus grande résolution, qu'elle est très prudemment restaurée, qu'elle montre un Bates en activité et non proche de la mort, et enfin et surtout, qu'elle a été distinguée par la Communauté de "Commons" (pas par moi) comme étant la meilleure photographie disponible actuellement ("Valued image"), même si celle de l'article n'est pas dans "Commons", et qu'elle est désormais acceptée dans de très nombreuses wikipédias.

Dommage que "la Mère de toutes les Wikipedias" refuse cette image, non ?

Bien cordialement depuis Paris, best wishes, 212.234.218.51 (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

ps:Sorry for the IP adress (my office), I've a problem with log in the enwp, I don't know why. It works everywhere else, but not here. You may find me there

Thank you for discussing the matter; I hope it's all right if I reply in English. It is clearly a matter of opinion to which there is no right answer; each Wikipedian, and indeed each Wikipedia, is free to select images as it sees fit; I have no sense of accepting or not accepting an image, it's just a matter of choosing one in each place. Of course we can probably include some more images in an article of this length. I think it's wonderful that there is a rich supply of varied images on Commons that we can all enjoy and make differing uses of; indeed, I find it a benefit that English and French Wikipedias are so unlike: Vive la différence!

Félicitations! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Moses Griffith

I see you have decided that Moses Griffith should have an "s" on the end of his surname. I have always thought that the name shouldn't have an s, where did you get that idea from? I looked him up in all the sources I have, such as the 1833 Memoir and the (modern) preface to "A Tour of Scotland in 1769" and have yet to find his surname spelt with an "s". In my local phone book there are about 100 "Griffiths" but there are also 3 "Griffith"s.

I've put a plate from (Pennant's companion) John Lightfoot's Flora Scotica into the Griffiths article; I think you;ll see plainly that the surname ends with an "s". The engraver, too, is Peter Mazell who seems to have been teamed up with Griffiths and Pennant on many books, so I think there can be little doubt this is the right Moses Griffiths.

I see what you mean. MG probably came from a background where names were spoken rather than written and spellings were variable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On another matter, I thought we could list the topics we are thinking of dealing with in Sea on the talk page and coordinate our efforts (I have just started on Currents). I have been making use of the Ocean Explorer site because it should be a very reliable source and contains just the amount of detail that I think is suitable for the article. Do you agree, or do we need to be more technical than I have been in "Waves"? By the way, the List of Seas is quite an improvement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a good look and report back, but I'm practically sure you'll have done the right thing! I'm using Dorrik Stow's very nice Encyclopedia of the Oceans, which again contains a very suitable amount of detail though its 250 pages could be a little long for the article.

I'm working on a bit of history of Oceanography for Sea; the current Oceanography article has been almost citation-free since 2009 but contains some hints. Will visit the talk page for more but would welcome some guidance on what to do next. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to do anything you fancy. I don't know much on some of the topics I am writing about but am learning on the job! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Octopus - Human relations

If you're willing to jump on board and help with sourcing things like human relations, I'd be willing to work on bring the article to FA this summer. LittleJerry (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like fun! Stay in touch and let me know what sort of thing you'd like, and whether we have to do refs in a particular style (title parameter then author, or whatever), and I'll try to do my best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Pennant

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Mazell

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wallace Centenary

I do not know of any article where the mention of the centenary of Wallace's death would be appropriate. If there was significant coverage of any commemoration/celebration then 2013 in the United Kingdom and/or 2013 in science. By "significant coverage" I mean at the very least a section within Alfred Russel Wallace with appropriate citations to indicate that the celebrations themselves were/are notable. As I do not watch the Year in United Kingdom or Year in science articles I do not know if they would require something more substantial such as a separate article on the centenary events. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

My contribution to this centenary:. (The most valued photograph of Wallace, distinguished by the "Commons" community, like Bates' picture here above....) Private joke ! lol, 1 May 2013 (UTC) (Jebulon)

Well, we might possibly be able to use it in a new article on the Wallace Centenary this year. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The sea

My idea about the article Sea is that it should be about the word as used in the phrase "land, sea and air", - a general view of things maritime. I thought that the article didn't have any regular editors, however some seem to have sprung to life. They seem more interested in defining the word "sea" and discussing what is and what isn't a sea. I think the list of seas and the section "Terminology" would be better in a different article - "List of seas" or somesuch. But I don't want to upset people who feel they have "ownership" of the article. However, maybe this aspect could wait for a bit while we add other material.

Yes. There is no ownership, though I understand their feelings... better let them down very gently. Of course, we need the article fundamentally to be about "sea", not land, air, space, ether, etc, rather than terminology (always a bad sign, I think). I already suggested the list be hived off, but it is too soon to do that; when there are more sections on "sea" it will become obvious that the list doesn't belong.

I have about finished with working on sea water and sea characteristics. I am thinking of moving on to pollution. Do you fancy working on the history sections or would you prefer something different? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll do a bit more of the history. I'd quite like to do a section on "Marine life" actually, without getting too far into Barnes and Barrington! That takes me back. And one of us had better say a bit about the geology/tectonics too, that would be fun to write. Nobody has replied to any of my questions about such sections, btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, you do some history and some marine life, I'll work on pollution and go on to fishing and/or trade. I didn't answer your questions on the talk page because I agreed with what you suggested and took it as a "to do" list. When I post the entry on the Core contest page it will be listed for peer review and we will get some feedback on what others think needs to be done. Marine biology could be a future project. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. Have done a bit more history and an overview of life - a massive subject, and clearly only a brief section is justified here. The List looks more and more out of place! Will attend to the "to do"s then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for DYK here and entered it into the Core Contest here. The Core Contest runs to mid-May so we have plenty of time for more expansion of the article but I am just letting you know that I will be away for a week from Friday 26th. It will be difficult to live without my computer for a week but I am planning to take Rachel Carson's The sea around us with me. Can you look after these nominations please? There might be queries over at DYK and I'm not sure how the peer review in connection with the Core Contest will work. Thank you too for your help with the cladogram for Manta ray. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy your break. Hope the nom is in time! Will try to field questions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gone yet and am working on Trade. The DYK is already approved and the Core entry has aroused interest and approval. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow that was quick! I looked at all the entries a short while back... Am not sure whether Geology is really in scope, it seems especially Oceanic - what do you think? Also not sure whether we need sections on Travel and indeed Warfare. But I'm pleased at the reorg, it goes Physics/Chemistry, Biology, Humans which seems right. Perhaps we should group the Phys/Chem sections under one heading? And you'll have seen that I felt I had to swap out Fishing for Food as there's more to it than shimmering scales... still experiencing some rumblings, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A Short Walk ...

Thanks for your major expansion of this minor classic but why the book club review? Hardly a reliable source (oh, and "24 October 2013"!) Nedrutland (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Er, thanks. Must be something wrong with the date! I think the book club is reliable enough as a small on-the-side reference, as it is a long-standing group with its own reputation to manage. We're not relying on it for notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Eleanor L. Bennett

Hello. I'm new to all this so please pardon me if I'm violating any rules of Wikipedia etiquette by contacting you here. The above article on a very accomplished young photographer is the subject of an AfD for the second time. When the original article was deleted there was a lot of bad blood between two editors and the creator of the article. The same two are calling for the deletion of the article's second incarnation, and I have serious doubts about their independence and am asking other Wikipedia editors without any history in this debate to take a look and see if the article can be saved. I am a big admirer of this young lady's work and think she fully qualifies for a listing in Wikipedia, but the two editors involved are quite immovable in their views. Would you be able to take the time to look in on the discussion? It's here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eleanor_L._Bennett Thanks for your time. Coriander2 (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I've not been involved, but I remember seeing the previous AfD and how heated it became.

The reason for the discomfort you and others feel about this sort of case is that it feels obvious that the person - Bennett in this case - is of some interest, with so many blogs and public appearances and interviews and so on, even galleries of photos in the Guardian.

The trouble is that Wikipedia's criteria for notability are that there have to be several reliable sources - that cuts out all the blogs, etc - and each one has to be a substantial discussion, not a mere mention, and unfortunately a name under a photo, however beautiful, is definitely a brief mention. This, to my eyes as well as to yours, looks like bias: if someone writes and is written about, it's fine, but if they take photos and the photos get shown, it's not. Actually it's a bit fairer than that - a writer can write as much as they like, but it's only what OTHER PEOPLE write about them that counts for notability purposes. And those other writings have to be in major newspapers, and so on.

I think you can see where this is leading - the editors at the AfD are actually doing their damnedest to be scrupulously fair, and are just applying the rules the same way every time. It does feel hard in this case, but while I agree with you that Bennett promises to become notable one day, and is a most interestingly promising artist, she has not yet crossed the line. Hope all this helps a little. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your very prompt reply.

Yes, I understand those points, but another way to establish notability for an artist or photographer is success in major competitions. I quote from WP:ARTIST:

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

The subject is not required to meet more than one of these requirements, it's an 'either or' situation, and her category age wins with National Geographic as well as her current Young Environmental Photographer of the Year win would in my opinion be sufficient by themselves to satisfy criterion (b) above. It is my impression that the two main participants in this debate, the same two who got into such heated exchanges over an earlier version of the Bennett article, are unwilling to consider any evidence, having completely made their minds up that the article (indeed any article on this subject, however well supported) must go. That's why I am trying hard to get input from genuinely neutral editors. Coriander2 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the question hinges on whether NG (young category) and YEPY count as "major". Most probably, the editors who spend time on such matters consider that winning the main adult category of NG is major, while winning a young category is not, and if so I can see why they might handle it like that.

You are quite right that there is an either/or in there; however, when one criterion is a bit flaky, people rightly look down the list to see if any other criteria are just about on the line also, and may then argue that the subject just about reaches the required level; if only one criterion scores a borderline, the answer must surely be "not yet". All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Lightfoot (biologist)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tessellation

Hey, this article is really looking good! Keep up the good work. --seberle (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! But the idea is for some mathematical types and others to join in, not for me to do a hero-show on my tod... Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey CC. I'm struggling a bit with this: "there are many tessellations of other types with slightly less strict rules on the choice of tiles". What "rules" are you referring to? I don't want to give the impression that tessellations with regular polygons are somehow more orthodox than other types of tessellations. How could we word this differently? Even Kepler did not limit his investigations to regular polygons (another sentence that needs changing). --seberle (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Gosh, I hope it's quite simple, it seemed obvious to me... I see it like this: if one absolutely insists that the tiles shall be a) regular polygons b) of only one shape and c) of only one size then there are precisely 3.0 possibilities - squares, triangle and hexagons. If one relaxes (rule b) to say ok guys, you can have two shapes then presto! there are more tilings you can make. Ain't that so? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see. But mathematically there is no such "rule" and no one is "absolutely insisting" there be one. So it might be confusing to imply otherwise. Guess we need to strike a balance between user-friendliness and mathematical precision here. I see you made another edit, but it still mentions a "rule". I'll take another shot. Edit it if you don't like it, but lets avoid implying there is a "rule" about using regular polygons. (Maybe another word?) --seberle (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to admit to mystification about the difficulty with the word "rule". As it seems you now see what I'm getting at there's perhaps no need to discuss much further, but I'm using rule in a plain sense to mean a kind of chosen constraint - if we limit ourselves to polygons of one size and shape which are regular (that's 3 constraints, ANDed together, (Sz AND Sh AND Reg) then we have only three tessellations. So I'd write "If our chosen rule is (that stuff) then the outcome is (as above)". Perhaps you are used to seeing the word rule as something unchangeable and can't imagine that it has a cluster of senses "in our sweet English tongue"? If so, let me say that this is not a mathematics article, but a mathematics and real-world article... Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's not a math problem so much as a language problem. Maybe it's just me, but when I read it before, I understood it to be implied that there was some sort of "rule" that tessellations were supposed to be made of regular polygons. Perhaps because there was no previous reference to rule? The way it was worded, someone with no previous background in tessellations might think that a "proper" tessellation needs regular polygons and other kinds are somehow inferior. Not a big deal, just trying to find the best wording possible so it won't possibly be misunderstood. There's always many ways to say things, so I'm sure we'll find the best wording. Remember, people will often read things into sentences that aren't there! --seberle (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, it wasn't there, and the previous wording talked about relaxing rules, i.e. they weren't fixed in stone. However talk of relaxing constraints is perhaps easier for people. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think it looks ok now. I'm still slightly leary of the "constraints" simply because I've seen so many bad websites (e.g. found this one yesterday) that think there are more constraints to tessellations than just (1) no overlaps (2) fills plane. Really if it meets those two conditions (and maybe the one I put in a footnote) then mathematically it's a tessellation. But the Overview as a whole is pretty clear now. Thanks! I think what will really help would be to add a few visual examples and non-examples of the various definitions. I might get out my SVG editor and see what I can do. I may add a little visual section at the end of or after the Overview. Concepts like "isohedral" are hard to understand without a picture. --seberle (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh good. I'm somewhat leery of discussions that get an order of mag. bigger than the edits they concern, but glad this one has worked out well. I've added some stuff on higher dimensions (i.e. dangerously above my knowledge!) but had fun looking it up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dab Sea

Sea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

That Offer of Help . . .

Is it still open? http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tank&diff=552352600&oldid=552351200 Hengistmate (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a hot debate in progress, so I'd rather wait until things cool off, or get resolved formally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Montacute House

Thanks for your message re Montacute House. I'm happy to expand the lead & look at the references but it may be a day or two - tomorrow is my daughters birthday & we have various family events. I'd be happy to share any credit particularly with User:Giano & User:Malleus Fatuorum - how do I indicate this?— Rod ^talk 20:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy it. I'll put a note on the GA page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sea

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Geography Barnstar
		For expanding the core geography topic (sea) and getting it featured as a DYK, I think The Geography Barnstar is a fair distinction :) Keep up the good job! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it's appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Chiswick Chap. I thought you'd like to know what sort of effect your work has had. I was training a few new editors at the weekend with the help of some other long term editors. One thing I discussed was that one person can make a difference and looked for an example. Your hard work on Sea was what I found, I was able to show what the article looked like a couple of weeks ago and what it looks like today. The effect this had on the both the trainees and the trainers was inspiring, I wish you could have been there to witness it. When we got to the end of the day, when asked what they took away from the course, one trainee said "the importance of making a positive contribution". This was in no small part down to your hard work. Worm^TT(talk) 09:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a lovely thing to say. I was never told anything like this before! I can hear at once that you are an inspiring trainer -- I am sure the trainees learnt a lot from you. Thank you so much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mir Samir

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Change of plan

I think we should work on bringing starfish to FA instead. Cwmhiraeth already built it to GA status. How about it?LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll do whatever I can to help. When should we work on it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe later this month? I'll probably put out a gameplan on the talkpage next week. LittleJerry (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Added suggestions to the talkpage. LittleJerry (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Caps in bird names

Hi Chiswick! I reverted one of your recent changes to the bird migration article — specifically the one where you changed the capitalization of some of the bird names. We only capitalize species names (i.e. White Stork), not groups of birds (i.e. storks). Hope that clarifies! Ping me if you have any questions. And keep up the good work! MeegsC (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but the article (still) has a mixture of caps and no-caps for individual species (e.g. both Turtle Dove and turtle dove, take a look); also Swallow and swallow, where I don't think swallows-and-martins is intended. It might be easier just to use l/c throughout. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If the article is referring to an individual species (i.e. Eurasian Turtle Dove), then that's what we should be using, rather than "Turtle Dove" or "turtle dove". A number of our general articles use Brit-centric names for things (i.e. Swallow) which need to be changed. There are, after all, lots of swallows!  ;) MeegsC (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Widney

I think I addressed the "too many sections" issue, the infobox suggestion, and the authorship of the first book (online sources indicate its "author" is the publisher - which is common for books of this type). Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Bonshō

I've padded out the lead a little bit; what do you think? Yunshui 雲‍水 18:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that'll do nicely. Good stuff. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much! Secretly I'm quite proud of the fact that it reached GA before the DYK had even been finished... Much obliged for your review. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Starfish

Added a new update. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gustave Pellet

Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Louis Legrand

Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of camouflage methods know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on June 3, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 3, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The bushbuck's camouflage includes countershading and disruptive patterning |blurb=A variety of camouflage methods may be employed by animals and objects of military interest in order to remain unnoticed. These methods include the use of countershading and disruptive patterns as in the bushbuck (pictured), as well as less well-known methods such as transparency, counterillumination, and self-decoration with materials from the environment. Some animals make themselves hard to detect by concealing their shadows or by having an irregular outline, sometimes with elaborate projections. Others use feature disruption to hide giveaway elements such as eyes, and even active camouflage, changing their coloration and patterns dynamically as they move. Some others, both predators and prey, hide in plain sight by resembling leaves, flowers, or other objects of no interest to the observer. In the Arctic, both animals and soldiers use white camouflage for the winter season.

Chiswick#Notable_people

Good idea to sort by period. Very useful! Well done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, yes, I thought it looked a whole lot better. It makes it obvious that there's a degree of recentism, so we ought to apply some kind of test of notability - a bluelink isn't really proof that people have been more than a day in Chiswick, really, is it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are the way to go. The difficulty is in making the judgement if a statement that "XX lives in YY" belongs in XX's article, the YY article or both. A loose rule of thumb would be - if the source is talking about XX, then the statement belongs in XX's article; if the source is talking about YY then it belongs in the YY article; if there are sources dealing with both, then the statement can go in both. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that leaves me any the wiser about what to do. The strict route would be to remove all mentions of living people that have no ref proving they lived in Chiswick - would slim down the 20th C. list more than somewhat. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Before removing someone from such a list, I do a basic quick search in Google books using their name and the name of the place as my search term. That will generally throw up appropriate sources. If none are in Google books, I may do a wider sources search. When doing this sources search if I find a book on Chiswick mentions someone, then it seems appropriate to mention them in the Chiswick article. If I find that it's only a book on Tom Jones which mentions he lived there in 1971, then I feel that might be worth a mention in the Tom Jones article, but not in the Chiswick article. That someone hasn't got a ref at the moment doesn't mean they won't have. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to work my way through the list in a moment - see how far I get. SilkTork

^{✔Tea time} 16:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent.

For £16.28, you can get a 238 page book on People from Chiswick, which is just pages printed out from Wikipedia! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

By Mr Made-up Surhone, or someone very similar! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Marian Cruger Coffin GA review

Thanks for your GA review of this article. I'm a bit tied up for the next couple of days, but I aim to resolve the points you've brought up over this weekend. Prioryman (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As promised, I've expanded the intro of Marian Cruger Coffin as requested. Prioryman (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyvios

I have discovered that large parts of Desert are copied verbatim from a USGS Deserts publication. The bits I have noticed are the "Desert features" and "Mineral resources in deserts" sections, but there may be others. I take it that this is a copyright violation and means that I will have to replace all the text in these parts. How depressing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Aaargh. Of course it's fine to cite USGS, to paraphrase and even sometimes to quote, so total replacement may not be necessary, but certainly it'll be a piece of work. I'll take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW the USGS Readings is a useful list which we can lawfully plunder - I see it has explorer/soldier Bagnold's famous book on sand dunes. I can see I shall have to do a Human relations piece, there are such fascinating characters around the desert. Could be a full article, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

resource request

Hi,

I have all four articles you requested at the resource exchange. Please enable email in your wikipedia preferences and I will send them to you.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou! My email is now enabled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Desert

Re: [2], just to remind you that USGS is a public domain source (US Government) and may be copied, just needs proper reference and mentioning of copying. Materialscientist (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, I've reffed and rewritten it now - at least it feels a bit more Wikipacious. But thanks for letting me know, I'll tell Cwmhiraeth who was very worried about it. Many thanks again -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am doing a complete rewrite of the section "Human life in deserts" in my sandbox, so don't bother to do anything to that part. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I do hope I didn't blunder into the other section... many apologies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. What you did was most helpful. Do you think the article needs a culture section? If so, it would be great if you felt like working on it. It's not my cup of tea at all! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Camo methods

Hey CC, just a quick note to let you know I've bumped your FL on camo methods forward a week, so it'll be on the main page this coming Monday, just thought you should know! Cheers, and thanks for your work at FL! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting list — thanks!--A bit iffy (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Women's health in India needs a little help at GA

Namaste, Chiswick Chap. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito Dutta  (talk

Chiswick

I'm coming up to Chiswick on the 23rd for the Fuller's London Pride 10K (which is why I've been fiddling with the Chiswick article - looking for what's to see while in Chiswick). It's an attractive area around the brewery isn't it? We'll visit a pub or two while in the area (I'll be with my wife and four year old daughter). If you're around on the 23rd, would you care to meet up in a pub for a quick drink? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for the offer. I'm going to be out of town for the weekend so won't be able to make it. All the best for the 10K. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Have a nice weekend. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Chiswick House

Thank you for contacting me about the external link I added to the Chiswick House page. The link is to a blog entry which discusses a specific feature of the Chiswick House from an architectural history point of view. In my view this is a valid 'external link' because it contains additional information that would interest readers of the Chiswick House page. The link was not meant as advertising for the book. (In fact, the book does not include this information.) If it works better as a reference than an external link, I would be happy to change it. Please be assured my motivation was to add information to Wikipedia for the benefit of the reader.Tdenzer (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm glad to hear it. The thing is, WP is very sensitive to any suspicion of advertising or spamming, and links to blogs are generally not encouraged. It's a shame it isn't in the book as it would have made a useful reference; the blog is likely not suitable for that purpose. All the best --- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Chiswick Chap, Thanks for your valuable and in depth ongoing discussion at Religious harmony in India. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

Thank you for reviewing my article Women's health in India. I will work towards including some of your suggestions, mainly adding more pictures, improving the introduction, and including more information on what is currently being done to address the issues surrounding women's health in India. I currently have University examinations and will likely add the additional information and make edits in the coming weeks. Jasdeepsgill (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Good luck with the exams. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Robert Fludd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eckhart

Sebastian Englert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dillingen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Starfish

Time is moving on and the Core Competition results are taking some time to be announced. I have asked Axl if he would be able to finish his review of Starfish by the end of the month because I would like it to be nominated at FAC before too long, more specifically, around the beginning of July. My impression is that most FACs are resolved in 4 or 5 weeks.

Well, good luck with all that! The review seems to have attended to astonishing minisculissimae (I believe those are organs with unknown function of extinct Velatida.....).

Thinking ahead, I am proposing nominating Sea for GA shortly. Should we consider hiving off the list of seas at this stage now that the controversy has died down? Do you think the article is good enough for FAC? It is difficult to know whether it meets the comprehensiveness criterion but the best way to find out may be to nominate it anyway. If you agree, I would suggest nominating it in mid-August when I believe you are home again after your holiday. If by that time it had not got anywhere at GA, I would propose withdrawing the GA nomination. Are you happy with these suggestions? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh good. Yes, you should part the seas quietly and go for GA. I'm no judge of FA-worthiness. Again, it might be best to get it peer-reviewed. I'll help wherever I can. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne

My GA review follows. Congratulations on a particularly good article. Good luck with a much deserved FA! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 09:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually own this book, in a Victorian edition. I should probably dig it out and scan a few of the engravings, but first, let's review the article as it is, shall we?

I have bolded the only actionable point, but (spoiler alert) do not consider it sufficient to block GA promotion.

First of all, this is a very well-done article. The pull quotes are well-selected, and help give a flavour of the work that wouldn't be gotten from merely describing the contents. Good job there.

Let's go through the criteria briefly:

Well-written? Definitely. This article is moving rapidly towards FA quality.

Verifiable with no original research: There are a few bits without citations, but all of these are explicitly describing specific letters from the book, and, as such, have very obvious sources. However, if you plan to take this to FA, they may get a little more pedantic on this point, so be ready to provide page numbers in footnotes, if necessary.

One minor error: The section "Victorian and Edwardian eras" only includes Edwardian commentary, and should be renamed or expanded, your choice.

Broad in its coverage: This article does a good job at both describing the work and reactions to it. Very good work.

Neutral: I don't see any problems here. There's obviously a bit of passion here, but relevant criticisms are covered fairly.

Stable: Fine.

Images: It could use a few more images, but that's not a reason to block the promotion.

In short, this is definitely GA quality. I'm going to put it in Biology and Medicine, subcategory Books; move it if you think another category is better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Malay Archipelago

This one I couldn't promote immediately, but the issue is small, so it should be able to be promoted soon. Review follows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And that's it promoted. Congratulations! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Malay Archipelago/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 13:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Writing: The writing is generally top notch; the only very minor criticism I have is that in the Context section, the bit about Darwin's Origin of species is a little bit abrupt. I've thrown it in parentheses, though, which, I think, makes the flow a bit clearer.

Thankyou very much. I've extended Darwin a little.

Citations: There are some citation issues, where you haven't made your source for some material clear. I've marked these; the only thing to note is to make sure the citation covers all material up to the previous citation, or, if it doesn't, add more citations as appropriate. Helpful advice for future GANs: Generally speaking, make sure every paragraph ends with a citation, even if a citation covers multiple paragraphs (you can always repeat the citation), but there are exceptions - the first paragraph of "Illustrations", for example, makes its source unambiguously clear, and the summaries of the chapters are likewise self-citing. This blocks immediate promotion, but should be relatively easy to fix.

Marked citations done.

This article is very comprehensive; the list of chapters is an extremely good summary, useful for understanding the scope of the book. I suspect some will suggest spinning off some material, as it is a little on the long side, but I don't think this necessary.

Thankyou.

Images: It'd be nice to have death dates for the some of illustrators, but worst problem that would cause is a move to en-wiki, since they're definitely out of copyright in the U.S. Tag on File:The Museum, Chowringhee.jpg is kind of dubious, but there's no way the image is in copyright. In short - You'll need to do some documentation and/or upload a copy to en-wiki before FA, but the images themselves are quite safe.

Noted, thanks.

Once the couple citations are fixed, this can be promoted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've met all review comments to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that will do, in all honesty. This is an excellent article, and I look forwards to seeing it as a Featured Article contender, where I think it will do very well. If you want some help documenting the images, do ask; it's kind of what I do. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very much. I'll try to work up the courage... Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also very impressed with this article and how much you have improved it from the stub I created back in 2007. I hope you can get it to FA at some point. Ironically I originally created the stub in the first place because of a comment I received during one of my attempts to get Alfred Russel Wallace through FA review along the lines of "if Wallace was such a famous writer why were there no articles on any of his books?". I will try and help a little around the edges if I can. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Perhaps you, me and Adam Cuerden (see offer above) could have a go at taking it there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for great article writing contributions. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Editor Chiswick Chap as Editor of the Week for his outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia. I ran a training session at the weekend and wanted an example of the improvements that can be made to the encyclopedia. I found a great example at Sea. Two weeks ago, the Sea article looked like this, then Chiswick Chap had a go at it. He added nearly 80k of excellent prose to the article, building a structure and making it interesting. This isn't the first time he's done this either, the amount of quality contributions he's made put most of us to shame and I feel that they really need to be recognised.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 22:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap

Camouflage

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 23, 2013

An editor that really understands the importance of making positive contributions

Recognized for

A balanced hard-working and helpful approach to editing

Nomination page

• Congrats, Chiswick. User:Worm speaks to your excellent editing. Your congenial and positive way of communicating speaks to your excellent nature.```Buster Seven Talk 02:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That's really kind of you. I'm honoured and delighted. Thank you all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Taking a look at your contributions it becomes clear that this is long overdue. Thanks for making a huge difference here Chriswick Chap. You and your kind are the backbone of Wikipedia, friend! Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• With a nod towards Cwmhiraeth I should mention that it wasn't just for your hard work on Sea that I nominated you, and I should have made that more clear in my nomination. When I spotted you at that Sea article I did take a deep look at your contributions and I was exceptionally impressed with what I found. I won't go on, as I know this has to be a little embarrasing for you, but please do understand you are a credit to the communtity here. Worm^TT(talk) 14:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That's really nice of both of you to say so. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Dang, I missed your Editor of the Week week. Let me add anyway that even if we disagreed on a nomination recently, your work at GA--both in quality submissions and quality reviews--is much appreciated. Congrats! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That's very nice of you, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Izaak Walton cleanup

Just wanted to thank you for taking the time to begin cleaning up and revising Izaak Walton earlier today. It has been an article on my "to do list" that I never got around to, but I'm thankful to see someone taking a swing at it. Keep up the good work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou. I'm really just pottering. We need a keen angler to do it really properly... -- All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A challenge

On 23rd June I started working on Anatomy. It had multiple "improvement needed" tags and was 4282 B in length. It is now 6761 B and I have another 5000 B in a sandbox and plenty more aspects to work on. It occurs to me that a DYK is possibly within reach. Would you be interested in doing some historical or cultural aspects for the article? They would need to be added in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, all right, let's see. I don't think 10,000 B of history is likely (or sensible) but I can certainly add something. As it happens I brought Sir John Struthers (family connection) to GA so I know where I can start! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I can probably do at least 5000 B more so I expect we can get there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done 7000 already... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Over at DYK the fivefold expansion of Anatomy is now established. It seems that the article was included in a list of "Articles for improvement" for the week starting 17 June although I was unaware of this when I started expanding it. The WikiCup has moved into its fourth round and I have hived off the List of seas from Sea and nominated the latter for GA. Thanks, as always, for your cooperation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well done, glad to help. Sea should sail (?) through GA, wind and tides permitting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Quotes

Can you provide the specific quotes from the book that verifies [3], specifically the sentence "During The Enlightenment period, intellectual sympathy for astrology fell away, leaving only a popular following supported by cheap almanacs". IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Page 151: "The disavowal of astrology was also, however, a socio-cultural reaction. ... by 1700 such fellows of the Royal Society who had been sympathetic to astrology - John Aubrey for instance - were all dead, and no top-flight metropolitans stepped into their shoes.
Though its appeal wanted amongst the enlightened, however, the art retained its popular following. ... Like other manifestations of the occult ... astrology was not killed off by science; rather, it found new niches in a modulating cultural environment. Almanac sales held up, but their profile changed. Many became more 'rational', some early eighteenth-century productions shedding prophecies altogether; other compilers repudiated judicial astrology, one, Richard Saunders, feeding the reader with 'A Discourse on the Invalidity of Astrology'. Openly hostile, his almanac derided astrology's want of scientific foundations..." Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

My concern was chiefly about paraphrasing, the writing felt a little odd, as though you took what they wrote and changed it a bit but I am less concerned now. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh good, glad that's sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here

Hey Chiswick Chap

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Desert" article contributions

Hey there Chiswick Chap (talk), I've appreciated your latest contributions on the "Desert" article. :D (I hope this doesn't sound like flattering though) :O/   M aurice   Carbonaro  10:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh good, glad it worked out. I think we have the makings of a very nice article there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Bolckow Vaughan

Oh, definitely. Sorry I'm taking so long - I've done some of the work cleaning up the images, but have been a little ill so not very productive. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

By the way, I have a good illustration for Hugh Miller's The Old Red Sandstone if ye feel interested in early Geology. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, why not, would be useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Starfish

I would suit me to nominate Starfish for FAC now. Would you object to my closing the peer review and nominating it? Axl has stated here that he is happy for us to proceed in this way and that if he finds any further problems, he can deal with them at FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to go along with whatever approach you feel right. If Axl is comfortable I'd say now's the time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sea

I have been dealing with some of the issues being raised by Khazar2 in his very thorough GA review. He makes several suggestions on the balance of the article which I think we should consider before going for FAC. Can I leave you to deal with the Humans and the sea section in the review? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Astrology has been rejected as a scientific theory for three reasons."

Exactly which source said this. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It should have said "at least three reasons", I agree. An introductory statement heading a section (or in a lead) is entitled to summarize and introduce the cited statements that follow. The at-least-three-ness is proved by the three reasons given. Have a peaceful weekend. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Be aware of the danger of giving every single paragraph its own subheading. Sections with 2-3 paragraphs are generally fine, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't find it dangerous, but yes, we maybe don't need such precise subdivision. What I do feel, though, is that the Science section needs copy-editing, if not along the lines I attempted then some other way, but at the moment the section comes across as dogmatic - science is after all always revisable - and repetitive, I counted 3 versions of some statements. How should we best go about working on the copy? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Sea to Good Article status--you deserve ten barnstars for a job like that. Thanks for all you do. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very sweet of you. It's appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And a bar to you too. I thought it was a good collaborative effort. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Starfish FA

Please look at the starfish FA page. Axl has questions about the culture section. LittleJerry (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as an FYI

This GA nom contained a fair bit of "copy and paste" [4] per User_talk:Cupco#Birth_control. There are a number of other instances that I have fixed. Have delisted and will renominate when finished addresses what remains. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, crap

Forgot about the GAN. Sorry, my allergy season started, and I was knocked out of a lot of things for a week. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. The article is promoted, with a few critiques. The GA review follows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bolckow Vaughan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The major issue with this article is that the images are mislicenced for English Wikipedia: For here, the only relevant copyright law is U.S., so anything before 1923 can be licensed under Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. I'll start working on that.

The text and referencing looks good other than that, so it shouldn't be too difficult to get this to GA. I'll do a full review shortly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. Sorry for the delay. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well. This is a by-and-largecomprehensive, well-written article. It has a few flaws, but nothing that blocks GA (though these may be an issue at FA).

1. The line "In 1850, Vaughan and his mining geologist John Marley discovered iron ore, conveniently situated near Eston in the Cleveland Hills of Yorkshire.[4] Cleveland ironstone was already being mined, but further away at Grosmont, by Losh, Wilson and Bell.[5]" could use a little more precision. I believe the meaning of the second sentence should be something like "Unknown to anyone at the time, this vein was part of the Cleveland Ironstone Formation, which was already being mined in Grosmont by Losh, Wilson and Bell."

Done

1. A little more flow might be good. For instance, the next sentence after the aforementioned is "In 1851, Bolckow and Vaughan built a blast furnace at South Bank, Middlesbrough, to make use of the ore from nearby Eston." Using something that refers back, such as "To make use of the ore being[?] mined at Eston, in 1851 Bolcow and Vaughan built a blast furnace at nearby South bank, Middlesbrough." would improve flow. Similarly, by phrasing "At that time the company's assets included..." as "By that time, the company's assets included..." you keep referring back, improving flow.

Done

1. "On 2 June 1884, Sir Joseph Pease unveiled a monument to John Vaughan in Exchange Square, Middlesbrough, which still stands." - that would be worth getting a picture of, if a Wikipedian in Middlesbrough could. The Yorkshire Wikiproject can likely help with this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Added

1. The section "Collapse, 1929" begins rather abruptly, coming straight out of a description of the company's rise.

Added sentence about suddenness

1. The website "Hidden Teeside" isn't obviously a good source, though it's probably good enough for an otherwise uncontroversial point of fact.

Agreed

1. The main link for Pitts is a deadlink, though the alternate link still works. It would be worth updating.

Done

1. The legacy section seems a little random - discussing the graves falling into disrepair then being refurbished needs a bit more detail.

Added clause about recognizing the neglect

So, some things that could be improved, but I think this is a solid GA, just needs some work for FA. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Start Snuggle

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I shall be away from my desk that day, I'm afraid. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Bummer. If you let me know when you'll have time, we can always meet up in #wikipedia-snuggle ^connect to chat about the tool. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Starfish FAC

I have dealt with the list of reference problems for Starfish. A final point was the suggestion that certain references, particularly in the "Human relations" section, would benefit from being archived. Do you know anything about doing this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard that one could cause something to be archived, though it's imaginable I suppose. However most things are automatically archived, so I read the request as asking for an alternative link, to an archive site, if one such exists. Presumably one can google for such. Sorry not to be more help on this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I use one of your photos

Hello Chiswick Chap!

I have use a photo of Clupea harengus from wikimedia in my free software educational proyect "Animalandia" (http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia)

You can see directly in the follow link:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/imagen.php?id=36851

If you wish, you can send me (via fernando.lison@educa.madrid.org) some letters or/and a photo for your "contributor profile" in Animalandia:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Chiswick%20Chap

I want show to my students (and so everybody) that Animalandia is make for "real person", and I can tell them about "generosity", "share" and other similar words that they use very few...

This is my "contributor profile" and others, for example:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Fernando%20Lis%F3n%20Mart%EDn

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Mamen%20Jim%E9nez

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=David%20P%E9rez

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Boris%20Loboda

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Steve%20Garvie%20%28Rainbirder%29

In the future, I use more of your photos, I sure!

Thank you for the licence and, of course, for your splendid photos!! Regards! Fernando Lisón

--Fernando.lison (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Core Contest

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		I hereby award this Content Creativity Barnstar to Chiswick Chap for sharing in winning the Core Contest in April 2013 for amazing work on expanding The Sea. A wikimedia UK person will be in contact to send off an Amazon voucher. Well done! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Good work...Modernist (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anatomy

The DYK project (nominate) 22:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Linkrot

How do I remove the linkrot banner across the top of the article page I am working on after I fix all the links? It wont seem to go away Youngstylishdc (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)youngstylishdcYoungstylishdc (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I guess you found out what to do while I've been away. Linkrot is noted when bare URLs are used in an article, because when websites move the links are likely to die. Much better to describe what's at the URL. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the unexpected Natural History Shield. Much appreciated!

I hope you have had a good holiday. You will see that in your absence, Starfish was eventually successful at FAC and Sea won the Core Contest. Thank you for your cooperation in those and other articles. With regard to Sea, I considered going for a peer review but eventually rejected the idea. A comprehensive review takes time for responses and doesn't necessarily reduce the time spent at FAC. I think both our prose styles are probably adequate. I guess that we will meet various views on the topic at FAC and will have to be accommodating where necessary. So I propose looking at the article again, including Khazar's comments, over the next couple of days and then giving it a try at FAC. Are you happy with that? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to go along with whatever you feel is best. Delighted, of course, with the Starfish Star and the Sea Prize (I'd rather you'd had the prize, I really just tagged along). I think Sea runs the risk of getting tangled in the Great Sea/Ocean Linguistic Controversy; if it can avoid that, it has a good chance. Well done for all your efforts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You probably did half the work on Sea. I fear you may be right about the controversy, but if the article ends up as Ocean rather than Sea I won't be too upset. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. I guess the risk is that the FAC could demand further work doing a sea/ocean merge. We can give it a go. More broadly, there are plenty of Starfish-like topics that could be worked on! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now nominated "Sea" at FAC and there are already a couple of comments including one about the "Culture" section which you might like to consider. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fair question. The truth is, I've found it much easier to locate western sources so don't really have enough for Japanese and other subsections. We can of course cut down on the western coverage to reduce any imbalance. Perhaps we should ask Indian, Japanese etc projects or wikis for assistance? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I might pare the section down a bit and will look into seeking assistance from other projects. On the other hand, its an English language article so it might be considered reasonable to concentrate on Western culture. The Chinese language equivalent article would probably concentrate on Chinese culture. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As would the French wiki... I thought the same, but ours does of course have a more international feel (UK, USA, Canada, NZ, Australia, India...) so the case is harder to make. Guess we need to show willing and make some accommodation for the point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW I shall be travelling for the next week, will have some web access. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, ingenious rewrite / rearrangement of the culture section - guess that's a wise move. It would be nice to have the Dutch image near the top, but who am I to argue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to take a Wikibreak and refocus my energies on a book. Happy to pop back in and help with the odd project - just ping me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

added a few more sources to Schumacher Process

I've added a few references to the article and changed the opening paragraph to be more neutral.

The problem with finding references is that the Schumacher Process is an incremental improvement in a niche industry. There are few sources that go into detail about this process. Most just mention it briefly.

If the additional sources are not enough to substantiate the article's contents, could I resubmit it as a two paragraph stub without any references.

I only wrote this article in the first place as it was mentioned in another Wikipedia article and I had to Google the term as it wasn't explained in Wikipedia.

Duane-light (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I know what happened here - has it been deleted and redirected? If so I'd suggest you write your paragraphs, with a reference or two, in Silicon or other suitable spot. If you add material without refs it will likely be deleted, and people may start giving you advice and even warnings, I'm afraid. If the process is indeed notable then decent sources should really not be hard to locate. Good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Half Million Award

		The Half Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Sea (estimated annual readership: 816,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Sea to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, many thanks.

• • What a good idea, to encourage people to work on big articles. Good luck with it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• My pleasure, and thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Half million award

I just saw this news in the WikiCup newsletter and am happy to present you with another of these already:

		The Half Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Starfish (estimated annual readership: 630,092) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing starfish to Featured Article status.

Cheers, and thanks for all you do, Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sea

My primary objective at the Sea FAC is for the process to be successful. There is currently a suggestion that "Sea" should be moved to "The sea" to which I have no objection. However the latest comment is that "Sea" should not then redirect to "The sea" whereas I had assumed it would. It seems to me that most people looking for an article on the sea are looking for our type of article rather than the "surrounded by land" sort of article. Nevertheless, I would rather others got their way about the article's name and that we get our FA rather than having an interminable, inconclusive discussion that robs our article of FA for a lack of consensus. I think that the decision as to whether "Sea" should redirect to "The sea" or not could wait until after the FA process is concluded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely, it's extremely delicate. I'll do whatever I can to support you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Is any editing of the article needed given the suggested merging of sections? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of this suggestion. Do you mean merging articles? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It was a suggestion of Cobblet 11:47, 2 September. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of this issue has died down. Do you think we have a consensus for removing those two sections from Ocean and adding them to our article? - I guess the answer is Yes.

Do we have a consensus for renaming the article "The sea"? - Probably.

Do we have a consensus for what to do with "Sea" afterwards? - I think not, but we could try making it a disambiguation page and see what happens. Or a redirect. Or something else. If you agree with me on these points, you are welcome to do a bit of merging! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, given this summary, I feel uncertain about what has been agreed. The key consensus is whether the article can be promoted as it is - if that's yes, then we need to avoid disturbing it with any change that isn't mandated; which may or may not include the two sections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have made a proposal on the FAC page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh good, nice work. Let's hope that's broken the logjam. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky is now supporting the FAC which is a good start. Hchc2009 made a comment on 17th August that I see I have not responded to. Do you know anything about ocean modelling or Geophysical fluid dynamics? I don't. I have left a few messages on other users' talk pages requesting them to contribute to the review, but hopefully not to the "name" discussion! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That's good. No, nothing substantial. I think these are basically rather abstruse topics as far as a general article on Sea is concerned - they cannot demand more than a sentence or two in this context. However, providing such a brief mention is a good way for us to be able to return to the discussion with "and we've done that too" to keep things moving along. I've had a go at it, see what you think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What would you like to do about Nikkimaria's comments on references? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be happy to work through them. Would you like to deal with the points SnowmanRadio raises? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. Should I add back the bit about Jung and the collective unconscious, or delete all mention? (seems a shame to lose it). P.S. I think Nikkimaria's "stopping" implies there would be more if she had checked further... she may be willing to help with some of it, btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am looking critically at every reference, and finding plenty of errors, some of which she did not mention. Do you have page numbers for current refs 29 and 42? (42 could be deleted as there is another reference.) I'll continue through the references tomorrow. I'll leave you to decide about Jung. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

ref 29 is for the whole book! on the whole topic of geophysical fluid dynamics. Not sure how we indicate this isn't a mistake.

ref 42 moved to show fisheries/food only, and added Ch 18 title.

ok, Jung is back, very briefly, with quote in the ref for those interested.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Current ref 173 has a tag that you can probably resolve better than me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Tricky. The ref was correct for the date but had been copied for the plot summary. I've found an academic's plot summary instead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

On the short refs, pace Nikkimaria, I've used them to Stow as we've named it in the bibliography. Maybe some other books -- Cotterell, Slive -- should go there too? I've spent much of the day on other comments, they seem to pop up as fast as I do them! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

On personal transport (i.e. ocean liners) I can't find a decent ref - the WP article is poorly cited and the stuff on the web is not RS. Ideas? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done Cotterell and combined Slive and been all through the references now. I might find a book ref for liner travel. I'll consider reliability of sources first thing in the morning. Its good to have more interest in the FAC even if it keeps us busy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Super. I think the nice new Passenger transport section should end with a mention of the jet age. This is a possible ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Its a good source and I will add a bit. Meanwhile, I have asked Nikkimaria to have another look at the referencing. I've also asked her some questions here on sourcing on which I would like to know her views. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added a section per Snowman on Burial at sea - it's one of those topics that goes on and on (countries, religions, history), so I hope a brief mention will suffice. Have put it at the end of culture - seems quite a fitting place actually. Sorry to have to add yet more references for you to check and format ... I am working on something on the Water cycle and vegetation dependent on sea mist clouds - again, briefly, I hope, and Tide physics hasn't quite finished either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Good. I have been through Nikkimarias further (much shorter) list and have dealt with all matters except the page number for #147, the question of whether military.com is a reliable source and her final point about primary sources. I have replaced a couple of sources on the way. I have to go out now and can't do anything more till this evening. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

#147, Sea of Thunder - the whole book is about the Battle of Leyte Gulf (only). There is however a summary of the book and the battle on pages 3-4 so I have added that as the page ref. That means ... that the other battles are currently unreferenced. Will see what I can do on that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've sorted the battles with new refs, and the Burial at sea section and the Water cycle section have been accepted. A new concern has arisen - the article could be too long, and the culture is proposed to be split off as a sub-article. I'm not going to argue, but what's the procedure - do we wait for agreement from other reviewers, or what? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything at the moment. I remember once mentioning to Casliber that some article was getting too long and he calculated its length in a completely different way. I will ask him to take a look at Sea. I am rather more hopeful of a favourable outcome now than I was a week ago. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll do nothing. The TOOBIG page says not to hurry in any case. The outcome is very much in the balance, I'd say. But I don't see the new Moby Dick ref? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't change the reference, I just removed the phrase about Herman Melville being a famous American author. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've trimmed it and removed the self-ref to resolve Nikkimaria's comment. The remaining issue is the argument about providing an impressive ending to the article, which frankly is something articles just don't do, we don't have a summary at the end as well as at the start. I suppose biographies naturally have some sort of dramatic ending but I can't see how we can do anything like that, and wonder how we can knock it on the head - it needs someone else to get the suggestion withdrawn, ideally. It's really a discussion about the FAC system, nothing to do with us, so it could I suppose be ruled out of order, if anyone does that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

ColonelHenry, who is currently reviewing two GANs for me, thinks that a "powerful ending" is unnecessary and I am happy to leave things at that. Adabow has now made some comments which need attention. I don't much like edit conflicts so I propose to leave you to deal with any of them you fancy and will work on the remaining ones myself this evening. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Volubilis

Following your comments earlier this year in the GA review of Volubilis, I've nominated it for consideration as a featured article candidate. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Volubilis/archive1 - please feel free to comment. Prioryman (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

North Indian Thali for you

		A North Indian thali (meal) for you
		Here is a North Indian thali (meal) for you. In this meal rice is served with naan, daal, raita, shahi paneer, and salad. Hope you'll like this North Indian thali. Thank you very very much for reviewing Swami Vivekananda Thank you. Tito☸Dutta 09:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC) For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Do you think it is FA ready? --Tito☸Dutta 09:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the Thali, which smells delicious. I have included a comment on FA-readiness in the review table; in a word, more preparation is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. I have included it in Wikipedia_talk:Million_Award#Swami_Vivekananda Tito☸Dutta 11:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Desert GAN

I saw your comment at the Desert GAN. I thought the source review was more suitable for a FAC too but have gone along with it. I thought it was a bit much suggesting the article should be quick failed because it lacked a section on Desert farming. In fact it lacked such a section because the idea of including it had never occurred to me. My Uwe George book (1978) dismissed the idea of desert farming as unsustainable. In a similar way, Las Vegas is unsustainably using aquifers that are not being replenished fast enough. It all seems pretty stupid to me. On another matter, I will try to keep the Sea FA process on track while you are away. It is difficult reconciling other people's conflicting views. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It struck me as a clear case of applying FA practice to GA, so worth picking up on. The lack of a section at GA is generally cause for a suggestion or discussion, as people may reasonably differ on what the 'main aspects' of a given subject may be, so qf is unlikely to be the right answer, and there is time to make changes. Actually it would hardly matter as one can simply try again with or without. From one point of view, all the agriculture in the Sahel is 'desert farming' - if one goes with the strict meaning of a waste place, then desert farming is just an oxymoron. It's unclear to me what should happen when reviewers have differing ideas, other than to note that if everyone thinks it should go a different way it's probably roughly in the right place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Cucurbita constituents

Hi. Is there an article with a section I could use to model the Cucurbita constituents ("chemistry") sections on? I recently discovered the featured article candidate process and then the peer review process. I think the peer one should be done before the featured one. After some more improvement on cucurbita I'll learn more about those processes. HalfGig (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Rachel Carson quote at Sea

I have opened a discussion here regarding copyright issue and have flagged it at WT:FAC. You may wish to participate. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cucurbita peer review

I just listed Cucurbita at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cucurbita/archive1. If you have time, would you be so kind as to look at this article, especially the medical/pharmacological issues, which are in Cucurbita#Chemical_constituents? I'd greatly appreciate it. I appreicate any assistance you can provide. HalfGig (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sea

I'm delighted to see that Sea has been successful and is now a FA. The end came rather suddenly after I had requested Snowman not to edit the article any more after he had fiddled around with the Tsunami section and left it in a mess. It is a great relief that the process is over. Thank you for your co-operation in achieving this satisfactory result. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm really pleased for you, and hope it makes a big contribution to your competition results. I found the process draining and dispiriting, and it put me off writing my book for weeks and weeks! Well done persisting. Perhaps we should focus on more self-contained articles for FA - but I'm glad that it is possible to get 'big' subjects over the bar, as it jolly well should be. Now let's celebrate a little! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you found the review process discouraging - I always thought we would get there in the end. I'm not very keen on FAs really, GA is a more modest target and should produce good quality articles, and I prefer that. What book is this you are writing by the way? Something on animal behaviour or cryptic colouration or something similar? Incidentally, very little was said in the review on the prose of the article although Snowman mentioned a copy edit being required on a couple of occasions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I like GA, and rather think that every significant topic should be at that level. I think we can leave Sea alone for a while now - no doubt the wikignomes will do bits of copyediting here and there. Book is confidential but on natural history, happy to tell if emailed! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Just saw in the Signpost--You did it! Congratulations!!!! -- 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, it was rather a long haul. I liked the way Signpost delicately put it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Sea to FA status recently. If you would like to see it appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see it on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,327 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any questions TFA-related or problems, please let me know. To get such an important article as "Sea" to FA status is quite an achievement, and as I've said to Cwmhiraeth, I'm torn between wanting to pick it ASAP and saving it for a special sea-related day, if there is such a thing... Bencherlite^Talk 17:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the image at the top of the Sea article. It would be nice to nominate the article for TFA as suggested by Bencherlite. I see that one needs to write a suitable blurb. Do you fancy the task?

OK, will draft a blurb today and pass it to you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I will nominate Sea today and we will see what happens next. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I see it is already done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

With the success of Desert at GAN, that deals with most of the articles on which we worked together. The exception is Anatomy, I postponed nominating that for GA but have now done so rather belatedly. I see that a bit of a backlog has built up in the Biology and Medicine sector at GAN again. Never mind. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on Desert ... will help out at Anatomy as and when. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have modified Template:List of seas and Template:Regions of the world to point to the Sea article only in an appropriate way. This cleans up most of the problems with Special:WhatLinksHere/Sea that I had mentioned at the FAC. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Sea survived its day in the spotlight, just, but with quite a bit of vandalism along the way. I would have thought that it would have been a good idea to limit the editing of FTAs to allow only registered users to make changes on the day they are featured. I see that WolfmanSF was reprimanded for making large changes on the day.

I have decided I am going to abandon Sea to the elements! What I mean is that I shall remove it from my watchlist and leave others to splash around in it. The same with Salt, where there is an ongoing dispute as to whether American or British English should be used. I'd rather write or improve articles than squabble over them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, funnily enough I made the same decision yesterday! I thought to myself, I'm a writer and content editor, I didn't come here to argue the whole time, nor to tangle with vandals. But I might take a look and revert any recent changes. On better things, I guess you've won the competition by a mile, well done! And I think the crocs are easily GA-worthy by now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Anatomy

The GAN reviewer for Anatomy has raised several issues, some of which I have dealt with. I have moved the History section to near the beginning as this seems to be the normal practice in articles, and have removed a couple of images. I am intending to add a bit about modern techniques, things that are currently mentioned in the 20th century history section but which perhaps merit a section of their own. Some of the reviewer's suggestions don't seem good to me, hand-washing for example, and the idea that there is a worldwide shortage of anatomists - does he mean surgeons or what? Also, a point not raised by the reviewer, the article seems rather UK-centric. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll join in... I'd leave the UK-bit out of it for the moment! Anatomists doesn't exactly mean surgeons, it means either teachers or researchers in anatomy. Can't see what hand-washing has to do with anything... and I can't see how the images are 'choking' anything, unless he means where an image crosses a section boundary (only happens twice). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Women's health in India user problem

Hello. Thank you for reviewing the article Women's health in India. I am the original author. I was hoping to gain your assistance with a conflict with a user. We have been debating the validity of the suicide rate among women in India. I have provided references as well as shown that the other user's source conveys the same information as what I was presenting in the article. Is there anyway to remove the user or ban him from making changes to this article? He has already deleted portions of the article without providing counter sources.Jasdeepsgill (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, this does seem to be a troublesome user. The first action is to inform the user, with full politeness, that his actions are not correct and you intend to reverse the changes as they are unjustified. If he persists, you may warn the user his actions will lead to a report to the Administrators' Notice Board (WP:ANI). If he ignores that, make a brief factual report at ANI, and whatever admin action may be needed will be taken. At all costs remain calm and avoid inflammatory language. I will briefly say something to the user now in the hope it may help. BTW, the same user made deletions to Water supply and sanitation in India, which would be a relevant fact at ANI. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

How come? I haven't changed Water supply and sanitation in India either, it was edited by other user, who accept all of the information, that i suggested him. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: Agreed with his 2nd last change of the article, which is enough to end this issue, now waiting for the clarification of his another edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh good, it seems then that civility and rational thought are indeed the key. Well done both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The Core Contest

I believe that like me you have still not received your Amazon voucher. I have mentioned the fact on the Core Contest talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

On a different subject, I'm pretty clueless on technical matters and have managed to lose the archive box on my talk page. What I did was to cut and copy most of the page and I then pasted it into an existing archive. In the process the archive box disappeared, and like Little Bo Peep, I don't know where to find it! I suppose I could revert my edits but hesitate to muck things up further. Can you advise? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The box will just be a short bit of code which can be pasted back. It must be in the talk page history (and probably in the archive as well). I'll have a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I see you have restored it, thank you. I'll try to do better next time! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you had your Amazon voucher now? I see the other two winners have. Maybe I will have to swallow my scruples and contact Richard again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No, no emails I'm afraid. Please go right ahead. Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have this morning sent an email to Richard at Wikimedia UK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now received my voucher. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Me too, many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Desert

The DYK project (nominate) 00:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Crocodilian FA

Hello, would you like to join me and Cwmhiraeth in working on Crocodilia? I started on anatomy and Cwmhiraeth will join after this Wikicup round is finished. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be delighted. Thanks for thinking of me! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have access to any sources? Perhaps you could work on human relations or conservation. LittleJerry (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have JSTOR and the web... on croc conservation I have Bill Adams' Against Extinction. Will get started on conservation, humans to follow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of a "Human relations" section that divides into "Cultural depictions" "Attacks" and "Conservation". I not sure if the harvesting of crocs for their meat/leather ect, should have its own subsection or be part of conservation. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll try that. I think harvesting and conservation are tightly coupled - you get meat and skin from one animal - so let's start by doing them together. If that doesn't work, we'll think again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also recommend getting access toThe Firefly Encyclopedia of Reptiles and Amphibians and/or Crocodile: Evolution's Greatest Survivor. LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ordered. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"In popular culture" belongs with cultural depictions. Also the trivia-like styling will not do for an FA. LittleJerry (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That comment feels very abrupt to me. However, as it happens, the section was there already and I've been wondering what to do with it. I would cheerfully ditch it, but I expect we will need to replace it with some sort of mention of popular culture. I will give it some thought. I am not sure exactly what you mean by trivia-like styling, and am hoping you are referring to the "In popular culture" section, which is obviously unsatisfactory at the moment. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, you fixed it. I don't see the need for sub-subsections though. Also, would you be able to write in US English? LittleJerry (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's ditch the sss's. Gee whiz, scribe like a Yankee? Hey right, man let's go roast them Limeys or something. Can I? I doubt it, but I guess I can spell colour wrong on purpose for a while! Heck yes. But a transatlantic reviewer might still be needed for the finer details! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to settle at an early stage how we are going to format references because I find it tedious later on to try to bring them all up to scratch. Current refs 3 and 17 would seem suitable for journal articles and books. What form do you want to use for dates? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If it's just year I use Bloggs, Joe (1961) which is what seems to happen automatically with the year parameter in cite tags. For access dates ProveIt seems to use 'Retrieved 15 October 2013.' automatically, I think it knows how to pick up the 'use dmy' (etc) tags in articles but have never experimented with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What's ProveIt? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's how I do my refs (thought everybody did the same). If you go into your Preferences tab (between Talk and Watchlist) and choose the Gadgets tab, you will see halfway down the page in the Editing section a box with "Proveit, a powerful GUI tool for viewing, editing, adding, and inserting references (screenshot, working demo" next to it. Tick the box, scroll to the bottom and click Save. You may need to enable JavaScript in your browser though you've probably got it on by default. It's very handy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a look at the ProveIt demo but I reckoned it was no more simple than my present method for doing references so I'll probably stick to that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Very wise, but you may like to note the exact order of parameters that ProveIt has given me for my Human/In Culture section. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're doing great. However I don't think folktales can be considered popular culture. I think this book would contain more on crocs in pop culture (killer croc movies, cartoon characters, ect). Kelly's book mostly discusses mythology. Would you like to order the book are should I? LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to edit as you please, and do order that book. However, if folk stuff is not of the people, I'm not sure what else it could be, as it's just the voice of the common people of those countries over the centuries. I tried to substantiate the stuff in the uncited list and had trouble finding anything like a reliable source, it was all blogs and other dross. I think we should leave most of it for the other list (already linked) as it will only attract negative comment and/or be accused of being too long! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll expand popular culture once I get the book. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, since it's now its own section with an existing main-linked list article, it should be in 'summary style' with many wikilinks, few refs (maybe just one, to the book), and be a brief summary of the list article. That might mean adding refs and materials to the list article, of course! Actually I'll start that process now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to move on to "Ecology and lifecycle". Would you work on classification and entomology? LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Classification and etymology? OK, will give it a try. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe you ought to finish up on evolution. Do you think Cwmhiraeth is finished? LittleJerry (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I think she's working out what to do with the conflicting cladograms that I have collected/made on my page listed in the next section here ('Croc clades'). Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the section should deal with the classification of modern families, the differences between crocodiles, alligatorids, gharials and the etymology of the different names. LittleJerry (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. But evolution and classification are (or should be!) closely bound. I'll talk about the classification as it is; Cwmhiraeth can talk about what scientists think it ought to be, ie what the real relationships are. The Brevirostres seems to be polyphyletic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting to grips with the Evolution section now as I have acquired a good book "Crocodiles and Alligators" written by various experts and edited by Charles A Ross of the Smithsonian. This is how its looking now. I will be expanding the first paragraph of Evolution now that I feel I have the basics right. The Classification section is more problematic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's coming on a treat. How can I help? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to work on the Classification, either in my user space, your userspace or wherever. I shan't be doing any more now till tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer that the cladograph of modern species show all the species instead of just the genera, that way it can serve as a list (see Pinniped). I prefer the species list be in clado form than it is currently. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The species list shows where agreed taxonomy has got to, whereas the cladograms show hypotheses, possibly conflicting, on what the 'real' phylogeny may have been. Clearly there ought to be some connection between the two, but... ... However, once we know which cladograms we mean to use, we can populate them with all the species if you feel it helps - I think it's doubtful whether this is a good idea: 'completeness' (whatever that is - numbers of species change) vs clarity, simplicity, and compactness.Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have this problem with pinniped. I really don't like how they are listed currently, it looks atrocious. LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Matter of opinion. Not every group has unstable phylogeny and classification, it depends how well separated the species etc are. Here the traditional classn is clearly not right but the new one is still very young. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How's classification coming along? We need discussion of the differences between the families and the number of species. LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Done some, but it feels a bit like repetition. I'll see if I can find something more substantial to say on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think "Literature" should mention the crocodile's role in Peter Pan as well as How Doth the Little Crocodile. LittleJerry (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

GA review has begun. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so I saw... he's a good and very thorough reviewer, it may be quite a ride, but it will carry us much of the way towards FA. I'll step in as soon as I see anything I can help with. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Need your help at GA. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. After the review is done. I think we may need to list all crocodilians that are endangered and some discussion of the Chinese alligator (which seems to rely a lot on captive breeding). I would suggests that the Chinese alligator is discussed after the gharial and then state "other crocodilians listed as endangered are..." LittleJerry (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, we can consider it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's it before submitting it to FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, well, all the best then, good luck, and thanks for co-ordinating. I'll keep an eye. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Croc Clades

If you want to see what I am doing you will find it here. The subject seems complex to me and at present the section consists of a number of separate paragraphs rather than a coherent whole. I found the cladogram at Neosuchia where it is one of two rather different possibilities. Much work still to be done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. My copy of Lynne Kelly's Crocodile-Evolution's Greatest Survivor 2006 has just arrived, so perhaps it would be ideal if you'd like to assign some part of the Evolution and Classification task to me, and I'll see how far Kelly takes me? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why we're going into so much detail. If we do it just to family or maybe genus, it'll take less space and we can show two or more alternatives. At any rate it's much better defined than those starfish! I've cut down the two to size at [5] which is certainly a lot smaller! Let me know what you think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to help. The original cladogram was too big and what you have produced is better. If this is to be a combined Taxonomy/Evolution section we'll need to go back at least as far as Eusuchia I guess. I don't really know how to deal with a position where none of the authorities agree, especially when their views are so recent. Your book may be 6 years out of date! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the evolution section could be separate from a classification and etymology section, like in frog? LittleJerry (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No reason why not. The Kelly book is great for stories and background but not much help on clades. We will have to do as in Starfish and present alternative clades, I think, - Bronzati 2012 carries more weight because of its breadth and thoroughness (as well as recency). There are 4 clades here. It may be worth observing that Puertolas 2011 is consistent with Bronzati so all are not at sixes and sevens, in fact I'd merge those two. Also, the 3-way split of Crocodylia in Holliday and Gardner 2012 looks really weird, how can 3 groups be exactly equally far apart? Smells odd. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This article has a cladogram of modern species (expect one). LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've made a WP-style cladogram from it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

They don't even seem to agree whether Brevirostres is a clade which makes it very difficult for us poor folks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there is now enough evidence that Brevirostres is unsafe as a clade, and we are quite justified in saying so ("conflicting opinions..."), and we can use the Erickson 2012 cladogram to say "this 2012 maximum likelihood analysis splits up the Brevirostres" (i.e. probably for ever). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Anatomy (estimated annual readership: 456,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations yet again--you two are on one of the most remarkable runs of article improvement I've seen here! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Anatomy to Good Article status.

-- Khazar2 (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: sea

This is a note to let the main editors of sea know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 2, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The sea is the connected body of salty water that covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface. It moderates the Earth's climate and has important roles in the water, carbon, and nitrogen cycles. It has been travelled since ancient times, while scientific oceanography dates broadly from Captain James Cook's 18th-century voyages. Winds produce waves and surface currents, and deep-sea currents carry cold water to every ocean. Large events such as submarine earthquakes can cause destructive tsunamis. Tides are caused by the rotation of the Earth and the gravitational effects of the Moon and the Sun. A variety of organisms live in the sea's many habitats, from the sunlit surface to the cold, dark abyssal zone, and from the Arctic to colourful tropical coral reefs. Life itself may have started in the sea. The sea provides humans with food including fish and shellfish, and enables trade, travel, mineral extraction, power generation, naval warfare, and leisure, though often at the cost of marine pollution. The sea has been important in human culture since Homer's Odyssey, appearing in literature, mythology, marine art, cinema, theatre, classical music and dream interpretation. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Really stuck

I'm really stuck on the Cucurbita peer review in regards to your good idea about uses/sections. Please see my last comment there. Could you be so kind as to help nudge this along some more? HalfGig (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've replied in the review under Prose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For great performance in helping people learn wiki ways, especially the Cucurbita article. HalfGig (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done a fair amount of work on those sections we've been talking about. On another point, who would be a choice to wordsmith the article?

Firstly, thank you very much! On the article, I'm never sure what people mean by wordsmithing; if it means choosing the right words, that depends closely on the meaning of the science to be expressed, so it's not a trivial task, and must fall to those editors who are knowledgeable in the area; on any plant topic, a request on the Plants wikiproject is always worth trying. If it means polishing, that can generally be left to the many Wikignomes who turn up by themselves to twiddle and tweak... All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I mean make the prose smooth and excellent. Some have suggested this could/should be submitted for featured status when it's ready. HalfGig (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I wondered if that was where you were headed. I think it could be, but it needs some more filling out and as you say some smoothing of prose also. I should have a look around similar articles and invite a few editors to look over it. When it settles down you can check everything over carefully, make sure all the refs are identically formatted, take a deep breath and try for FA. I'll keep an eye. Good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, not many have commented at the peer review, which is still active, and Sasata said he'd look at it but has not yet done so. HalfGig (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be inclined not to rush at it then. Likely people including you will come across facts to include or emphases to change in the coming months. Do you have JSTOR? It might be worth nosing around some academic papers there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already pulled lots of stuff from jstor. I'll just keep poking at it for now. HalfGig (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

B-class rating

Hi! I noticed the Diffused lighting camouflage via article alerts - while I concur with your assessment that the article meets B-class criteria, the MILHIST Project bars major contributors to a given article from assessing the same as B-class alone. Please seek B-class review at WP:MHAR next time around - the editors there are very responsive and typically complete reviews in a day or two. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I just made the basic evaluations of the details and wrote C in the total, and was as surprised as anyone when the gadget decided to write a B in automatically, it's not really right it should do that. I updated the basic details because someone had just inserted a checklist and set it to Start, which was patently wrong, as you say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries then. I figured it was some sort of glitch. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse GA review

Thanks. And I'll keep checking in. I've already filled in the first "cn" reference.--Aichik (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh good. But I'm a bit alarmed at the rate of non-GAN editing of the article: this should really be at vanishingly low levels while a GA is under way. Though I don't often review articles on popular heroes! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, some of that was probably me, and I cut down. Thanks again for reviewing this, and your nice comments on it!--Aichik (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

pdfs

The current reference #7 (Grigg, G.; Gans, C) in Crocodilia gives an error message "page not found" for me, but Little Jerry says it works for him. How is it for you?

In general, I have the greatest of difficulties in finding urls for pdf files. If I have unearthed them through Google they have reams of googleization in their urls and by the time I have downloaded them, I can't discover what the url should be. Do you have any advice on this? It puts me off using pdf files as sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Well, I've replaced the URL. Since the Gov't of Australia have a nice search tool on the Not Found page, I searched for the chapter and Grigg there, so that was easy.

2) The whole book is free at [6] and it has chapters on croc natural history, biogeography, phylogeny and general stuff as well as the morph. and physiol. so it might be worth having as a source for use in short form.

3) On the more general question of what to do when googling - I tried another chapter of the same book, "General Description and Definition of the Order Chelonia" and Google found it for me at top of the list. (Actually it also found the whole book as #2, which solves the problem in this case.) Now, here Google has the old deadlink path, but let's just do the simple thing to explain - click on the 'Fauna of Australia 2A link, and the page opens, with the full non-googleized path as usual at the top of the browser, ready to be copied. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes. From this page I can get the pdf url by rightclicking on the link to the chapter I want. Actually, today I am having difficulty finding any examples of pdf files that I can't find the url for. I wonder if Google has altered the way it presents things. I used to have no difficulty and it is only the last few months in which I have had problems, Thanks anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hill Street, London

The DYK project (nominate) 16:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Which

Hi Chap, just wondering why you think the which/that distinction is a Brit Eng issue rather than a non-restrictive clause issue; cars, which are made in Germany, are crap; cars that are made in Germany are crap. What you want in the sentence you rv'd is the second. It's the street that runs southwest (i.e restrictive). I won't touch the sentence till we are agreed who is correct! Regards, Ericoides (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm Chiswick Chap or CC if that's too long. I don't agree at all with your distinction. As a native English speaker the 'which' is absolutely comfortable (i.e. correct) as I've used it. I do appreciate that WP needs persnickety care and am grateful for the minor polishing that ceaselessly goes on, but don't see the need to change things that look and feel just right, and question any grammatical analysis that contradicts native competence. After all, what does analysis have to work on, other than what natives say and write... As for the national bit, I can report that non-Brits sometimes use that where I'd use which, for whatever reason, and I'd not dare to change their usage in non-Brit articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

CC, I see. I'm British, too, and "that" feels right, as well as being grammatically correct, as any grammarian will tell you. You might as well say that you do not agree with the distinction between saying "I am" and "I is", and that "I is" looks and feels correct. As you are approaching the problem as a matter of taste, which is wholly subjective, it seems pointless for me to pursue a fruitless argument or to return here. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Gosh. Let me just say that 'taste' is not the point, and common usage is the shared (intersubjective) basis for all grammatical theory, unless of course it is based purely on conjecture or analogy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crocodilia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Migration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Language setting" of Natural history article

I notice that you reverted the change from "mediaeval" to "medieval" with a comment about the "language setting" of the article. However, the article doesn't actually have a "language setting" in that there isn't an ENGVAR template on either the article or the talk page. Internal evidence suggests {{British English Oxford spelling}} might be appropriate; there are no "-ise" endings, only "-ize", but "mediaeval" shows it isn't US English. Have you any views on this? Peter coxhead (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll add one now to make it clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, because you added {{Use British English}} and {{British English}} rather than {{Use British (Oxford) English}} and {{British English Oxford spelling}}, I changed the "-ize" forms to "-ise". But I would personally prefer the latter templates and then the "-ize" forms can be retained. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh good! Do that then. I've spotted some content changes, cmt on the talk page. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

It's always nice to log in after breakfast and find a barnstar waiting! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 09:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred Russel Wallace centenary

Gatoclass (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

Patterns in nature
Thank you for quality articles, such as Operation Bertram on remembrance Day and Patterns in nature, for article rescue and collaboration, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 301st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As always, thank you so much. It is really encouraging to have people like you who constantly focus on the positive in life. We are all really proud of our Wikipedia, even on days when it feels a struggle! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I blossom with comments like yours! I brought "encouraging people not to become hardened in hard times" to the Main page, DYK? Try the first links from my user page to see why ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"Unique" - Antipredator Adaptations

Is there another term that is more appropriate than the word "unique?" We did not realize there is a specific meaning to the word that Wikipedia uses, and our backup choice was the word "noteworthy" which is also a term you suggest is inappropriate. Does the term "atypical" work better? BIO267 F13 04 (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, and thank you for turning to discussion rather than battle. Well, you seem to be looking for an adjective, which is very likely the cause of the difficulty in itself. If we do need to use one here, then 'atypical' might be the right one, but its usage, whether in the main text or (especially) in a section heading implies one of two things:

a) that you are expressing your opinion, which Wikipedia calls a Point of View, not encyclopedic, or

b) that Bloggs, Smithers and Robinson (1927) called it that, in which case you must say so, and cite B, S, and R at once ("Citation Needed"). Of course, if you merely interpret them to have MEANT that it was 'atypical', that is again your theory, and WP calls your invention Original Research, which is the job of a research lab, not of an encyclopedia.

The upshot of this extended theorizing is simply to say that adjectives are generally not a terribly good idea in articles, unless you quote and cite them directly from reliable sources. Hope this all helps - it may keep you from banging your head against a lot of Wiki-walls. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW this is not a special Wikisense of 'unique', but the plain dictionary definition, try OED or Webster. It may help to know that uni- comes from Latin for 'one'. Unique = one-off. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes in Sri Aurobindo page

I have added Citations as desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankur.beohar (talk • contribs) 11:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice having you on board on Rudolf Steiner. I appreciate your good work! HGilbert (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Crocodilia

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

CP Dinos

OK. Abyssal (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've got hold of 'The CP Dinos' by McCarthy and will add cites from there - it seems that quite a bit of the article probably came from it, but the facts are quite scattered about. Seems reliable, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Outdoor literature article editing

Re your comments on my live editing. Sorry about that. I did work in my sandbox, and looked at the template page and used its sandbox, but got frustrated. I have no real understanding of computer language. I eventually used a category link panel, but I envisioned a more complex solution, a narrow, horizontall version of the panel you added (see Template:English literature), without the image, and with show/hide. But I'm presuming that to do this an entirely new template, with a different name, would have to be created. Thanks for the advice. Rwood128 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Yes, that's exactly what I imagined, and it will mean creating a new template. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories 'Insects of <country>'

Thanks for letting me know - I've responded over there.

One of the problems, too, I think, is that there doesn't appear to be much standardization of insect-by-country categories (I created a bunch of them, for instance...but Category:Moths of Metropolitan France and Category:Moths of Israel already existed as parent categories for lists. And I'm not sure where they fall in the category tree.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC Crocodilia

Thanks for jumping in today. Could you make sure the reference formatting is consistant? That's a delegate request. LittleJerry (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help with the osmoles. Reference formatting has never been my strong point, and I believe Cwmhiraeth has been through them already; and, btw, I read it as meaning that the delegate wanted an independent reviewer to check the refs, not us lot, i.e. we respond when errors are found. I'll check the ref I just added, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that. I was asking if you check so when its doesn't get reviewed there are no problems. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. By 'not my strong point' I mean that in practice I don't usually manage to predict what minutiae reviewers will comment on. But if I spot anything I'll fix it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Found several missing '.' after page numbers, and one or two 'p.' where 'pp.' expected. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)