User talk:SP-KP/Talk page archive 2005

This is where I've archived messages posted to my talk page in 2005

Welcome!

Hello, SP-KP/Talk page archive 2005, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 16:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moving pages

I've noticed you recently moved the contents of the Death's Head moth page to Death's-head Hawkmoth by copying and pasting the article text. This technique is not advisable, as it does not move the page's history and talk page to the new location and may make it seem like the article was just created. Please use the "move" button/link (at the top of the page if using the standard MonoBook skin) to do this in the future. Thanks a bunch. --Aramգուտանգ 18:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the way you replied is perfectly acceptable. Many Wiki users use various techniques to have a conversation, some respond on their own talk page, some on the original poster's talk page, some add a copy of the original poster's message to the user's talk page along with their reply, some make a note on their page that they replied on the other user's talk page, some make a note on the other user's talk page that they replied on their own page, some add a link to the original post to their reply on the other user's talk page, and any imaginable combination of the above. It's really a matter of personal preference, although there are some guidelines at Wikipedia:Talk page. In general, it's a good idea to add the user's talk page, where you posted a message, to your watchlist, so you can more easily check if they replied. Replying on the other user's talk page has the advantage that they'll see the "you have new messages" note when they access Wikipedia. To sum it up, just find what works for you, and stick to it. Cheers. --Aramգուտանգ 18:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Odonate

I don't recall the article, but looking at the deleted content I suspect my issue was that the article seemed a dictionary definition for a term that it admitted was not in common usage, and that this just seemed silly - perhaps a redirect to Odonata would be appropriate? Snowspinner 18:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. Snowspinner 19:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Articles

Please don't put " (currently being created) ". It forces someone to come back and edit every article again in the future to remove it. And who will decide when the creation is finished? Better to just write the articles so they stand on their own merits. Rmhermen 21:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

There are some "in use" templates like { { inuse } } and { { inusefor } } The second allows you to add an expected time and reason. Rmhermen 03:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Please do not add the template {{delete}} to articles. That template is a speedy deletion candidate. If you wish to propose an article for deletion, the method to do so is here. Thanks! SchmuckyTheCat 02:12, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact circumstance but my general rule of thumb is that if an article could be salvaged it shouldn't be speedy deleted. I think it was an article consisting of a sentence or two about a historical Muslim. I put the title of the article into Google and came back with a lot of hits. I cut and pasted the basic bio (name in the native language, birth and death) and changed it into a stub. Speedy delete should get rid of vandalism and trash, but stuff with potential can be re-written just as quick. That encourages new people to stay and edit when they don't see their first hesitant contributions throw to the wolves. ta ta SchmuckyTheCat 28 June 2005 14:06 (UTC)
There are probably half a dozen "this is a valid article topic but the contents are poo" templates. It is a valid argument that deleting those articles lets someone else create them with better content later, but I don't buy it. The effort to delete takes the same amount of effort to google and write two or three real sentences that start a valid stub. It's a standing culture difference on Wikipedia, actually.
The other article you mentioned, yeah, I meant to do the same, but I had to run off. Another wikipedia policy is Be Bold! So go ahead and change that one too. Sitting on the category that speedy delete articles belong to and finding one or two to "salvage" is a habit of too few people here. SchmuckyTheCat 28 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Wake me up before you go go

Hey there. Don't worry about it; the rules say that you cannot re-post the deleted content, but there is nothing against starting a fresh article. Actually, it's highly encouraged. Just be careful about the way the article is written, as we have quite a few problems with articles on songs/singles/albums, since they tend to lean towards a very positive point of view. Have fun editing! --Sn0wflake 28 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)

Norfolk Hawker

Hi, I moved the page history from NorfolkHawker to Norfolk Hawker. Can you check to make sure that I restored the correct version of the article after doing the history move (moving entails a delete/undelete). Thanks, JeremyA 2 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

Stale inuses

Hi - thanks for removing my "stale inuses". I was conscious that I was using this template incorrectly, but didn't want to remove them myself, as another editor had told me that if I was still in the middle of working on an article, I should flag this up by using the inuse template, rather than mentioning this fact in the text. Can you let me how you would suggest I mark these articles to indicate their incompleteness? I wouldn't want people to go away thinking that the articles were complete. --SP-KP 22:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, { { inuse } } is more for when you are doing complex manipulations with an article (for instance, shuffling sections around or deleting accidental duplications) and any new edit would only make things harder.

The standard way of marking an article as incomplete is to use a { { stub } } template. There's also {{expand}}, which might not be exactly what you want. However, there's not much of a need — everything on Wikipedia is "incomplete" by definition.

Another option is to work on the articles on your user namespace, and move them to the main namespace (either via the move function or via copy-and-paste) when you think you are done. This way they would already start "fully formed".

--cesarb 23:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithology categories

For people, "Category:Ornithological authors" would be better than "Category:Ornithological Literature". Andy Mabbett 15:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Books on birding.

Would this book fit into your list? -- BD2412 ^talk 00:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of disability-related terms with negative connotations

Hey SP, I added my proposed changes to the page in the talk section, what do you think? talk:List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations. I was thinking if adding sentances, but I dunno if it fits. As far as using wheelchair-bound in a sentance maybe this? "My mother-in-law is wheelchair-bound and needs assistance for this flight." What would be the replacement? Thanks!

- Ravedave 03:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alanbrooke

Hi Brookie here - if you're not happy with my edits - change it! Be bold. :) The curate's egg 08:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Bulger

Sorry I have been very slack recently with my WP. I will try to take a look over things today. Pcb21| Pete 19:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental

I've put Accidental (music) on Wikipedia:Requested moves back to Accidental. Since there are only two meanings, there's no need for a disambiguation page; instead, a {{dablink}} from Accidental to the biology meaning would have been sufficient. I wish you had mentioned this on the talk page before making the move, but anyway your comments on the proposed revert would be welcome. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Details about disambiguation usage are at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonflies

1. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style does not recommend using bold text all over the place. Bold text is used in only selective areas. You'd have to unbold all the unnecessary text.

2. Wikipedia:What is a featured list states that the article in question should have minimum red links. I suggest you at least create stub articles as there are simply too many red links there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bold text

In simple words do not use bold text. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style has the details). I'll give you an example of the usage of bold font:

==Gobi desert==
The Gobi desert is a large desert in China.

You may also use the bold text to define something out of the ordinary. See how I've used bold text here: List of Indian state and union territory capitals.

I've bolded the states column, as the other columns all have to do with the cities, I've also bolded the cities which are "regarded" the capital of the state, to differenciate them from the other centres of administration.

Coming back to your list, you've bolded two columns in the table and in the references. There's no justification for this (The ones in the lead will pass, they're acceptable). Your references should be preferably cited using a template (it makes it look neat): Just pick the most appropriate template from this list: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations

Red links

Quoting from Wikipedia:What is a featured list? 2.1 : A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links).'

The list should contain links to articles already present.

I hope I have clarified all your doubts. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for working on some of the bolding in the British dragonflies list. It looks a lot better now. I think that was what I found somewhat confusing - just visually it seemed a little messy. Unfortunately, as the users above have pointed out, the article still has many redlinks. I appreciate that you want to encourage more users to write about dragonflies, but perhaps there is some way to do this other than pushing it to featured status. I'm guessing that dragonflies are not a very popular subject on wikipedia, but maybe there's an insect wikiproject out there somewhere. I really don't know. When the article has more blue links, I'll be happy to support. --Sophitus 05:14, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your message

The text told us that some journalists had said that Jackson looked like the childcatcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and that this was "ironic". Leaving aside the misunderstanding of the notion of irony, this is surely unencyclopædic. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I somehow missed your reply. My feeling is still that it's just one of many, many snippets about Jackson of the sort that don't really belong in an encyclopædia. Do you have any sources for its widespread or continuing use? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British ornithologists

I've created Category:British ornithologists. Andy Mabbett 19:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Topography

I've moved Category:Bird Topography, which you created, to Category:Bird topography and listed the original at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy. - dcljr (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Masked Booby

I noticed your changes to this article, and I'd be interested to know the source for the split - it's not mentioned in Seabirds or the Costa Rica field guide, but both are more than ten year's since publication.

jimfbleak 18:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bits and pieces

I've just written Black-whiskered Vireo, which I now see was on your to do list apologies
I've fixed the Racket-tailed Drongo link
Although Northern Caracara isn't written, Crested Caracara is - I assume northern is an AOU split?
I have a photo of Southern Hawker, although I imagine it's easy to get a better one

jimfbleak 12:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Transitional low-marsh vegetation with Puccinellia maritima, annual Salicornia species and Suaeda maritima)

Hi, I just stumbled across this article and wondered if a shorter title wou;d be possible - don't see many users typing it. Is it primarily meant to be accessed as a link from somewhere else? Dlyons493 Talk 17:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Imperial Eagle

Hi, I didn't write this article, I just tidied it up, so I can't help you. Smallweed 06:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithology by year

Great idea for a set of pages. This list of oldest bird clubs may be of interest. You might also want to add a note asking people not to reveal the location of vulnerable birds; especially for the current year/ 2006. Andy Mabbett 21:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've also created Category:Years in birding and ornithology. Andy Mabbett 21:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nature writers

What about a British nature writers category? Andy Mabbett 23:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done: British nature writers. No doubt you can add some! Andy Mabbett 11:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

editing

hi

thanks for your note.

it seems there is a varying opinion on what defines a proper vegetarian, but i've left what i thought was an intelligent edit, based on science. that is, eggs simply are not vegetables. a vegan is the same thing, in fact if you look up both words in the oxford dictionary you'll see they have the same definition.

so in fact my edit was based on what is believed to be the correct intellectual information.

how can we proceed? i'm only here to help.

thanks

michelle

Albatross

I've put the albatross page up for review, I'd appreciate your thoughts as you seem to be a bird enthusiast! Check out Wikipedia:Peer review/Albatross/archive1. Thanks! Sabine's Sunbird 17:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

These:

may be of interest. Regards, Andy Mabbett 22:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And:

William Keble Martin

Andy Mabbett 19:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eggs

Hi SP, thanks for your note about Vegetarianism. I can't see your eggs proposal. I'll be happy to comment on it if you point the way. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SP, Slimvirgin is active in other pages but I'm assuming chooses not to comment on your proposal. I would like to continue my edits assuming that she agrees to my sources on lacto vegetarian majority (section previous to your proposal) - seeing she hasn't replied to that either. Do you think that is unreasonable? --Pranathi 23:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SP, If you don't agree, I'll be glad to hash out the issue with you - I'm trying not to impose my views on western editors - but I believe majority of practitioners are not being represented enough just because of this imbalance. I will try and limit my edits to removing the tilt towards ovo-lacto since the discussion has not ended. If you or anyone else continues the discussion, I will wait until it's finished before I make more changes. --Pranathi 17:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date and walnut loaf

Hi, I've just nominated this article for transwikification, and thought I should inform you. Mindmatrix 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I rather like date and walnut loaf :-) I'm also not against stubs (I've created a few of them too). I don't think this article is encyclopedic in nature, and may best be placed in a Cookbook at Wikibooks. Unless there's an interesting history behind it, I just can't see much info that could be added to this article that wouldn't be more appropriate in a wikibook anyway. Of course, you're more than welcome to prove me wrong, in which case I would withdraw my nomination. Mindmatrix 17:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ynys Feurig

Re. landing prohibition - there is (I assume it's still there) a sign on the island prohibiting landing in the breeding season. Rhion 13:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the RSPB - I'll check with Reg Thorpe or somebody at the Bangor office. Rhion 13:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magpie Goose

I notice you have moved this article without fixing the "what links here", and in particular there are now many double redirects. Can you let me know if you are going to fix all the links? If not I'll move it back, especially as Wildfowl and other standard texts use the two word version rather than this wierd hyphenated form that seems fashionable now.

jimfbleak 13:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not querying the status of the Magpie Goose, which Wildfowl gives family status too, it's just that to me these hyphenated forms, such as American Golden-Plover (or is it American Golden-plover?) seem an elitist and ugly variant on what to most birders will continue to be an American Golden Plover. I've never seen a Magpie Goose in the wild, so I'm not that bothered about the name change in this particular case, just the links.

jimfbleak 16:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow-legged Gull

Yellow-legged Gull looks OK, I fixed the taxobox error. Caspian Gull is probably about all that can be done at present given the taxonomic uncertainty, other than maybe a bit more description

jimfbleak 15:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sortkeys

I've been going through trying to add sortkeys to year-category references in "year in" articles (for example, using [[Category:1998|Birding and ornithology]] on the page 1998 in birding and ornithology). If you create more year-related pages like this in the future could you try to remember to add sortkeys to them? Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boobies

I've not seen either form, only Red-footed and Brown, so I'll go with your judgement on this, jimfbleak 06:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted Creeper

as with the boobies, I just followed the HBW treatment, and have no problems with a different taxonomy, jimfbleak 14:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about Spotted Creeper in HBW, I don't know where I got the family classification from, but it's clearly not current thinking, Merry Christmas, jimfbleak 17:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motor Neuron Disease

Hi, Thanks for the note. Please see my reply at the category's talk page (where I also moved your comment). Couldn't figure out how to link to the talk page of a category, byt the way. Do you know how? --Sjsilverman 07:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]