User talk:SP-KP/Talk page archive 2007 c

Tree Warbler

I changed a bit b/c what can be said is that they're paraphyletic in traditional composition. As for the merger, I'd go with the CSNA decision. I'd have to look at all the data, but the Zoologica Scripta supertree (doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.2006.00221.x) suggests that there is an "acrocephaline" clade composed of the core Hippolais and a polytomy of Acrocephalus lineages + H. caligata to opaca as 2 sisters. It's more practical to retain at least the distinct 4 core Hippolais as distinct rather than to make the family monotypic (some Hippolais are more destinct from Acocephalus than is Chloropeta)... because there are distinct lineages in it, only that the 4 "true" TW's are the only one that can at present be recovered robustly. That songs are not useful here is no wonder to me. They are very plastic in wood warblers, and the strongest evolutionary forcing is between close relatives (species pairs, ring species etc), not on higher levels. Only good signal, I'd suppose, is from DNA and biogeo (has anyone looked at the latter? If not, I'll do it eventually). In any case, if it's merged now, odds seem to be that it's split again in the next 2 years or so. But would you suggest to go with the CSNA decidsion on WP? It looks good and clean. Dysmorodrepanis 00:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief glance at biogeo: the main radiation of acrocephalids seems to have taken a counterclockwise N->W route into Europe, from a hypothetical origin in the general area of Pakistan (Scotocerca is apparently not Cisticolidae but basal to or in acrocephalids). Only the "true" tree warbler lineage spread W-wards initially. Given the 11 Ma Acrocephalus fossil record (which is shaky but barely possible I'd say) and looking at Mid-Late Miocene paleogeography, I'd guess the best bet is that the true Hippolais are so few because they're the lineage from the Alpides ranges of Turkey etc, which was often fairly surrounded by an epicontinental sea during the mid-Miocene: Mediterranean connecting with Black Sea and Red Sea, Black Sea also with Caspian, Caspian also with Persian Gulf. The center of true Hippolais diversity was thus slightly cut off from where the diversity of Acrocephalus is highest (and incidentially, most of the ranges of the 2 non-Hippolais species pairs). Though a mid-Miocene split between these lineages seems rather early for Sylvioidea. But why not? It's possible and it does arguably reconcile all the data in the question at hand. Dysmorodrepanis 00:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of entomology journals

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article List of entomology journals, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. andy 17:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An {{afd}} tag has been placed on List of entomology journals, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. All Wikipedians can join the debate at Articles for deletion, where articles asserted to be inappropriate to Wikipedia are discussed. You are encouraged to submit your opinion, and remember that Articles for Deletion debates are not a vote. You can also leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the deletion tag yourself, but don't feel inhibited from editing the article, particularly if doing so makes it clear that it is a useful contribution to an encyclopaedia. andy 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about this afd, I think you forgotto explicitly say keep in bold. You know how literal people are around here. :) DGG 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Species' microformat

Hi,

When you've a minute, I'd be grateful if you could look at Template talk:Taxobox#'Species' microformat and leave any comments there. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nudge ;-) Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bird peer review

It's been and gone, though I am still working my way through the comments involved - this is taking a lot of time as spare time is hard to come by (darn PhD.) Stilll, feel free to look over it and leave comments on the talk page, I'd like to nominate it soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only some citation tags added? I'd hate to see lots. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Hi, theres some template to subst for an article that has been AfDied in the past. What is it ? It is needed on the entomology journal list. I may get myself to partly work on the list. Also does something like the Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History count ? They can carry entomology as well. I think we need some extra fields to give more info. Shyamal 08:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Feduccia

Yeah, non-commercial licenses are not compatible with GFDL, it needs to be re-written. Corvus cornix 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the article, but left the talkpage assuming you will rework this into an article that can be kept. The deletion was simply based on the cut and paste of the content and licensing, not on notability of the subject.--Isotope23 18:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we delete talkpages for articles that don't exist. I left it intact, but another admin noticed the talkpage where there was no article and deleted it. I've restored the talkpage.--Isotope23 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can point to the other page as a Reference or External link. Corvus cornix 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add some form of verification to this article, as right now, it has none. I put a tag on it requesting references. Best, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports In Iran

Yes, because living most of my life in Iran, it is a fact that dancing (Not the traditional and tribal dances) and figure skating are banned in Islamic Republic and are not even shown on TV. I'll try to search and find a citation. --Arad 16:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Done. Let me know if there are any problems :) Cheers. --soum ^talk 17:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I somehow missed your message. If you still need the information, in the Make list step, choose What links here in the Make list drop down. --soum ^talk 08:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My red kite comments

User:Arzautz has embarked on a one-man campaign to delete any reference that suggests that the Canaries are not totally integrated into Spain: monitoring his edits is what is what lead me to this page. No need to list Canaries, or any other country/region, that has had no survey of these birds. Kevin McE 17:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population

The source data gives the population for the Bristol Urban Sub-Area (the city itself, data point K24601) at 420,556.

You may be confusing it with the Bristol Urban Area (the entire conurbation based around the city, data point K24600) which is given as 551,066. This includes other towns such as Kingswood and Mangotsfield that the ONS consider to be separate settlements from Bristol. Fingerpuppet 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to the list regarding the Bristol Urban Area population. Fingerpuppet 23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ronald Reagan

The article Ronald Reagan you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Ronald Reagan for eventual comments about the article. Well done!

Chupper 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House Sparrow "citation needed"

Hi SP-KP: How many citations would you like to see added for House Sparrow undergoing massive range expansion due to human intervention (in the Bird article)? After all, Brits have introduced them to just about every place they've ever colonized themselves! :) Seriously though, would you like to see a reference for each continent they've been introduced to, or what? MeegsC | Talk 15:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand

And it isn't tropical at the moment. I'm actually coming down with the flu and am going to get my copy of deathly hallows and then die I think. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your looking at my comments on citation in the bird talk page - when this comes to FAC it will no doubt come out and it's be good to see if you agree with some of my logic. The article already has as many citations as the most cited article, and its going to need some more, so I don't want to overwhelm the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the citations again - sorry to nag but I need to get this sorted. I looked at the recently promoted mammoth-concept article evolution and trivial examples in the images were not cited (for example lions, finches and whales). Again, there are quite a few instances that you've tagged where there really needs to be a citation, but the article has already shot past evolution in numbers of citations and is in serious danger of become over cited which will come up in the FA. I'm going to strip out some specialised refences where there are multiple ones that could be covered by one general one (for example an article on nectar feeding can replace three articles for three different feeders). Sorry if I've been snappy but this article is seriously depleting my reserves of calm; the sooner the fucker is done with the sooner I can taka a wikibreak from hardcore stuff and play with something simpler. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal locations in Great Britain

Do you plan to move User:SP-KP/Coastal locations in Great Britain into article space? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten I'd done it, to be honest. Do you think it would be a useful addition? If so, I've got no problem with it moving there. I have a feeling there is an overlapping article though, so we might need to do a merge. SP-KP 19:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it would be well worth publishing, or merging, as appropriate. Once its complete, I can image in each article having a "succession" box, linking to the next and previous entry. I'm not sure why you went anti-clockwise, though! ;-) Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it - See List of places on the British coastline. Let me know your thoughts on the best way forward. SP-KP 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sequential presentation is much better; though I like that page's use of type identifiers. Why not propose a merge on its talk page? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skinner

There is a reply for you on my talk page. WLU 12:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just remember that DAB pages are meant to be idiot proof. I tend to be pretty strict because they're also targets for spammers. WLU 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RTBC

Erm..thanks for nominating Red-tailed Black Cockatoo - I generally don't do much copyediting until I get all the facts sorted. I'd stalled as I could not find anything much out about RTBCs in the the pet trade (cost etc. in Oz and O/S etc.). Anyway was working it up to FA eventually...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:FAR Process

Articles which are on the main page are not allowed to go to FAR since the heavy traffic on the main page ususally changes the article drastically. Thus, not allowing for a good review. I would suggest that any concnerns be raised on the article's talk page before proceeding to FAR.

Secondly, when you nominated the article you deleted the review of another article. Joelito (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It should be part of the instructions. I believe it was previously there but the instruction recently underwent a major rewrite so it may been removed inadvertedly. Joelito (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind?

How about not putting that FA on FARC until I've had a good faith chance to look up my sources? Sheesh. I spent a hell of a lot of time on that article, and I will fix the citations. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. My apologies. Even though I'm a long time editor and administrator of Wikipedia, I haven't been following what different processes are for some time. I've just been editing things I'm interested in, blocking vandals and rolling back vandalism :-) I misunderstood your intentions! I'm sort of kicking myself (as I often do) for no assuming good faith... sorry SP-KP. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Table suffixes

Template:Table suffixes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 21:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Table Biology Prefixes And Suffixes

Template:Table Biology Prefixes And Suffixes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 21:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Peter Tatchell

The article Peter Tatchell you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Peter Tatchell for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tatchell

While the changes you have made are admirable, the article still has long way to go towards GA status. There are entire sections without a single citation, and many of the factual assertions are potentially controversial. With a biography of a living person, especially such a contentious political figure, there needs to be much stronger verification. Thanks for your work, VanTucky ^(talk) 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have missed a citation or two in the early sections. But regardless, one citation for several large bio sections, filled with facts about a living person, is not sufficient. Much less, GA standard. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bedbug GA nomination quick-failed

I have reviewed the article and have quick-failed it at this point, mainly for insufficient sourcing. There are more comments on the talk page that you can look to if you want to continue to improve the article before nominating again. If you disagree with the review, you can get a second review at Good article review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rayner Goddard

The problem with Rayner Goddard is he's such a controversial character that people will believe almost anything bad about him. I've heard the story about him getting sexually excited when sentencing young men to death before. This sort of thing is the very essence of gossip. Note that even in his life Goddard got very angry when Jowitt claimed he had enjoyed reciting the death sentence at Marlborough. Almost anyone could claim to have been his valet and pass on a story and find it believed without going in to extensive checking, especially in a book published many years after his death. So while it may be appropriate to mention it, I think it should be treated with caution. Fys. Ta fys aym. 18:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know there's nothing wrong with Spencer's book in general, although I have to admit that I haven't read it yet. Fys. Ta fys aym. 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]