User talk:Chiswick Chap/TalkArchive2016

Cwmhiraeth: nice work: it's starting to look rather smart. Do you think the Phylogeny with its emphasis on Diversity should go immediately after (or before) the Diversity section? It would made sense, I think. Anything else I can help with? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By all means move the phylogeny, but I think it would be better after Diversity rather than before it. I thought the images were better before you put them in a gallery and now that the diversity section has changed, the best images to choose may need to reconsidered. As for what needs to be done, I'm not sure. The others may have some ideas. My latest participation elsewhere in Wikipedia is in the Lead contest, so I propose to improve the lead of Teleost as an entry, probably tomorrow morning. You don't enjoy that sort of contest, I gather? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I have no preference for galleries, but the images were spreading down into other sections. I'll see if that can now be reversed. Will put Ph. after D. Chiswick Chap (talk)

I think Anatomy (perhaps renamed) should go first as we should start with what defines a teleost. Maybe we can have someone make an diagram of teleost mouth movements, possibly comparing it with more primitive fish, like here. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you may be right, but I suspect that it will be difficult to define teleosts purely by anatomy: the clade is defined by its genetic distinctness (on multiple genes), not by a single anatomical difference. The 'completeness of bone' of the name teleost is not a particularly accessible distinction - while it's obvious that the cartilaginous sharks aren't bony, it's far less visible that bowfins and sturgeons have not-totally-bony structures. I think therefore that we're probably right to lead with diversity and phylogeny, whether in that order or the reverse. After all, the point about the teleosts is that they are a phylogenetic clade.Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Then we should probably start with a taxonomy section. This textbook has a taxonomic history section for fishes, including teleosts. LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think if we can't start with the anatomy, then we should start with a taxonomy section. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Modes of reproduction

I was going to link Fish reproduction to the Reproduction section, but looking at that article, I think it is giving incorrect information with regard to Ovuliparity and Oviparity. It gives salmon as an example of the former but if you look at the article Salmon, it just states that the female spawns eggs and the male discharges milt on them. And the statement "Oviparity is where fertilisation occurs internally and so the female sheds zygotes (or newly developing embryos)into the water, often with important outer tissues added. Over 97% of all known fish are oviparous" is wrong in most particulars. Do you agree? Actually, looking back at the article history, it used to be correct but has been vandalised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds as if that article needs work. Salmon definitely shed eggs and milt as you describe. I'd say it was worth linking anyway, and if we can do a quick fix on the other article (rvv vandalism) then so much the better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The article Oviparity has similar anomalies and I have brought it up on the WikiProject Fishes talk page. I don't think it was vandalism, just a lack of judgement on correct terminology. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It sounds easily fixable. I'll take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Cwmhiraeth: I've revised Oviparity to describe the 3 traditional modes and Thierry Lodé's 5 revised modes. Oviparous birds do indeed have internal fertilisation, and then lay eggs, not into the water; under the trad. scheme, fish were also called oviparous, even if they had external fertilisation! In Lodé's revised scheme, fish and arthropods with external fertilisation are called "ovuliparous", which may be a bit less confusing. I guess I'll take a look at Fish reproduction next. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if some things were deleted. You guys are free to make any changes. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Cwmhiraeth: This is what was deleted. Much of it, including the references, may well be useful in the article: Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In nearly all teleost fish, the sexes are separate, and in most species the females spawn eggs that are fertilized externally, typically with the male inseminating the eggs after they are laid. Development then proceeds with a free-swimming larval stage.^[1] However other patterns of ontogeny exist, with one of the commonest being sequential hermaphroditism. In most cases this involves protogyny, fish starting life as females and transitioning to males at some stage, triggered by some internal or external factor. This may be advantageous as females become less prolific as they age while male fecundity increases with age. Protandry, where a fish transitions from male to female, is much less common than protogyny.^[2]

Most teleost families use external rather than internal fertilization.^[3] Of the oviparous teleosts, most (79%) do not provide parental care.^[4] Viviparity, ovoviviparity, or some form of parental care for eggs, whether by the male, the female, or both parents is seen in a significant fraction (21%) of the 422 teleost families; no care is likely the ancestral condition.^[4] Viviparity is relatively rare and is found in about 6% of teleost species; male care is far more common than female care.^[4][5] Male territoriality "preadapts" a species for evolving male parental care.^[6][7]

There are a few examples of fish that self-fertilise. The mangrove rivulus is an amphibious, simultaneous hermaphrodite, producing both eggs and spawn and having internal fertilisation. This mode of reproduction may be related to the fish's habit of spending long periods out of water in the mangrove forests it inhabits. Males are occasionally produced at temperatures below 19 °C (66 °F) and can fertilise eggs that are then spawned by the female. This maintains genetic variability in a species that is otherwise highly inbred.^[8]

Some teleost species show no signs of mate selection beyond the correct sex and species, while others display male preference for higher female fecundity, which is usually related to size. In many species, females select for better nest sites which are usually occupied by larger males. In species showing male parental care on dense spawning grounds, males on adjacent territories often fight among themselves, most likely for females.^[3] Some species, like the desert pupfish, exhibit lek mating, wherein males aggregate along spawning territories and compete to entice visiting females that survey prospective mates.^[9][10]

FWIW, I've created a new article Modes of reproduction which I hope sorts out some of the mess on that topic. I've trimmed the other articles to point to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Very good. I'm not sure that the new names have caught on. Google produces 715 results for Ovuliparity and 50,000 for Oviparity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if I can write the "Development and growth" subsection. I was thinking we could model it like Amphibian or Frog. LittleJerry (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we should keep it very brief, focussing on what is different about Teleosts; most aspects are surely shared with other fish? I'm a bit shocked at the scrappy coverage of articles in that whole area, and have just created Parental care which was missing altogether. It provides brief coverage of most of the major groups involved... everything was very human-centric, to a degree that just seemed bizarre to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try and make an overview. LittleJerry (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this my be ready for GA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we should try to fit this information into the article. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, it looks significant, but it's only one primary research paper so if you're thinking FAC then caution is required, a la "Recent research suggests...". Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

1. [1]

   Dorit, R.L.; Walker, W.F.; Barnes, R.D. (1991). Zoology. Saunders College Publishing. p. 819. ISBN 978-0-03-030504-7.
2. [2]

   Avise, J.C.; Mank, J.E. (2009). "Evolutionary perspectives on hermaphroditism in fishes". Sexual Development. 3: 152–163. doi:10.1159/000223079. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
3. [3]

   Pitcher, T (1993). The Behavior of Teleost Fishes. London: Chapman & Hall.
4. [4]

   Reynolds, John; Nicholas B. Goodwin; Robert P. Freckleton (19 March 2002). "Evolutionary Transitions in Parental Care and Live Bearing in Vertebrates". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 357 (1419). doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.0930. PMC 1692951. PMID 11958696.
5. [5]

   Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The Evolution of Parental Care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.
6. [6]

   Werren, John; Mart R. Gross; Richard Shine (1980). "Paternity and the evolution of male parentage". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 82 (4). doi:10.1016/0022-5193(80)90182-4. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
7. [7]

   Baylis, Jeffrey (1981). "The Evolution of Parental Care in Fishes, with reference to Darwin's rule of male sexual selection". Environmental Biology of Fishes. 6 (2). doi:10.1007/BF00002788. Retrieved 16 September 2013.
8. [8]

   Wootton, Robert J.; Smith, Carl (2014). Reproductive Biology of Teleost Fishes. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-89139-1.
9. [9]

   Fiske, P., Rintamaki, P. T. & Karvonen, E. Mating success in lekking males: a meta-analysis. Behavioral Ecology 9, 328–338 (1998).
10. [10]

    Loiselle, Paul V. (December 1982). "Male Spawning-Partner Preference in an Arena-Breeding Teleost Cyprinodon macularius californiensis Girard (Atherinomorpha: Cyprinodontidae)". The American Naturalist. 120 (6): 721–732. doi:10.1086/284026.

The article English cuisine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:English cuisine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Worm That Turned -- Worm That Turned (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick,

This is Aryaman Kochhar and I made a contribution recently to the Digital art page of Wikipedia. My contribution was removed shortly after as you said it was not constructive enough. I would like to know what I can do to make future contributions more constructive and educational. I have gone over Wikipedia's policies to familiarise myself with them. I wanted to know if you had any input/advice on contributions and what makes them fruitful. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaman96 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, good to meet you. The issue with what you wrote is that it had the quality of a personal reflection or essay, and was apparently not derived from reliable sources such as published textbooks or scientific papers. Since anybody can edit, it is essential that all contributions are verifiable, to enable other editors to check that what is written is correct, balanced, and reliable. Do read these standards and understand the basis of Wikipedia. As for the digital art article, I'd say that tools for digital art deserve at best a very brief, reliably cited mention there, likely with links to other articles, as software is a different topic from art. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Chiswick, you're very helpful! Deletion of Alice non lo sa is not a shock for a me, but I think that is unfair that it is not on Wikipedia and other less important albums (such as those I alluded to) are on it. Anyway, I thought that notability of the singer would mean notabilty of his official studio albums, but it seems this is not true. So, which are the parameters to decide if an album is worthy of a page on Wikipedia? --Almicione (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Almicione, The criteria specially for albums are at WP:NALBUMS, but the more general answer is that notability is determined by "multiple, reliable sources", such as three or four textbooks or other trustworthy places like those I mentioned earlier. Notability is actually not determined by the number of references in an article, but many editors think so, simply because the easiest way to prove that sources exist is to use them. So, if you'd like to add a few more sources to the article, and say in the AfD that you've done that, I think the article will be safe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Perfectly clear! I'd like to create articles about each studio album by De Gregori: do you think that this is good? Moreover, I believe that I'll add references to his own article. What source is more reliable among Discogs, AllMusic and iTunes? --Almicione (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Discogs is probably unusable; ITunes and AllMusic may be usable with care; more and better sources are needed from history books, newspapers and magazines. Any source that the public can edit (like YouTube) is considered totally unreliable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to English cuisine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• were arriving from distant countries, too: ''The Good Huswifes Jewell'' introduced [sweet potato]]es alongside familiar Medieval recipes.<ref name="Albala2003">{{cite book |last=Albala |first=Ken |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article M. C. Escher you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Feitlebaum -- Feitlebaum (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The references to mulled wine on this page are incorrect.

The 1660 edition of The Accomplisht Cook does not contain a recipe entitled Mulled Wine.

The A Taste of Wine website is incorrect to allege the recipe they quote "in full" is mulled wine, by modern definition and understanding.
The recipe mentioned by the A Taste of Wine website is for Ipocras and the recipe from the 1660 edition of The Accomplisht Cook (p261), in full, is:

"To Make Ipocras: Take to a gallon of wine, three ounces of cinamon, two ounces of slic't ginger, a quarter of an ounce of cloves, an ounce of mace, twenty corns of pepper, an ounce of nutmegs, three pound of sugar, and two quarts of cream."

No mention of mixing it in a pot, neither is there mention of heating it.
Ipocras was named after the medieval Latin name, vinum Hippocraticum (wine of Hippocrates), because it was filtered through "Hippocrates' sleeve", a conical bag of cotton, linen, or flannel, used as a filter or strainer.[OED]
I have not made any changes to the page, but will do so if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.37.199 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked the original, and indeed the Taste of Wine site has invented the heating; they have of course ignored the fact that we don't mull wine with cream either; so I've removed the claim. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The article M. C. Escher you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:M. C. Escher for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Feitlebaum -- Feitlebaum (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The article M. C. Escher you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:M. C. Escher for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Feitlebaum -- Feitlebaum (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		You really did a remarkable job with your work at M. C. Escher. Perhaps this barnstar is a bit late, considering when you nominated the article, but you're just as deserving, nonetheless. Keep up the good work! Feitlebaum (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's really kind of you! Much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I haven't been active much lately. I've been busy. We can discuss cicada and teleost the end of this week? LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth, what do we do next for Teleost? I think maybe we should add a little more on evolution showing trend in teleost evolution and the differences in the major clades. I also think maybe we could have someone with more experience with fish articles look it over. Any other thoughts? LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You're surely right. I think we will have to check all the references for quality, too; and we should ensure that there is balance in the coverage of the various topics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Epipelagic is knowledgable on fish and might help. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Vertebrate Palentology by Benton has some useful information on teleost evolutionary history. I'd write up this week. In the meantime could anybody add some information on Viviparity in teleosts? LittleJerry (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll do some viviparity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Added some info in evolutionary trends. I think this paper can give us more information on prehistoric teleosts and their evolution. LittleJerry (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Could anybody work on that? Its a little too technical for me. LittleJerry (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. I suspect we may be going further than we need, but I'll read it through. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I can just barely follow the abstract and don't have access to the text, but I am sure it's tricky and complicated. Let's leave it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with CC. The most relevant bit seemed to be "Evidence from the braincase strongly favours a monophyletic origin of extant teleost groups within the leptolepid grade". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been active. My labtop broke and I had to get a new one. I feel we are pretty much done. Doesn't anyone think it should be looked over still? LittleJerry (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much ready as far as content goes. Has anyone checked the quality of the references, and that we haven't overused primary sources? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks alright to me. LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we go? LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You're waiting for me? Let's go for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

We finally have a review. I would leave the rest to you guys still I don't know if we decided on UK or US English. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@LittleJerry, Cwmhiraeth: I have responded to numerous comments in the FAC: there are some left (and more coming) if you'd like to take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. I have been immersed elsewhere but will have a look. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: We now have 2 Supports, and two reviewers who've indicated they're interested, some weeks ago. What to do? Are you good at gentle reminders, and would that be wise? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth: OK, we have movement, with comments which I think are your bit? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I am about to stop for the night so I will look in the morning. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: now 4 supports, and 1 reviewer who made one comment, I replied, no response. Do we ping? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I would think that would be reasonable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the article made it. My thanks to both of you because I contributed little to the FA review process. I do consider GAs a more worthwhile and efficient use of time than FAs with their attention to minutiae. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: Thanks. On your doubts: this was a very "big" FA, and as we saw with a big subject like Sea, such things are an effort to get through FA - it's no surprise that most FA candidates are on smaller topics such as individual species. That biases the quality articles towards minor topics, i.e. the first thing a visitor is likely to see is a lower-quality article on a big topic, hardly the desired result: surely, everyone would like to see excellent articles on the really big topics. There's no easy answer, as GA and FA have to be reviewed properly, and big topics are bound to be more of an effort. Perhaps more points in competitions would help, or more improvement drives focussed on the things people read most. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, C.C., but I was still working on the illustrations.

• It is not useful, to illustrate a style with three images of one single building.
• It is better to use examples of several buildings from several regions.

But I would be grateful, if you improve the structure of the text. Have a nice Sunday :) --Ulamm (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ulamm: Well, I wonder. Why not? One could start big, wide-angle; zoom in; show a detail -- it seems entirely reasonable as it shows how the details fit into the architectural whole. So in principle it's a sensible and good thing to do. Of course, we want to balance variety (different types, different places) with explanation (possibly details of the same place).

However, there are still FAR TOO MANY (excuse shout) images in the article, and I am not sure the gallery is justified at all. So, by all means go on working on the illustrations, if that means cutting down and selecting to a well-chosen minimum. Perhaps an article of this length should have 5 or 6 images altogether. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think, I am more fond of images than you, but I use them didactically.--Ulamm (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I use far more than many editors, and am exceptionally fond of visual articles, as you'll see from my user page. But every single image has to be justified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I do rather object to IPs, who in these cases are not really IPs but ex-editors acting anonymously, belligerantly delinking, unnecessarily tagging articles, and otherwise disrupting things. I am particularly talking about White-bellied cinclodes and also about Bosques Petrificados de Jaramillo National Park, although in the latter case I believe I know who the editor concerned is. Its not that I am right or they are wrong, but they are treating these articles as battlefields rather than parts of a cooperative project. I find it unpleasant and distracting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't look like naive IP behaviour. If it has gone on a while, it's an admin matter really. Either ANI or better just discuss with a friendly admin. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. disruptive trolling. By their fruits ye shall know them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

	Hello, Chiswick Chap. You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 12:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for joining the project! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

On 23 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Henry Worsley (explorer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Henry Worsley attempted to complete the first solo and unaided crossing of the Antarctic, but died with only 30 miles to go? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Worsley (explorer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review the article on Bruce Chatwin. I appreciated your comments--they were excellent--very helpful and it made the experience quite positive. (This is the first article I've worked on, so I didn't know what to expect.) I plan to continue to work on the article and, if you have the time and inclination in the future, would welcome any feedback you have to offer. If not, no hard feelings. Thanks again! Notachatterbox (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well done, the article is good and interesting. If you are planning to work it up to FA, be aware that the standard is much stricter, and they're really fussy about citations and formatting. As you imply, it would be wise to get feedback from other editors, preferably some more literary than me, though I'd do my best for you of course. I enjoyed reading Chatwin but haven't studied crits of him. The formal route to do that is a Peer Review; it ends informally (just advice) but it can greatly reduce the trauma of FAC. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again! Yes, I want to work it up to FA, and I will do as you suggest and have a Peer Review done before nominating it for FA status. Notachatterbox (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you CC for your input re Medge Olivares. I am new at Wikipedia and am looking into possibility of deleting my page altogether . . . if you can help in this regard, I will appreciate it :)

Medge Olivares (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear it, but you are probably correct. I have requested a "speedy deletion". Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Good evening,
Following your revert on my last modification of the Durvillaea page, I've been looking for a justification to put binomial nomenclature synonyms between quotations. I found none in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Moreover, I don't remember seeing latin name synonyms between quotations elsewhere. Would you please mind to provide a justification or a link to one?
Kind regards,
Silk666 (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Silk666 I don't know if I can tell from a piece of text, but I almost imagined there was a certain amount of aggression in your tone here, which I find entirely inappropriate in the context.

However, to answer you plainly in good faith, the quotation marks indicate that the name is not valid. If you know a better and shorter way to indicate that something is an invalid synonym, feel free to change it, I have no attachment to punctuation. In the short space of a caption, we need to indicate both what Hooker called the plant in the original plate, and what it is now called, without arousing confusion as to which is which. Quotation marks achieve this perfectly. I think you'll find that quotation marks are in fact the usual way to indicate this, but no matter. Actually, now that we have both names and a "now", the quotes are redundant. Without the linked modern name, it was another matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'm so sorry my intervention sounded aggressive! I definitely didn't want it to sound so. English is not my mother tongue and I certainly don't master all the nuances about it.
Personally, when I use a synonym, I put the accepted name between parentheses directly after. I now totally agree with the description's format on the Durvillaea page. Au plaisir de contribuer avec vous éventuellement! Silk666 (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philosophie Zoologique you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mathematics and architecture you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Philosophie Zoologique you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Philosophie Zoologique for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Mathematics and architecture you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mathematics and architecture for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Modern Cook you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The article The Modern Cook you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Modern Cook for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.
You asked me to let you know what was causing me to stumble so you could fix it. Well... English is my second language. Maybe it's enough to stumble :-) How would you rephrase this part: "having two copies of each gene would make to honest signalling"?
Thanks,
--Stankot (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I'd leave it, given that the fuller explanation in the body spells it out more. However, the phrase was "the contribution that having two copies of each gene (diploidy) would make to honest signalling". The phrase is itself a gloss on diploidy, which means having 2 copies of each gene. The phrase is thus about whether diploidy is important in honest signalling, and Fisher thought it was, as it could cause a runaway effect. I'm not sure what rewording might help here. If you have an idea, let me know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The "notable people", especially all the minor modern "actors" has been bothering me too for some time. You're Chiswick and I'm Fulham - we should be able to bring a WP:NPOV to Hammersmith! Edwardx (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Marley (geologist) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The article John Marley (geologist) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Marley (geologist) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

All DOI identifiers beginning 10.4172 are OMICS Group, a predatory open access publisher. These sources are not reliable per WP:RS. This does not mean the science is wrong - plenty of well-meaning and sincere scientists are taken in by these predatory journals - but the source is unreliable and should not be used. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Guy: There seem to me to be at least two things wrong with what you say. Firstly, the quality of the science depends on the scientists who do the research and the peer review, not the publisher. Secondly, if the text is correct but for some reason the ref is doubtful, we tag the ref and we look for other sources: we do not just remove the text. Further, whatever "predatory" may mean in this context, presumably taking a fee, it does not mean we have to ignore the science. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll just point out that I see where Guy is coming from here. The sources in general are unreliable because they do not have a reputation for fact checking. It doesn't really matter who the scientists are in this case. That being said, I'd save deleting the text entirely over a tag if it was controversial information or the paper's own results. Not quite an emergency here though like Guy or myself have seen in fringe topics. I'll take a look at things sometime tomorrow. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I see where he's coming from, I just don't agree with his conclusions. I'm unsure of the meaning of "save deleting..." but since the text of the article is not controversial I doubt that deletion is a sensible option. Basically, running about deleting hundreds of paragraphs at short notice is not the best way to do anything; let's tag, discuss, search for better sources, revise texts, in other words do things sensibly and properly. Deletion is possible but is the final option, not the first port of unthinking call, which does seem to have been the case in the past 48 hours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Tagging the source as unreliable makes no sense. It's unreliable, it fails WP:RS, therefore the source goes. If you can vouch for the content, feel free to reinsert it with a better source or tagged as unsourced, but tagging a source as unreliable is for when you don't have time (or can't be arsed) to fix it. And I am removing the text because other editors bitched and moaned about leaving the text in there after the source was removed, so I am now removing the statement backed by the unreliable source as well. Removing the source - with or without the text it supports - is a thousand times better than tagging it as unreliable. I have seen maintenance tags that have in place since before I started on Wikipedia over ten years ago. Tagging it for "someone" to fix is about as effective as signing an online petition or hitting Like on Facebook. I'm fixing a problem, please if you're not going to help at least don't actively hinder that. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I was part of the team that brought those two articles to GA, and the team will fix things; we have already discussed what to do (and as it happens, the sections affected were theirs not mine). Please treat other editors civilly and in good faith. I don't agree at all that removing the text is blanket-justified; you are acting grossly out of proportion to the problem. If you'd rather remove the source and add a "Citation needed" tag that would be understandable; removing all the text of hundreds of paragraphs is simply irresponsible and wrong, a form of disruptive editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• CC, you might want to have a look at this relevant discussion (which ZzG should let finish before he does any of his mass removals of sources): FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I contribute here, though my "home WP" is not the English one.

• Secondary literature is not a better source than primary literature, as booksellers sell anything that sells, and charlatanism may sell quite well.
• Of course, using one primary work, one should have read some more works on its subject, in order not to push a very periperical point of view.
• Among primary literature, serious journals and accepted graduation theses and inaugural dissertations are more reliable than predatory open access publishing, but the latter needn't be worse than secondary literature.
• In history rather possible than in natural sciences: Look for the sources of your sources!
• On the other hand, old sources, unless they are original documents, are a real problem. Old texts, because of the expired copyright, are loved by Google. But they may be far off the present state of the art.--Ulamm (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ulamm Many thanks for the thoughtful contribution, which should probably be moved to the

discussion! I would say, however, that there are exceptions, and cases need to be considered on their merits. For instance, old opinions are useful when giving the history of something, as long as one uses them to give a picture of what was thought and when. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Consense!

(My stement was based on the impression of quite a lot of articles, that I have revised, after other authors had not been aware of the historical embeddedness of old sources.) --Ulamm (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Guy, alias JzG, is doing some WP:Tendentious editing to suit his POV. There are some subjects which he regards as Pseudoscience which I do not. One of the tools he uses to exclude pseudoscience (as defined by him) from Wikipedia is to define reliable sources as narrowly as possible. Biscuittin (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well there was quite a dingdong on the Noticeboard, so at least it's clear that not everyone agrees with him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think things are going a bit far when citations are removed such as the one in Ctenactis echinata. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid once people get religiously righteous about things they're impossible to convince. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Keep up the great work you do on here. So many great articles. Thankyou also for uploading a photograph for Maud Carpenter! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, I intended to continue the Osteichthyes cladogram as a second tree starting with Acanthomorpha, so having two trees might have extended the page too much so I opted to hide it. However I did not get time to start the second tree, so that's why it looked like it was unnecessary to hide the cladogram. Sorry for the inconvenience. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Chiswick Chap. I'm working on your suggestion/correction that the links I have been adding to items in the Linda Hall Library's digital collections ought to have gone into the bibliography section of the authors' pages rather than external links. I hope you'll be patient with me while I fuss about it; there will be a lot of correcting to do if you're right, so since you're the one who stuck his chin out to address it, I hope that you have a little more time to work through this with me. I'm putting my link addition on the back burner.

The reason that I've been putting the links in "External links" is that they are links to pages and objects outside of Wikipedia. They are to digitized books, but they are unlikely to be books that have been consulted or needed in the making of the page that is a history of their authors; also, they are scanned versions of titles of which there are likely to be several scanned versions (for example, at the NYPL or Hathi Trust or Google Books) and also transcribed versions, and so a person who finds links at the bottom of a Wikipedia article may have a preference for a certain library's interface, BUT Our scanned copy is not The scanned copy. Also, if you look at the Project Gutenberg template for adding links, you'll see that it's tagged for External Links. Most of the time, when I am linking to our digitized books, particularly on the pages of very well-known authors that get lots of attention, there are already many links to scanned books in the "External Links." This is the gist of my due diligence. I've omitted a bit that might end up being irrelevant.

There is another element: I think that what we do in our library when we make rare books available online is valuable, but there is also an element of self-promotion when placing links to my (mostly benevolent, non-profit, existing-for-the-promotion-of-science-and-dialogue) Library's site. It seems clearer to the user who wants to see other things relating to the article that I am sending them to my library when the link is in "External Links." This might be one of the irrelevant bits, but I'm adding it as evidence that I'm not trying to be an argumentative jerk but just trying to get this right.

Well wishes. Thank you for your help. MaryBowser (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking about it. There are clearly several issues here, one of which is a possible conflict of interest between "[y]our library" and Wikipedia: on that matter, we must be quite clear that Wikipedia comes first, and you should not make any edit for the benefit of the library. It is much appreciated that the library makes rare books available, but self-promotion is actually forbidden here, so there can be no ambiguity on that front.

On multiple versions of books, my practice, which is just one solution to a common problem, is to list the title under "Works" (or similar), and then to list all the variants in chronological order, with variant titles if applicable, linking each one to its (library or archive) source. That seems to me much more satisfactory than having to scan any or all of References, Sources, and External links, none of which are designed for complex bibliographic information such as multiple titles for the same book, multiple publishing houses, or just multiple editions with the same publisher and title. In such a list, it's hard to see why the Wikipedia reader should care (sorry) whether they are then being sent to the British Library, a library in Austria, Archive.org, a zoology or botany museum, or one in the Americas, as long as the material is accessible and of the stated version.

From the opposite end of the telescope, it is widely deprecated to have a long, unstructured list of External links, or even a complex hierarchy down there; Wikipedia is explicitly (by policy) Not a Directory and editors routinely delete excessive lists of external links. It also looks unattractive, to anybody with an editorial eye, to have lists of "Extra stuff", "Miscellaneous", "See also", at the end of an article, and it attracts further unstructured additions by newbie editors.

Overall, therefore, I'm pretty much in favour of a single, explicitly bibliographic section in each article. Hope these thoughts make some sort of sense. Happy Easter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fredmans epistlar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhetorical figure. 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) 09:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap: A recent edit you performed here has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

More information Food and drink articles by quality and importance, Quality ...

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Volume III, no. 5, Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.
Project News Recent Good article promotions for project-related articles. — View by clicking [show] — The following food and drink articles have recently been promoted to Good article-class: Applesauce cake Beurre Maître d'Hôtel Chips and dip Clementine cake Copia (museum) Dime Store (Portland, Oregon) Naem Old-fashioned doughnut Pancake machine Pink slime The Modern Cook For recent events regarding project-related articles, see Article alerts. Article alerts — View by clicking [show] — Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero. Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus.	Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project. — View by clicking [show] — 6 new members! OnBeyondZebrax VMS Mosaic Martinyoung2775 Omni Flames CAPTAIN RAJU Edwardx The project currently has 106 active members. Some recent food and drink new articles and content: — View by clicking [show] — National Identification Registration Authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | National Identification and Registration Authority (Q24908187) ) by Fsmatovu (talk · contribs · new pages (41)) started on 2016-03-31, score: 10 Domaine Tempier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | (no entity) ) by Needlepoint9 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-31, score: 20 Kill Time (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Kill Time (Q23013681) ) by In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · new pages (105)) started on 2016-03-30, score: 10 Indian Tea Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Indian Tea Association (Q24949381) ) by Rohanrafaroger (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-30, score: 10 Tops Pizza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | (no entity) ) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-30, score: 20 Kaspa's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Kaspa's (Q24439133) ) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 20 Faktong Keang Buat (Pumpkin in Coconut Cream) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Fakthong kaeng buat (Q25104156) ) by Woraveerinj (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 20 Darra Goldstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Darra Goldstein (Q23771495) ) by Jeffreyrubel (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-21, score: 10 Cervecería 100 Montaditos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Cervecería 100 Montaditos (Q8355805) ) by Kanghuitari (talk · contribs · new pages (55)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 10 Potentilla simplex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Potentilla simplex (Q17250310) ) by Ggpauly (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 10 Burger urge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Burger Urge (Q19589751) ) by Lindsmay10 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-28, score: 10 B & D Burgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | (no entity) ) by Bennyben1998 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 33 Beer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | 333 Premium Export Beer (Q24648499) ) by Legacypac (talk · contribs · new pages (63)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 10 F-Block Metallocene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | f-block metallocene (Q25111998) ) by YanwuShao (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Bamboo Chicken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | bamboo chicken (Q24948875) ) by Divyaappidi (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-23, score: 10 Jianbing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | jianbing (Q18606556) ) by Jmps2016 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Friends of Beer Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Friends of Beer Party (Q9334674) ) by Bedivere.cs (talk · contribs · new pages (3)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Miniature food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | miniature food (Q25324560) ) by Groupgg (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 English Tea House and Restaurant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | English Tea House and Restaurant (Q24439132) ) by Molecule Extraction (talk · contribs · new pages (9)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Bazin (bread) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Bazeen (Q4164571) ) by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · new pages (14)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Cyprus Wine Routes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | (no entity) ) by Euclidthalis (talk · contribs · new pages (2)) started on 2016-03-24, score: 10 Taking Care of Business (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Taking Care of Business (Q1415430) ) by The Dragooners (talk · contribs · new pages (87)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 10 Pastrami on rye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | pastrami on rye (Q16726108) ) by Onel5969 (talk · contribs · new pages (19)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 30 Pictou County Pizza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Pictou County Pizza (Q24191460) ) by Kelapstick (talk · contribs · new pages (2)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 10 Wasabi (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Wasabi (Q23891278) ) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 William S. Bloxsom-Carter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | (no entity) ) by Kcwatson55 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 20 List of the largest fast food restaurant chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | list of the largest fast food restaurant chains (Q24439130) ) by Cupido1234 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Food - Weapon of Conquest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Food - Weapon of Conquest (Q23638550) ) by Bzuk (talk · contribs · new pages (9)) started on 2016-03-24, score: 20 Margot Henderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Margot Henderson (Q23664180) ) by Gareth E. Kegg (talk · contribs · new pages (25)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Sam's Chicken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | (no entity) ) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Deep Fried Oreo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools | Deep fried Oreo (Q25060329) ) by Cla1402group4 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-24, score: 10 Past newsletters
Food and drink articles by quality and importance There are currently 34,474 articles attributed to the project, including 10,607 stubs. There are 38 articles at Featured article class, 185 are at Good article class and 3 are at Featured list class. — View by clicking [show] — Article statistics Food and Drink WikiProject article assessment Food and drink articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 8 17 36 61 FL 2 14 16 FM 156 156 GA 24 40 97 345 2 508 B 54 235 364 833 109 1,595 C 70 425 1,073 4,038 669 6,275 Start 25 307 1,684 13,260 4,472 19,748 Stub 18 501 9,130 5,088 14,737 List 12 72 117 581 22 290 1,094 Category 10,082 10,082 Disambig 227 227 File 4,037 4,037 Portal 811 811 Project 443 443 Redirect 2 12 82 712 3,056 3,864 Template 1,091 1,091 NA 23 23 Other 5 253 258 Assessed 187 1,119 3,935 28,954 20,201 10,630 65,026 Unassessed 1 1,154 1,155 Total 187 1,119 3,935 28,955 20,201 11,784 66,181 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 218,013 Ω = 5.08 Assessment log and Guide to Assessment Help on Editing and Sourcing Articles view

Close

– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

On 5 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Entomophily, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that insects that pollinate plants include butterflies, moths, beetles, flies (example pictured), wasps, and ants? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Entomophily. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Good Huswifes Jewell you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that you did all this work on Flora Antarctica and its spin-off articles, you may wish to insert link to these in the List of florilegia and botanical codices. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje: Ok, done that - over to you for the botanical details and lists. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The article The Good Huswifes Jewell you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Good Huswifes Jewell for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Fly into Insects in literature. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. I've chased down the similar moves I made while sorting out the area of Insects in culture, which involved a merge, some splitting and summarising, and some new articles. I've rarely if ever attempted a reorg on this scale, and I'm sorry I omitted to mark some of the moves explicitly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

On 10 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Advertising in biology, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both animals and plants self-advertise? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Advertising in biology. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for removing all that unsourced material and the cleanup! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. There's more to be done, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: Why do we need a list of all the deer species in the article? It isn't needed here, and would make more sense as a list article really (i.e. we call it with a "main" link). I'd suggest instead that we illustrate the cladogram with representative species (at say 70px scale, no captions). This would allow us to tidy up the (far too numerous) images, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I learned how to write family articles from Canidae, an article Cwmhiraeth took to GA status and I reviewed. It has a mammoth list of extinct species, while Deer has a long one on the species. I think these articles should enlist all species, I have not seen separate lists. I like your idea on illustrations, but don't know how to go about it. Yes, I wold like only three or four images to go with the species lists. Working on Evolution at the moment. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

All right then, at least it's a clade. Personally I find hierarchical lists that largely duplicate the cladogram (well, they would duplicate them perfectly if the classification were stable and correct!) rather dull and repetitive. I'll sort out some illustrations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I would stick to the conventional listing, not interested in any FAC nitpicking at that. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

On 11 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agriculture in Wales, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Welsh Mountain sheep (pictured), a traditional part of Welsh agriculture, was described by the agriculturalist Arthur Young as "the most despicable of all types"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agriculture in Wales. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a very quick note to say many thanks for your help over at Deer. Great editing - much appreciated. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, glad to be able to help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have carefully rewritten the section. Removed the claims that were improperly sourced and added better sources. It seems we can have either the images or the timeline in this section. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf: Well done with the rewriting. I don't understand the choice, but it seems obvious we should have images. What is this timeline and why can't we have both? And by the way, two refs have lost their details, look at the reflist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Was going to fix that, some trouble with the connection... the timeline is just an idea I got from Canidae... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent work on the subject article; it has been greatly improved by your efforts. Cheers. --Seduisant (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's very kind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

On 14 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Antlion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that many antlion larvae dig pit traps to catch prey? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Antlion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Antlion), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fredmans epistlar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Crisco 1492 -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

..on the Banbury cake article. Still, there are a number of other similar cakes besides Eccles, and perhaps we could list THOSE is a See Also section. If you agree, let me know and I'll do that. Thanks again. LiPollis (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Lisapollison No problem. If we can avoid a See also, let's do so. Much better than an uncited "Miscellaneous" list is a paragraph about related cakes, properly cited. Dorothy Hartley's Food in England (1954) mentions Clifton Puffs and Coventry Godcakes as similar cakes on page 612, for instance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The same editor added self-published books by the same author to 2 other articles, which I've removed. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, one of those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Chiswick Chap,

Thank you for your message. I write here because I do not know how I can reach you. I hope you read this. Excuse me if I have made a mistake. I want to make no advertising. I make scientific photo-documentaries about animals, especially insects. How do I put a link in Wikipedia? Please help me. I do not advertise. I want to write only the information in wikipedia. Mostly these are very specific biological information. Therefore, I have on my website a special section "Photo-Reports". Here, the information is free, so no advertising, no spam. Should I delete my name (naturbildarchiv-guenter)? Should I do anything different? Please help me. With best regards Roland Günter

Hier in Deutsch, da mein Englisch nicht sehr gut ist: (Ich habe gelesen, dass du über gute Deutschkenntnisse verfügst.)

Sehr geehrter Chiswick Chap, Vielen Dank für deine Nachricht. Ich schreibe hier, weil ich nicht weiß, wie ich dich erreichen kann. Ich hoffe, das ist so in Ordnung. Entschuldige bitte, wenn ich mit meinen Link-Setzungen einen Fehler gemacht habe, das tut mir leid. Ich möchte keine Werbung machen. Ich erstelle wissenschaftliche Foto-Dokumentationen über verschiedene Tierarten, insbesondere über Insektenarten, wie sie meistens bisher noch nicht gemacht wurden. Diese möchte ich Wikipedia (auch der englischen Wikipedia, da ich von England aus sehr viel Interesse an meinen Arbeiten signalisiert bekomme), zur Verfügung stellen. Wie soll ich einen entsprechenden Link in Wikipedia platzieren? Bitte hilf mir. Ich habe bei diesem Vorhaben keine wirtschaftlichen Interessen. Ich möchte Wikipedia nur diese Informationen zur Verfügung stellen, in der Regel sehr spezielle und rein biologische Informationen. Dafür habe ich extra auf meiner Website einen eigenen Menüpunkt "Bildreportagen" erstellt. In dieser Rubrik sind die Informationen frei zugänglich, ohne weitere Werbung - auch keine Werbung für mich. Sollte ich meinen Namen (naturbildarchiv-guenter) entfernen? Soll ich sonst irgendetwas anders machen? Bitte hilf mir und sage mir, was ich tun kann. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Roland Günter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rofus-rofus (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Danke schön. I'm sure you intended to be helpful. However, I don't think the Bildreportagen are specially appropriate for the encyclopedia. I hope this is not too disappointing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. Yes, it is a bit disappointing. I do not understand this assessment. In the German Wikipedia, this is handled differently. See an example here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohn-Mauerbiene I receive many emails asking to make these entries in the English Wikipedia. What a pity! Please think about your decision again. With best regards R. Günter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.88.106 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: And by the way: the Photo-Reports include the most current scientific knowledge about the insects and show it in pictures. That's good for Wikipedia ?! Best regards, R. Günter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.88.106 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Underwater camouflage you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I have nominated the subject list for FL. Could you find some time out and give your comments here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious again, your Mantis collaboration about "an interesting insect with predatory habits"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And a Femme Fatale to boot! Thank you so much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Chiswick Chap!
You say that humans are not thought to have a magnetic sense, but there is a chemical (a cryptochrome) in the eye which could serve this function...
But it doesn't :)
--Stankot (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Um, we go by what reliable sources say, and recent papers in Nature certainly qualify in that regard. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I'm impressed with your contributions to wikipedia! Stankot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There are baroreceptors in your blood vessels but can you say that you have a sense of blood pressure? --Stankot (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we sense it. That it isn't reported to human consciousness (except when we're about to faint) is neither here nor there, that's processing not sensing (the chain is sensory input(s)-(central processingⁿ)-motor output(s)). As I said, if it's good enough for Nature, it's good enough for us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Magnetoreception (also Magnetoception) is a sense which allows an organism to detect a magnetic field to perceive direction, altitude or location.

Do we have a magnetic sense defined in this way? I think reception is confused with perception here. But maybe I get things wrong, and it is not impossible :-) --Stankot (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The sentence you quote first talks about (sensory) detection, which I'd say is the article's field, and then moves on to a separate subject, (cognitive) perception, which is enabled by the sensory capability. It is of course possible that authors in either science or literary works (or both) in some other way, you have better find and rely on reliable sources, and quote them in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The sentence I quote is from Wikipedia's Magnetoreception --Stankot (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Go there, not here, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The article Fredmans epistlar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fredmans epistlar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Crisco 1492 -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw your edit to this article. Surely that only applies to Common Cuckoo? I'm not convinced that it is relevant to all the many other cuckoo species, but since you are a very experienced editor, I'm raising the question here rather than just undoing the edit, cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, it's definitely one of the family; and cuckoos worldwide definitely have cultural associations. I was actually just summarizing the existing text of the article (so the lead reflects the article contents). If we're going to remove the bit from the lead, we should do the same for the body. Since however the material is relevant, I think all that's needed is to make it clear that it's only part of the story - more is needed on other cuckoos to balance it out. The brain-fever bird of India comes to mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

All right, I've already gone further into this than I'd like. I've globalised both the section and the lead, and have moved most of the Shakespeare into Common cuckoo, removed the dross from that article's culture section (I heave a deep sigh at this point) and reffed the bits that could be reffed. So both articles are in a better state. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you with your help on all the insect pages that my students worked on this semester. Your careful watching of these pages really helped make their edits much more meaningful, and the content on these pages so much better. We really appreciate you helping us to make the pages for insects better! --Cprather3 (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

About !vote in WP:Articles for deletion/SaleCycle I hadn't read that it should be used only once in a discussion. Maybe in WP's world is common but for me sounds odd: if it's a !vote then why count it??, maybe is because the bots (I recently read a little bit about them) but it seems twisted treat them like its opposite. Anyway... Thanks! Edelmoral (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The intent of the link was to provide Stork's translation to the reader in an easy way. For reading purposes only, not downloading. Some readers will be interested in the text but not in downloading the entire book. No offence intended. I added this message to an existing section the first time. Oops! Pfa (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, only subscribers would benefit; and in any case, one can read from Archive.org both for free, and a page at a time: there is no need to download. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The link I added took the reader directly to the Ulla text, where a person could easily discover the name of the book and download a digital version. Yes, the reader can page through the current link. ("Ulla" is about forty pages into the book.) But the current link doesn't even make clear that it contains "Ulla". In my opinion the original link was more useful, but you created the article. I will defer to your judgment. Pfa (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Then you must be a subscriber? Your link took me to a page with the book's cover only. We can of course add a page number or link to the exact page on Archive.org. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The links I added for “Ulla” and “Haga” were for translations by Charles Grafton Chapman (1909) and Charles Wharton Stork (1917). They are taken from books available at the Internet Archive.

Songs Of Sweden 1909

Anthology Of Swedish Lyrics 1917

The links I set up were via Google Books, and I’m not aware that any subscription is necessary. Every computer has different software, search engines etc. They may not work for you. Stork’s translations of the two pieces are available in a different format at the Poetry Nook website. His lyrics could be linked via the Poetry Nook site and his 1917 book via the Sources section.

“To Ulla” is an 1897 translation by Olga Flinch, a native of Copenhagen. Her five translations of Bellman may not be the best, but her four page essay might be of use as a replacement for Reference #1 (The Bellman Society), which has expired. A recording of her essay and translations is available through Librivox and linked to the CMB Wiki. My link to “To Ulla” is once again via Google Books.Pfa (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

We do not need to discuss all these things, and this has already gone on more than long enough. Just to be clear, however: the Flinch ref and the other existing one are still there, and I don't plan on touching them. The Stork book is already linked, once, which is enough, and no, the other link doesn't work for my very ordinary browser and setup, so it probably won't work for millions of other readers either, and I don't wish to waste time trying it. I've updated the BellmanSoc link, no need to go elsewhere for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Pfa (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, Batik and Ikat is not Islamic art. Firstly, I'm Native Indonesian, I'm from Indonesia, you can track my IP. And I know there's no Islam in Indonesia from the beginning of century. Islam is a new religion of Indonesia. Meanwhile Batik and Ikat are art from my ancestors long long time ago, from 2000 BCE. Don't associate my ancestors with Islam, they're all Animist.

140.0.116.58 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Selamat. Nobody is asserting the country has been Islamic from the dawn of time, but it has been predominantly Islamic since the 16th century. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There's over 300 ethnic groups in Indonesia, they all are very very very different, not the same. 140.0.116.58 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the ethnic diversity. That is not the point. The point is that the template does apply; that DOES NOT STOP OTHER TEMPLATES ALSO applying. It is not an either-or thing, so please stop assuming that it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, I hope that you're well :). We've interacted a couple of time, only the (now quite quiet) Anatomy and in a few GA reviews. I admire the quality and brevity of your writing, and were wondering if you'd be interested in collaborating with me to bring Dissection to GA status? I skimmed by it, and it seems to have most of the major components already there - images, text, references and may thus need just some careful dissection of the prose and expansion. Would you be interested? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, why not. Not too much of it is uncited! I guess my interest in it would mainly be cultural and historical, but it seems you'll be happy on the surgical side of things, so let's give it a go. I've started to chop some of the abundant repetition; probably it needs a reorg and a rewrite. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Great. I will work on the "In biology" section and integrate the tools part, and maybe add something about methods, predissected cadavers and preservation. I also wonder if it's worth teasing some of the issues into a separate section such as "Issues" with subheadings "Acquisition of cadavers", "Use in education", "Disposal of specimens", "Modern substitutes" or something like that (as opposed to presenting it in the discursive text).--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, anything but the current discursive rambling, repetition, and recentism. A topic with a 500-year history ought not to be mainly about the past few years: let's say 50/500 = 10% of the article for the past 50 years, eh? (not a totally serious suggestion, but there's a truth in it.) I'm not sure about "Issues"; your subheadings might be main headings even. The key I think is that everything is focussed and cited, and each point is made exactly once. The whole of the "United States" section (and the last para of "England") is recentist: history is missing there, and all the recent stuff should go into (be rewritten for) your Issues section.Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think you're right with regard to a focused portrayal and ensuring good historical coverage. An extra issue I have just thought of is is "Acceptability of dissection" mentioning cultural, religious and other taboos associated with it (of which I'm sure there may be many). I think a paragraph or two for most of the issues sections will suffice, hence just subheadings (although if more then certainly). With regard to "500 years"... don't you be too recentist either :), dissection has at least a 2,000 year old history as many sources date back from Galen or Hippocrates, there was probably a Chinese tradition based on anatomical knowledge at the time as recorded in older sources, and I would not be surprised if there was an Indian tradition too. I also wonder what kind of dissection (for the purposes of study) went on, if any, in the South Americas based on some cultures rich tradition of human sacrifice. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Er, not recentism but perhaps Eurocentrism in my case! Of course, there may have been anatomy elsewhere. Don't know how the Chinese thought they saw all those Chi tubes, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

As a minor matter of style, could we name all refs like "ref name=Smith1984" rather than "ref name=:1"? I know some tools use numbers but they are less good for humans. Would be helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Most definitely. A side-effect of using visual editor :(. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Slowly getting there. seems to be a good source for history. I may expand the "overview" section a little but I think it contains most of the major ideas. I'll start work on the 'issues' section next, then loop around and copyedit them both.--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's starting to look right. I'm off for a few days now but will keep an eye. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on David Rothenberg (Activist) - it's very salient. I have started incorporating some of the sources you pointed out as well as some of the ones pointed out earlier. It will take me some time as I haven't read all of them yet, while I have read his memoirs. By the way, his memoirs are cited properly with their own independent sources, so it's not just his ramblings as many are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapiopath (talk • contribs) 09:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sapiopath: Thanks. The point is that Wikipedia decides if a person is notable by whether other people have written about them in reliable sources like substantial newspaper articles, books, and research papers. Therefore, if a person has written 100 books about himself, but nobody has cited and discussed those books, that person is not considered notable. So, writing an article with umpteen citations to a person's own book doesn't help, d'you see? In fact, it acts as a red flag to Wikipedians intent upon clearing out all kinds of stuff like self-promotion, commercial advertising and the like. If there are cited sources IN his book, then you can research those sources, and if they are reliable AND if they discuss Rothenberg in substantial detail, then of course you can cite those sources in the article. I hope this helps to give you a different perspective on what is going on now, and why. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution on the WikiProject Plants article Linnaea amabilis at 17:51, 21 December 2014. I noticed that you moved the original page from the title Kolkwitzia amabilis to the current one, Linnaea amabilis, following the alteration of the taxonomy status suggested by an anonymous user (82.41.33.206).

However, according to various sources such as Flora of China (Kolkwitzia amabilis), the accepted genus of the plant is still Kolkwitzia. Most webpages, both in English and Chinese (China is the original and major habitat of such plant), use the name Kolkwitzia amabilis. I was quite confused at the name provided by English Wikipedia, so I studied the reference listed on that page (Twins are not alone). In my opinion, this paper only made a mere suggestion, rather than stating a consensus. In terms of clarity, the name of Kolkwitzia amabilis is more suitable to be the main title of the entry.

I am not quite clear about the convention of modifying an article enlisted by the WikiProject Plants, so I would like to discuss if it is appropriate to modify the name back to the original one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peiyangium (talk • contribs) 04:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for asking me. (Please remember to sign messages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.) I'm not sure what the right answer is here; I think I was just trying to make the article's title consistent with its contents, without pretending any detailed knowledge of the case. It sounds as if a move back would be right: why don't you ask at WP:WikiProject Plants? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Now that I have finished my sojourn in Wales (though I live there anyway) I am back to more normal activity. Do you fancy a collaborative effort? I have a couple of ideas but am open to suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Terrific work on Wales. Yes, why not - a bit low on ideas just now. Would like to close out the Teleost FAC, one reviewer still commenting from time to time, one gone quiet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What is with you? Why would you start deleting my photos, and call one of my favorite Bee Images:"SPAM". You've got some explaining you do pal.......Pocketthis (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Let us focus on the facts, avoiding personal attacks please. I noticed that several similar images with similar captions had appeared recently in multiple articles, that is all, and it seemed (and still seems) to me that they were adding little to most of the articles involved, hence the word. The captions used descriptive (WP:OR?) words like "immersed", which means submerged in (presumably, completely invisible under the cloud of), which the bees were not. At least if we are using images we should describe them properly and encyclopedically. Note also that species names in English should be given in lower case, and that scientific names should be in italics, and further that images should be chosen according to whether they enhance understanding of the article, and captioned accordingly. It is often a good plan for captions to echo or summarise what is said in the text; thus, pollination images might have captions referring to transfer of pollen to pollen baskets, and so on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• I would consider it gentlemanly, courteous, and extremely professional of you, if in the future you would simply change the caption if you don't agree with it, as opposed to calling an established editor's work:SPAM. Also, if you blow the photo up, you will see more than giant globs of pollen attached to those bees, not a few grains. Let's move on, neither of us has time for this nonsense. - Pocketthis (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry it upset you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Accepted. Thank you. Let's get back to improving this place buddy. Happy Editing - Pocketthis (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this one immersed enough for you? :-)

It reminds me of a kamikaze Pilot that just crashed into a Yellow Aircraft Carrier. Hope you appreciate the humor.-Pocketthis (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a Yellowus submarinensis, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• You know I had to click on it to see what adventure you were sending me on. :-) - Pocketthis (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Chiswick Chap: I've copy edited List of ancient dishes to address some of the concerns you stated in this edit. Check out the article now, and please feel free to pitch-in to expand it as you have already done. I moved the hidden comment you posted to the 477–1500 AD section. More on the article's talk page... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have run the toolbox checks (on the right of the FLC page for LWT) and it shows two dead links, refs 3 and 4. Can you take a look. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. They do seem to throw pages about with wild abandon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dudley Miles - the section headings now have a problem (a bot has just fixed part of it) - the Nature Reserves section is empty and precedes rather than contains the rest of the material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, you reverted my removal of Baptistery of Leurent on the baptistery article. Can't make sense of your edit summary since it certainly wasn't a blue link. Expound? Julia\^talk 21:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused when reading the diff. You'll find however that my edits yesterday both reinstated your edit, and rather needlessly improved the line above that one! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I hadn't edited in a while and I'm delighted that I'm not losing it! Also, improvements are never needless. ;) Julia\^talk 15:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mediterranean cuisine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The article Mediterranean cuisine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mediterranean cuisine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the duplicate refs in this article. Thanks for catching the error. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I won't mind helping on another invert article. Not now, but somewhere down the line. Are dragonfly, cicada or millipede manageable? LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I did start working on Millipede and am hoping to take it at least as far as GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

All seem quite good candidates, I fancy that Dragonfly might do well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, you guys seem to have already built it up well. I won't be able to help much with FAC though until June though. LittleJerry (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My view is that taking an article like Dragonfly to GA is more worthwhile than going after FA. Because we improved the article in 2015, it is no longer fresh in my memory and I would prefer to move on to something else. There is so much scope in Wikipedia for improvement! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: Are there other insect, invert, or pest groups we could usefully take to GA? I'd like to improve major articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have had my eye on Endemism and Commensalism for a while, or there's Fauna which has great scope. Or Aquatic plant, or plenty of insect orders, classes etc. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but inverts are so underrepresented in FA. Perhaps somewhere down the line we can do one last FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm on to take an insect order or two to GA. What haven't we done? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

How about Fly? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent choice. Let's do that! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: What else do we need to do on Fly? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

In honour of June 19, World Bogus Wikipedia Page Detection Day! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks. All part of a day's work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Food in England you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Food in England you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Food in England for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, I am new on this, so apologies if I am making any mistake. Thank you for your edits on the edits I did on the kin selection page. Nevertheless please note that, as it is now, it does not reflect the attribution of credits (through citation) in focus here. For instance, there we can read now that "Those papers were mostly ignored until they were cited[15] by Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and E. O. Wilson". In fact those papers were not cited by those authors neither in this study nor in subsequent ones (what is quite surprising, as E. O. Wilson was the editor of the PNAS paper ^[1] -this info is printed in the paper- therefore this author was aware of the existence of this work and, by having to direct its reviewing process, certainly knew its content very well). Wladuk (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Wladuk

Yeah, basically lol ... I discovered your talk page archiving while perusing the edits of 24.136.29.223, who often added unsigned talk page comments out of chronological order; they'd edited the talk page for the Bessemer process which is on my watchlist. One of my pet peeves is non-standard talk page management, and I'm a control freak, so that's why I've been going through your talk page archiving efforts, fixing them when necessary. I've seen non-standard talk page archiving cause some really, really weird things, so that's why I'm not a fan of it. Graham87 12:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I was going to message you after I'd finished about {{talkarchive}}, but you've probably figured that out by now by watching what I've been doing. Graham87 12:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have done a bit more to the article Fly, including expanding the lead. Do you think it is ready for GAN? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: Yes, certainly. It's informative, remarkably comprehensive, and actually beautiful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for appreciating my little edit! ^{(^_^)FilBenLeafBoy(^_^)}(Let's TALK!) 16:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a really impressive page! Thank you for adding it. Since you mentioned it on my talk page, I read it through trying to think of comments. I can only come up with two vague ones, which please ignore if they don't prompt any useful thoughts. One is to wonder whether Fitness landscape would be appropriate in a See also section. The other is to say that I didn't understand "Therefore, any talk of functions must be posterior to natural selection, function cannot be defined in the manner advocated by Reiss and Richard Dawkins". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've linked Fitness landscape and reworded to talk simply about history, which I think is what she means. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have removed names of Inspired Teacher-highest civilian award in the republic of India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspired_Teacher I would like to appeal this edit. You should undo this. If you check other civilian awards, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharat_Ratna list of recipients are presented in the page itself. I find your edit as an insult. --Iflex (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The way this conflict between wikipedia standards and what we might wish seems to be being resolved is to set up a "list of" page, for example List of recipients of the George Medal (which has quite complex coding) or Ekushey Padak Awards (1976–79) (which is a simple list, one of several referenced from Ekushey Padak). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Would you be interested in helping me bring European hare to FA? Its already a GA. I feel like it make need a bit more expanding and rearrangements. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Ok, I'll lend a hand. I see Cwmhiraeth intends to join in also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you be able rewrite the first part of culture? The current source that I cite [31] for Anglo-Saxon culture probably won't pass muster for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. The true situation is far more tenuous than many sources would like to believe, it seems. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the last major thing that is needed is a hunting section and discussion of the effects of invasive hares. I'll also look more in the literature to see if there is any more information I could use. LittleJerry (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, both things, and more; the hunting must mention both beagling and hare coursing; and perhaps also the use of an artificial hare pulled at great speed in old-fashioned "dogs", i.e. greyhound racing around a stadium track. I'm not sure we've completely covered the varieties either? We could have a cladogram, perhaps. No idea about fossils. Hare was certainly eaten by the Romans, btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

With regards to painting vs photos, I feel like the photos where not that great of quality. I guess one problem with the painting is that one image is cut off. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The painting feels very artificial to me; I prefer a photo even if not the finest where it shows an actual behaviour. Of course, FAC contributors will say whatever they like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you also be able to expand a little on the "mad as a March Hare" saying? LittleJerry (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think all that's needed now is for one last copyedit, unless you its good enough. LittleJerry (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, almost ready now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been through and copyedited the whole article. I found the sentence "Boyle responds that nothing is known about Ēostre outside of Bede's single passage," which I thought pretty mystifying. Are we talking about the Venerable Bede here and what passage? Apart from that, I think we are ready to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap. Some time round about April last year, we discussed obtaining an image of an "average face" to complement the Averageness article. At the time I could find no examples that could be used in Wikipedia, either on Wiki Commons, the internet, or from laboratories working on average faces.

But now I have found one that would seem to be available for use in Wikipedia at []. It is copyrighted by the "Face Research Laboratory" (at the University of Glasgow, Scotland), but the caption states that it can be used by anyone for non-commercial purposes. I presume that it would therefore be available to be used in Wikipedia.

I have no idea how to upload work that is not my own. I presume you are more familiar with the rules and requirements for uploading this, very suitable image, into the Averageness article. It looks, not surprisingly, like any of the other average faces that are available on the internet - Judith Langlois having shown that any one 32-face average face looks almost identical to any other 32-face average.

Can I leave this with you? if you think it is worthwhile replacing the photograph of Jessica Alba with a real average face? The text would need adjusting, but that would hardly be a problem. Oggmus (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap. I have tracked down one of the researcers at the Face Research Laboratory at Glasgow University, and she says that the image we want for the Averageness article is already freely available at [].

But I have no idea how to upload it on to the WikiCommons if it is not "my own work". The jargon, acroyms and abbreviations are totally beyond me! Would you mind uploading that image for Wikipedia, please? (Or any other reader of this page, please).

It will make a huge improvement to the Averageness article.

Cheers Oggmus (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Oggmus: Hi, as you guessed I've been away. Thanks for looking for images. Unfortunately, non-commercial usage licenses aren't the same as free or unrestricted licenses, and we can't use them on Wikipedia. Seems a shame but there it is. You might like to ask the Glasgow researcher if we can have say a small version of the image with a CC-by-SA license, explaining that non-commercial alone isn't enough for Wikipedia - they may be only too pleased to help. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

On 21 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fly, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that flies (crane fly pictured) have a single pair of wings for flight, the hind wings being modified into tiny gyroscopic organs known as "halteres"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fly. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fly), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

We have another enthusiast! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't know it was that rare. Seems to be a medic. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't intend for this to be very major, but I recently found this paper on roaring (type 461 for page) and expanded on roar (utterance). Maybe you could check it out, I may not have done it enough justice. Animal communication interests you right? LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added a lead image. I think what's missing is a section on the role of roaring in sexual selection. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yes, you're right on reflection, that is a better image, I was focusing too much on the underside matching the "sky". Why the overridden thumbnail size, though? --McGeddon (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me there, but what's the answer to the question? When you say "lead image size", do you mean that lead images have to be this size, or just that you're changing it? I agree it looks quite a bit better to have a larger image in the lede, but I thought the MOS position was that all thumbnails should be the standard size, unless they include some detail that's only visible in a larger thumbnail. --McGeddon (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's usual to have a larger lead image, or occasionally two, to introduce an article. As you say, it not only looks better, but introduces an article better, and allows more detail to be shown than is possible in a thumbnail. This encourages the reader to read on, and gives the visitor-in-a-hurry at least a quick visual impression of what the topic is all about. That's five good reasons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's weighted against the problem that anyone who's manually set a larger default thumbnail size in Preferences (quite possibly because image size is very important to them) will be shown a smaller image, when the article forces it to a particular size.

All good points, though. Do you know if anyone's ever put "larger lede image" forward as something to hardcode into Wikipedia, so that every article does it automatically? 220px does seem like a bit of a hangover from the days of smaller monitors and narrower bandwidth. --McGeddon (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and no I don't. This is why I much prefer to use upright=1.35 or similar, as that rescales itself......... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. I'll see if anyone's ever proposed making the lead images larger by default, and consider proposing it if not. --McGeddon (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're sure stirring that up is a good idea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if you would be interested in contributing articles to Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic)? It needs contributors to increase diversity of content from different countries and bring about large scale improvements. The idea at some point will be to host a National Contest related to your country of interest. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That was a good one. Friggin' socks laying everywhere... - LouisAragon (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you. The first one I ever did, and not something I would seek. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? I'd never think so, and I definetely don't mean that just to flatter or something! The evidence/diffs which you chose were well selected. You should do it more often! Long ago, when I just joined this place, I really didn't care as well about such matters, and even though all these socks/sockmasters were really annoying, I generally tended to avoid them. However, once I started to pay a little bit more attention to editorial pattersns as well as "new" users and IP's who were specifically removing/reverting/adding information and content that looked "odd' to my eyes to say the least, especially on articles which I often edited or had on my watchlist, I started to catch socks often. Now, with all this time past I'd almost dare to say, based at least on my own empirical experience and accounts of several other users who are often active at SPI, that virtually half of the "users" on this place are either socks, sockmasters or have socked extensively in the past. Its a problem thats visible on almost every topic area one could think of. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, before we get too excited about how well it's all working, take a look at the new IP edits on the article. Seems he's got a dynamic IP range from his ISP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the source is probably a secondary rather than primary one. Having no experience editing Wikipedia, I lazily figured that a secondary source would suffice. You're right, though, and I'll look for the original.

Something else worth mentioning: As far as I can tell, while no images in Wikimedia commons make the relationship between fractals and Hindu temples as explicit, the images here could be a decent substitute if I fail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandariya_Mahadeva_Temple — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabel12 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nabel12: It might; I expect we'll have to let the image go if we can't locate it quickly. Why don't you look at the article Mathematics and art that I brought to Good Article status: I think it already does what you want. I'm not at all sure that the Fractal art article is a good target for such things, though it is an interesting historical aside, as "fractal art" in the usual sense demands explicit mathematical use of fractals, necessarily recent. By the way, do sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

So an update: The work Ashish Nangia cited is the likely source of the picture. However, so far I've only been able to locate the second volume. https://archive.org/details/IndianArchitecture Nabel12 (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nabel12: Well, if it's from there, the book is by Percy Brown (art historian), who died in 1955, so the book will remain in copyright until 2026. If Ashish Nangia drew the picture and lived longer than that, the image might remain in copyright still later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The second volume of the same work is in the public domain according to the archive.org link I posted.

Obviously, if you're right, you're justified in deleting it; however, I think I still have good reason to believe it's in the public domain. Nabel12 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nabel12: Oh, I see, India, before 1958. OK, then all we need to know is if the image is, in fact, from Percy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I've failed to find a full online copy of the work, even after a thorough search, so unfortunately for me you're justified in deleting it. I apologize for the hassle I put you through.

Nabel12 (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Just one more thing, though I won't bother including such in the article: There is an interesting Hindu-Buddhist mathematical and narrative/artistic tradition describing both fractals and recursion:

• Indra's net
• Indra's Pearls (book)
• Fibonacci number#Origins

Nabel12 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nabel12: Interesting. And thank you for having a proper look. We all know that starting out on Wikipedia is a steep learning curve (I just formatted those Wikipedia links!); I hope you'll go on to have a lot of fun here, building articles on Indian art or whatever you enjoy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging Cwmhiraeth. Hi guys, here's another one of your FAC nominations at TFA, I'm working on the TFA text now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious again, your part of mayfly, "an insect that spends almost its whole life as an aquatic nymph, and a brief time (sometimes only a few minutes) as a winged adult"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Regarding your edit summary "well, it's a rather well-cited section for WP:OR - do you mean the last few sentences": I mean passages such as: "This means, after sufficient duration as differences assert, all concepts will attract and coalesce as pink noise and entropy increases (see also: Big Crunch, self-organized criticality). The theory is applicable to all organizationally closed or homeostatic processes that produce enduring and coherent products (where spins have a fixed average phase relationship and also in the sense of Nicholas Rescher's coherence theory of truth with the proviso that the sets and their members exert repulsive forces at their boundaries) through interactions: evolving, learning and adapting." That is WP:OR as far as I can see. Biogeographist (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: Ça se voit. I've chopped it. If there's any more, let's chop it today: it has no place in the encyclopedia. The rest looks pretty well cited with some big names in there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

An off-the-wall suggestion: would you want to mention in some way that there are other traditions that consider human embryology?This is not my kind of topic. :-) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't see the quote (only the book and a whited-out page with yellow censor-marks) but no, I don't think we need to mention that here. Might be relevant to Embryology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you need reading matter, perhaps of the bed-time relaxation type, let me know. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I managed to find it with a fresh search ;-} but no, not my bag really. More interested in any gaps of the biological variety! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Quick Draw McGraw, I am still working on the addition. Just put in her picture. Unlike many, she has well over 200 references to choose from! --Po Kadzieli (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hm. I've edited the mention and added a ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, so soon: Do you know how to put in coordinates? We need them for the Lillie Bridge Depot that goes from Lillie Bridge (Fulham) all the way to Beaumont Avenue by West Kensington tube station. If you can help, I shall be most grateful.--Po Kadzieli (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Not my bag, I'm afraid, but I think you just use Google Maps to find the co-ords and paste them into the template. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Evolutionary developmental biology you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pbsouthwood -- Pbsouthwood (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The article Evolutionary developmental biology you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Evolutionary developmental biology for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pbsouthwood -- Pbsouthwood (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Giraffe page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help wth this --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

A pleasure to work with you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick facts patterns in nature ...

Four years ago ...

patterns in nature
... you were recipient no. 301 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, you are amazing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you deleted references to the Mexican freetail bat flying at 100 mph. Thanks. I read this reference yesterday and thought it was a rather an extraordinary claim. What do think is going on here? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think someone on a science website read 60 for 160 and got a bit over-excited until their supervisor came back saying "you stupid boy" or words to that effect. Someone else then instantly vacuumed up that "fascinating fact" with rather less than no checking and shoved it into the long-suffering encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it turns out to be genuine - I've cited the Royal Society paper the phys.org report was based on. The phys.org website must have been having trouble when I tried to read the article, it's back now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You say here that: "all navboxes shd be closed when >1 are present". I agree with that, apart from the single exception that the rule shouldn't apply if the article happens to be the main topic of the template. An example would be here. Is the matter set out in a guideline somewhere? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think so, but the mass of essays and guidelines doesn't make it ... easy enough to locate. I note in passing that the default autocollapse behaviour of navboxes is to open when alone, and to close when in company, which indicates that the author of the master template thought the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

But you could equally argue the author of the master template recognised there could be valid exceptions by providing the overriding state parameter. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No, they just allowed for every combination, knowing that nothing is ever done simply and consistently on Wikipedia. Maybe one day we'll standardise on one way of handling citations, but I doubt it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Natural selection you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed a line from this article that perpetuates the myth that dissection was restricted in the Middle Ages by a papal bull by Boniface VIII. You seem to have reverted the article so that it includes the erroneous claim again, saying that my edit was an "unexplained deletion of cited text and citation". It was not "unexplained" - I cited Katherine Park, "Myth 5 - That the Medieval Church Prohibited Dissection" in Ronald L. Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard University Press, 2010) pp. 43-49, who details how this myth arose and shows why it is still repeated in generalist histories. The cited work in the original footnote actually notes that Boniface's decree "targetted funerary customs rather than the nascent practices of autopsy and dissection" but then goes on to claim it still "had a chilling effect on the spread of dissection" but gives no evidence to support this. The extensive evidence of the spread of dissection in the same article shows that there was no such "chilling effect" and Park and other historians of science note that no-one in the period ever cites Boniface's decree in relation to dissection. The claim in the article cited is baseless and is disputed by historians of science who specialise in the history of anatomy. A baseless repetation of the myth is not evidence that the myth is true. The claim about Boniface should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimONeill (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the claim about Boniface and its citation and replaced it with a note that the claim is a nineteenth century myth and a reference to Park's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimONeill (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@TimONeill: That's fine then. It was uncited and unexplained in the direct and literal sense - you deleted the text, leaving no edit comment to explain what you had done. If you had made the change you have now made, surely nobody would have protested: you explained what you did, and you provided a reliable source. By the way, I nearly missed this item - please make sure always to add talk page sections to the end where people will notice them. Also, you should sign your talk page items using four tildes, i.e. ~~~~ (a bot turns them into your signature). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, do you think grasshopper would be an easy FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on how comprehensive we may think it is, and how neatly organised. On the first, I guess moderately. On the second, I suppose it depends on what mood people are in. If you feel like doing it, I'll lend a hand. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well you and @Cwmhiraeth: did the article. I personally think it looks fine but if we nominate it, I could only correct things things related to grammar, ect. LittleJerry (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Then I think it's a matter of what she feels about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Having returned (metaphorically) from my sojourn in Africa, I'm ready to get back to normality. CC and I plan to work on Tick and I will be happy to join you both in trying to bring Grasshopper to FA. My views in general however, are that it is more worthwhile improving important articles to GA standard than it is to add the extra polish and comprehensiveness required for FA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, then let's get on with those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I personally don't know what else to add. LittleJerry (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Flea you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The article Natural selection you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Natural selection for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting this article to GA. I read the lead and thought what a good introduction to the subject it was. Would you like me to nominate the article for DYK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd be delighted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated it but had difficulty finding a suitable hook. If you don't like my one you can propose another. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I should think it's fine, though maybe we could shave a word or two off it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. It was an enjoyable experience (who would have thought :-) ) and the one that resulted in article improvements as to its focus. Thanks again! K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, it was a most interesting article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Flea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flea for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think I have finished writing what I needed to add into the article. Perhaps the only thing we can do now is give it a nice clean, perhaps expand the lead to reflect on the new information and nominate it for GA. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: OK, I'll look it over again. I guess you saw I tweaked the images already this morning. If we're talking about the largest spp, then we should also mention some of the smallest (whole groups, I guess, not a particular species). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I did, many thanks! I'll try and find some sources that comment on the smallest species. Hopefully it won't be too difficult to find. :P Burklemore1 (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have done a few more edits to the article, I decided to get the bibliography stuff over and done with (it looks much better now, not that this was much of an issue as stated in our previous conversations). Does anything else need clarification? I think it almost looks ready for nomination. The only thing I can think of is slightly expanding the lead. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've tidied up the anti-predator adaptations and used up the See also (which was in fact already in the text). Feel free to expand the lead slightly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, finally got around to it. Lead has been expanded, though it's best to give it a few checks. Article is looking great at this point. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: I think it's about ready. I will have little availability over the holiday period but apart from that we can go to GAN whenever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. I've listed you as co-nominator. The time it takes for someone to review an article seems a lot longer these days, so we shouldn't expect much for a bit. I'll most likely be busy myself too. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

OK! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fungi in human culture you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Fungi in human culture you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fungi in human culture for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hope you had a nice Christmas. Do you think grasshopper is about ready? I was also thinking about brown bear. I've been tempted to bring to FA, but for now I'm willing to focus on GA status. LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably ready, yes. Brown bear on the other hand is dangerously long and could fail either FA or GA for that reason: 100,000 is generally a sensible upper limit on reading length, and it's nearly 3x that. I'd personally rather work on articles that a) lack detail and b) cover a major group. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)