User talk:Chiswick Chap/TalkArchive2015

Photo ID

File:Cucurbita_2011_G1.jpg, in that photo there is definitely C. pepo. I'm think the one at the back is C. moschata. Maybe some are C. maxima. What do you think? Some of these are very hard to distinguish from just a photo. I think we can post at FAC within a day or two. HalfGig talk 14:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea, it's quite a specialist identification task. If they are species already illustrated then the image is redundant, and we'll be told so quite firmly at FAC. But I agree, we're basically ready, not waiting for anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to give it a day or two in case a MEDRS person pops back in. I really like this photo so I'll poke around for more positive ID too. HalfGig talk 14:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, do that then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

See related thread at User talk:Sminthopsis84. HalfGig talk 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita redir hit

See [this redir hit and my last couple edits. I can't find what's causing it. HalfGig talk 21:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because C. ---> squash bee ---> bee ---> C. ? That isn't really a fault. Automated tools only suggest possible faults, after all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Giant clams etc.

When dealing with things like copyright issues I am a bit at sea so thank you for your intervention on my talk page. Do you think I acted correctly in removing the three chunks of text mentioned on Jechma's talk page and which I had interpreted as copyright violations? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think so, yes, and it seems he basically confirms that they are his, so unless he demonstrates a CC-by-SA or other suitable license for the passages to be used freely, we must assume they are CVs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

OW list

You asked why Merlyn appeared as an OW. In The Sword in the Stone it was explained that he lived backwards in time and that his youth was in the twentieth century. Among his possessions were typewritten duplicates from the Master of Trinity and a medal for being the best scholar at Winchester. I think that answers your question? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there a printed Win Coll Register in the public domain, with details of Asher, Gaminara etc? Or failing that, there must be surviving Short Rolls? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da): I was wondering the same, but I am really not sure about the public aspect of it. The address list of OWs is not to be shared, for instance. If you can get hold of some of these, and verify that we can make use of them in this way, then it will be the work of a few moments to add the necessary citations, and of course I'll be delighted to see the entries redisplayed. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

PS Register 1836-1906 is online at Archive.org. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gavin Maxwell edit=

Thanks Chip for your message. Yes, was making minor edit (improvement) to maxwell article and realised-amid suddent home distractions, Id forgotten how to footnote-had to stop,will make edit later,Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.102.172 (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A Reliable Source?

I'm working on Asa Gray. While this source looks well-done to me, I've not seen it before. Their article on Gray has some info I haven't seen elsewhere. Do you think it meets RS? Here is the link. HalfGig talk 14:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder. We are allowed to use tertiary sources like other encyclopaedias (even the dreadful old 1911 EB, with care), and this one at least comes with a decent bibliography. I'd say it was possible at a pinch, but if you can get hold of Dupree and perhaps also Rodgers as listed at the end there, that would be a whole lot better. And surely Dupree can be mined for a few juicy quotations, too. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, there's even an article on him: A. Hunter Dupree. A copy of the updated version of that book, 1988, is on Amazon. I think it'll be worth the cost. I'm going to order it. Thanks! HalfGig talk 16:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bananasoldier (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That's very kind of you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Template: Socialism in the United States

Wondering if you could stop by "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:American_socialism" and offer your opinion in what to do with the people section, there has been no progress, so I have proposed that the section should be removed entirely, and then maybe developed slowly. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for List of Tolkien's alliterative verse. Not sure right now what else needs doing there (maybe the title needs tweaking), but if you need a hand let me know as I likely have a number of books that could help. I'll pop a WikiProject Middle-earth tag on the talk page (I think the scope of that project covers all Tolkien's works). Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Thanks to you. The list comes from the somewhat disordered state of the Alliterative verse article, which certainly looks a little better without it; it's probably in need of expert attention. The list itself is I think not too bad as it's almost entirely publication data; I already slimmed down what seemed to be opinion. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carl Michael Bellman

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carl Michael Bellman 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 Iselilja -- Iselilja (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job on Carl Michael Bellman! It was about time that article had some TLC. Good Luck with the GA! w.carter-Talk 01:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What a surprise - Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) I'm also pleased that you included the fact about the lottery, a "trivia" that most Swedes know about. I thought about including it myself, but it was very late last night when I finished. I grew up around members of the Bellman society so I know the songs and the guy pretty well. I was just checking on a GAN of my own when I saw your entry and of course I got interested. Fingers crossed now, w.carter-Talk 09:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Found a couple of free pics, one of his signature and one of a poem written by him. I was surprised to find that the signature parameter was not included in the infobox. Anyway, these are the files if you want to use them somewhere: File:Carl Michael Bellmans namnteckning.jpg and File:Til Fru Widman Patronessa på Elfvik, Den 15 September 1789.jpg. I found them here and the poem is transcribed here. Best, w.carter-Talk 15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've put in the signature. The article is nicely written and looks worth a more careful read, I'll take a look later. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita status

This is going really slow. I'm unsure of how we stand. We may never get enough reviewers. While we have two supports, the first two who commented have never finished and we don't have an image check, source, check, or copyvio check. I posted a request for these some days ago in the designated spot on the FAC talk page. HalfGig talk 21:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you probably shouldn't worry about the speed. There's no reason why we shouldn't politely ask the two who haven't finished if they could come back and say what they think. As for the small checks, they aren't likely to be critical obstructions; someone will appear to do the necessary, I'd imagine. What we can't do is solicit new reviewers to come along. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, see talk pages at Sasata and CorinneSD. HalfGig talk 22:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Corinne added some more things to the FAC. I fixed them all but search for my "I like that last wording too, but also don't know if it has to be the first word". Do you know the answer to the question we both have about item 2? HalfGig talk 00:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:HalfGig: I think I do, but the answer probably isn't what you want. The boldface title word doesn't have to be exactly first, but it should be as close to the start as is reasonably possible. You're both excited by this. BUT: the basic fact about Cucurbita is that it is a genus in the gourd family. The secondary fact is that it is native to A and M, and the tertiary fact is that it was first cultivated there. I am quite sure that C. must be the subject of the sentence, and that being a genus must be the predicate. You find this less thrilling. So hear me out: It would be entirely wrong to take 2ndry or 3ry matter as the main subject of the first line of the article. You were both right about the sentence's inelegance; I have split it into two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

C seems keener on continual copyediting than any substantive matters. Even if she supports, it isn't worth much as she is an involved editor (in the article). Still, it might help a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Bioluminescent Organisms

I added the reference. Thanks for reminding me! I have other references for Pyrocystis fusiformis if you need/want them. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics

The article Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics 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:Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shii -- Shii (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ding! GA review

Check it out: Talk:Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics Shii (tock) 01:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carl Michael Bellman

The article Carl Michael Bellman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Carl Michael Bellman 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 Iselilja -- Iselilja (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Alba in the Koinophilia article

Dear Chiswick Chap

I have been unable to find a decent or appropriate replacement of the the photograph of Jessica Alba for the Koinophilia article. I have used links to very appropriate material by people actually working on the averaging of faces, but the authors have not given permission to use their images in the Wikipedia article .

Would you mind having a look at the koinophilia article again, and seeing whether you think Jessica Alba's portrait should be removed, or whether it is appropriate enough to add some color to the otherwise featureless expanse of text that would result if the picture was removed?

You can leave your response on my User Talk page Oggmus (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maskirovka

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maskirovka 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 Altenmann -- Altenmann (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking ahead

Would you be interested in taking Bioluminescence to FAC later in the year? I see the equivalent article is an FA in the Japanese and Slovenian Wikipedias, and we might be able to glean some further information from them in our attempt at comprehensiveness. If you are amenable to the idea, what are your holiday plans this year? For WikiCup reasons, I would be interested in nominating the article in August or September, with a view to the FAC being completed during September or October, preferably nominating it earlier rather than later as the time taken at FA is so unpredictable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's consider this carefully.

The article is tidy, happily stable, readable, and pretty well cited.

• The Distribution section however needs more references. The curent statement "occurs widely among animals, especially in the open sea" is fine for GA but too vague and sweeping for FA; we will need to extend this to be comprehensive, even if many groups are mentioned in the Uses in nature section. The section will need a description of the taxonomic range - it might be an adapted version of the taxonomic tree in Haddock;
• We would have to extend the Chemical mechanism section somewhat, add a diagram (maybe from Luciferase) on the reaction(s) and describe the reaction mechanisms; part of the work can be done by adding a "main" link or two (just added one). We might need subsections for Luciferin, Luciferase, Aequorin/Other photoproteins.
• The History section needs some work; I think we'd have to investigate other post-1961 research rather more thoroughly.
• I suspect the introduction to Uses in nature will need to be made more defensible; Haddock's views probably need to be supported by another review article and we need to watch out for words like "several" and "more or less definite", and for claims like "It is much easier for researchers to detect ..." - this probably needs a quote to prove it isn't just our opinion, and we'll need to be clearer on what is known and what isn't.

These changes might take the article from 46k to perhaps 70k (SWAG*), which seems reasonable.

I am not sure the other Wikipedias are up to FA standard. The Japanese one is only 20k long and they give a star to the English version, so I suspect theirs is equivalent to a GA only. The Slovenian is 40k and has plenty of example organisms; like German Wikipedia (spread there over a range of articles) it has more on the reaction chemistry, and it includes a substantial list of organisms (we link out to a less extensive list that I split off 2 yrs ago), mainly uncited, many redlinked; again, it seems to use star for GA. Overall, not much better than ours.

September is better for me than August. Of course I could work on it a bit before then.

@User:Cwmhiraeth: I'm happy to give it a go, if you broadly agree with me on the plan of work I've sketched above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Scientific Wild-A**** Guess. As opposed to a simple WAG.

Good. We can work on it along the lines you suggest over the next few months and consider the exact timing later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Per our talk

For your eddification and amusement: [1] Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. We think of eating horse as a distinctly French habit. But then, they think of our food as totally inedible... mutual love and respect all round. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And we Yanks, the culinary gods that we are (Rocky Mountain Oysters) think the both of you have issues. I mean, Yorkshire pudding, kidney pie, and stuff like Haggis? Really? (Of course, there are a lot of "traditional" dishes in any culture that are, basically, "the stuff poor people had to eat in times of famine" so...) Montanabw^(talk) 21:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Londoners used to eat Jellied Eels for pleasure, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!!!

Happy Valentine's Day, to you and yours! Cheers, Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

della Salda

This book seems to be in Italian, so I added the language parameter. Do you have an English version of it? I also can't find an ISBM for the 1993 version. HalfGig talk 18:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:HalfGig: I don't, and I don't think it has been translated, either. Italian publishers also seem to have been pretty relaxed about ISBNs - perhaps they didn't even apply for one. But happily, Wikipedia doesn't require sources to be in English. So I guess it'll be fine as it is. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea in culture

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sea in 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea in culture

The article Sea in culture 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:Sea in culture for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea in culture

The article Sea in culture you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sea in 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bumblebee

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bumblebee 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) 18:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bumblebee

The article Bumblebee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bumblebee 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) 08:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Plovers

It actually says spur-winged? Elsewhere on Wikipedia it mentions Egyptian plover as the proper bird, such as in that bird's article, also in List of symbiotic relationships and Crocodile bird redirects to it. The article for Spur-winged lapwing says: "The famed "crocodile bird" is sometimes taken to be this species, but it is actually the true plover Pluvianus aegyptius." Do both birds (allegedly) do this? 68.156.95.34 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.

1. "It actually says spur-winged?" Yes, it actually does, and I've quoted it in full in the article, complete with exact page reference, so it can hardly be denied - for my claim to be false now, either I'd actually have to be a liar, or seriously confused, or be in possession of a book that looks like Scherren's but has in fact been cunningly tampered with by a demented Wikimaniac intent on disrupting my future edits by guessing what I am about to look for and supplying me with a specially-made book designed to mislead. I hardly think so.
2. "Elsewhere on Wikipedia" - Be aware that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; articles must be sourced to other places which we have reason to believe are reliable: please read the policy in that blue link, because you have no hope of becoming a successful editor without it. The fact that a thousand errors have been made somewhere else is precisely no evidence that anything is wrong with a correctly cited claim, one that in this case is actually proven with a complete and verifiable quotation. (Yes, you need to go and study that blue linked policy too, it is absolutely central to how Wikipedia works.)
3. "Do both birds (allegedly) do this?" Actually, the article carefully discusses which birds might do this, and shows that in all likelihood the behaviour is occasional and incidental. Since Scherren is a reliable source, and since Sclater was an excellent zoologist, I think we can be fairly sure that the plovers that were shot were spur-winged; and since Cook thought the shot birds were the same kind as the bird in the mouth, it seems very likely that the bird in the mouth was spur-winged also, but that is as much as can be said, and the article correctly implies no more than that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dragonfly

Having found a nice online book, I am going to use it rather than search around to fill any particular section. For the moment I am doing territoriality and have started a Behaviour section. The section headings can be changed around later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Cwmhiraeth: Excellent. I think that my quick summary in Ecology should be treated as the parent section as it gives an overview of the reasons for the group's distinctive feeding, mating and patrolling behaviours. So ideally we'll fit other sections around that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't like what you have done to the Berger references. You had removed the url entirely, although I have added it back now. But the citations I originally made led to specific pages of the book whereas, with the present arrangement, this specificity is lost. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for whatever went wrong. No reason not to have the URL, obviously; and the page numbers should be exactly as before, if not it's simply an error. The sfn references may have either individual page numbers (|p=123) or page ranges (|pp=123–125) so nothing should be lost. Feel free either to fix or let me know what to fix. Sorry for the trouble. This probably isn't the moment to say why I'd like the sfn system for the major books, except to say it seems sensible to list them as sources, and this way in fact allows automatic navigation to the source. So if done correctly (blushes) the method works better than any other. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I just checked, there was only one that was wrong: fixed it; all the other page ranges were identical. Sorry to have upset you. Hope you find it all right now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I haven't mastered the complexities of referencing and sfn. The url link I gave the book is not good, but if I click on your " Berger 2004, pp. 44–46.", or similar citations, I get nothing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Oh, I see. Try it now, you'll find it works as it should. The gadget needs a last= parameter, which I'd been using without realizing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, never mind. I thought the original referencing better but am not overly bothered.

I have just found a rather perplexing statement in Calopterygidae. The article said of a family of damselflies, "They often resident in places of high vexation and debris, favoring logic environment." The source said "Favoring lotic environments, this family seeks residence in areas of high vegetation and debris." I had to look up "lotic" and find it means slow-flowing water. Fortunately, the editor who added that sentence did not normally edit biology articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks... a somewhat obscure and highly vegetated style! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss dragonflies here because it took me some time to find your comment under the section heading Bumblebee on my talk page. I have your talk page on my watchlist. I am currently enlarging the description section but I should think that we are nearly there. Is the article supposed to be written in American English? My spell checker prefers the British version.

OK, will do that. Are you doing a British spellcheck then? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I will, but not just now. Shall we mention the word naiad and then stick to nymph for therest of the article? Or do you prefer naiad? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I would rather take one (or more) of these insect articles to FAC than Bioluminescence. I think they would be easier. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, these ought to work well. Who do you think we should have in the team? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to join us. I must admit to preferring people who use edit summaries so that you know what they are doing! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we're about ready now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I ran my spellchecker over it and "coloration" is the only thing that irks me now, although I believe it is an acceptable alternative spelling of "colouration". I thought the Conservation section a bit weak, so I expanded it. Otherwise, yes, ready to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I always use "coloration", as did the impeccably English Hugh Cott with his Adaptive Coloration in Animals back in 1940. We say "decoration" and any number of others. I'm afraid English (sensu stricto) orthography is a hopeless tangle. Dr. Johnson tried to tidy things up, sometimes making it worse: we spell scissors with a c and double s because he supposed, wrongly, that it came from scindo, scissum in Latin - it doesn't, it comes from French cisoires (shears), so the earlier spelling "sisors" would have been better. And Shakespeare uses "humor" and "humour" indifferently! I'll pop the article into GAN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: I think I might have a go at Damselfly as well! Would be delighted if you joined in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I only just saw this. I will be happy to join you with damselfly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Super, I'll get to it when I have a moment! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

We Did It!

See this. Great teamwork! HalfGig talk 02:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:HalfGig, congratulations! Worth the wait! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Insects

Do you intended to eventually bring Bumblebee are Dragonfly to FA? LittleJerry (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Hi, and thanks for asking. I guess so, if the right team is available... They'll both need some more work to reach there. You back in action and feel like helping? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm only back part-time. I probably won't be able to help much on them. I just think we need more invertebrate FAs. LittleJerry (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Winchester College, A Register, 1914

This was published by Winchester College in 2014. The editors are PSWK Maclure and RP Stevens. Poshseagull (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC) @Poshseagull: Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New template

I made a new template like this. Can you help with this template please? {{Parasitic animals}}

@User:Line 8 the Pink - hmm, that could be enormous, there are literally thousands of parasites: even more if you call any protozoa/protista/protoctista "animals". Is there really nothing out there yet? Perhaps it would be best limited to "animal groups" or something of that kind. I'll think about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Line 8 the Pink - perhaps you don't mean 'animals' but 'vertebrates'? That would exclude the huge numbers of parasitic insects, mites, flatworms, and protozoa. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Dragonfly as a GA

Love the article. I'm new to the process of GA review and certainly wouldn't be able to take on the task of being the 'official' reviewer. But what can I do to help the process along?

  Bfpage |leave a message  05:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps the best thing is to look around other natural history articles that are in the GA process, and read what the reviewers have said, and what the editors did about those comments. You can also read the GA instructions and see how those compare to how GAs actually go. On the dragonfly article, if you see anything that we ought to improve, you can let us know. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Engraver identification

Re the diff about John Anderson (engraver), there is room for doubt. I'm not saying the engraving can't be this Anderson, by some process of recycling, but if he died more than 30 years before I think the identification needs support. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews: Ah, I hadn't imagined there might be more than one engraver of that name around Bewick's time, sorry for any confusion. If he was born in 1775 he'd have been in his sixties at the time of the engraving; but I have no evidence he travelled or migrated south from Newcastle. By the way, do we know when he died? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

By 1808, per the article. The ODNB thinks he likely did move south, though he apparently left the country, possibly for Australia, around 1805. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews: Well, given the date of White's Selborne, the engraving could have been made around 1800 by this particular Anderson; but since the book really took off in popularity after 1830, I'd certainly agree with you that a later date and another Anderson are possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps there is a more satisfactory and earlier edition to refer to. Sadly none of the biographies of Anderson I have encountered mention the History. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all your work to add references to the War film article. Your efforts are appreciated! TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's very kind of you, the last thing I was expecting! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I remain a great admirer of your editing work.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's very nice of you. Thank you very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation ...

... here. — Sebastian 22:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Guns of Victory

Hi Chiswick, I restored 'Guns of Victory' that you deleted with an IMDB reference. I saw the film in Fiji in '81 and it was interesting (looked like it was filmed on a ROK Army base) with a slam bang final reel. I also added a film I've never seen and have only recently heard of 'A Torn Page of Glory' with the great Aldo Ray. So why did you remove it? No reference?Foofbun (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed it as a new, uncited, and if I recall also redlinked addition. I'll thank you for providing some kind of reference, a definite improvement; but unfortunately IMDb is, like Wikipedia, a place where anyone and everyone can edit, so while the information is often correct it cannot be treated as reliable (see WP:RS). I do not wish to edit-war on this, and I can see you are acting in good faith, but list articles do require reliable citations, just like anything else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The Abandoned Field: Free Fire Zone

Hi. It turns out we do have a preexisting and somewhat more detailed article on The Abandoned Field: Free Fire Zone. I can find no preferred punctuation in reliable sources: both seem to be used. So I've redirected and merged to the older article. The references you've found and the pull quotes are a great addition. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That was (as I just said, but you may not have seen it) my preferred action, rather than the neatly-packaged nightmare that is CSD, which was not needed here. Happy you ended up doing the right thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reviewing Mechanical-electrical analogies so quickly, I appreciate how difficult it is to review technical articles. Truthfully, I was expecting to catch hell on comprehensibility issues, but apparently it is ok, so thanks once again for your efforts. Do you have any thoughts on a possible DYK nomination? I could not think of a single hooky fact that could be used. For the sub articles there were at least arguably interesting facts that presented themselves - for instance the mobility analogy had a Formula One related fact. But its quite hard to find something that relates to analogies generally rather than a specific one. SpinningSpark 18:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Spinningspark <blushes> I actually enjoyed reading it. Agree it's not very hooky, though the first sentence of the History might do .. for electrical-mechanical analogies, but perhaps still usable ("JCM is credited with founding the impedance analogy"?), and it would go with his photo, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good DYK fact, but the article title could only be worked in in a very clumsy way (Impedance analogy is a separate sub-article). SpinningSpark 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragonfly

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dragonfly 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragonfly

The article Dragonfly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dragonfly 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The GA review was completed before I even knew it had begun. Congratulations! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. @Cwmhiraeth, it might make a nice DYK? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll nominate it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Damselfly

@Cwmhiraeth, I've been a bit distracted but have now added Phylogeny and Reproduction sections. I think the ecology needs more work (species of acid bogs, running water, etc?). I'd like to find a decent image of a fossil too, have failed so far. There isn't much on the human front either - I suspect the Bates piece in Dragonfly actually means Damselfly, but can't prove it. What else needs done? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I got a bit distracted by comb jellies. I have used a publication "The ecology and conservation of threatened damselflies" from the Environment Agency as a source. It is online as a pdf file but I could not find a suitable url to include in the reference. I will work on a Conservation section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about the blue-fronted dancer (Argia apicalis) as an example of typical behaviour, I don't know if you approve. I plan to write a species article shortly to remove the red link. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You're a bit concerned that it's rather a lot on one species, risking WP:UNDUE? I think your feeling is probably right to the extent that we still need to beef the article up with broader, well-sourced generalisations about behaviour and other topics; the ecology is already looking a lot better. It may then be that we will want to slim down single-species accounts, moving them indeed to subsidiary articles. But it'll do for now. I'll see what I can rustle up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have rather run out of steam for the article Damselfly. Do you think it is ready for GAN or does it need more work? I think the lead needs improvement apart from anything else.

@Cwmhiraeth, yes, I think we've said what needs to be said. I was expecting more but I think the confusion with dragonflies means that a lot of the energy people would or should have put into admiring them cannot be proven to be damselfly material, the Bates quote in Dragonfly being a fine case in point - I'm sure it's about damselflies! Yes, we can go for GAN as soon as we've done the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Grasshopper

Do you fancy working on Grasshopper? What do you think about this statistics page? I wondered why there was such a spike of interest on March 22nd but it does not seem to have been connected with anything on the front page at that time, as far as I can see. Maybe it is an error of some sort or perhaps it was "World grasshopper day" :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, Yes, I seem to have got stuck in already. The article is promising but needs better refs and an image or two. The human part needs to be made more serious, and the lead needs rewriting.

Spikes are always inexplicable; the stats do go haywire sometimes (look at Astrology!). It could always be an American state which has specified projects for all its schools. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am making use of this useful book which is full of excellent information on insects. For the moment I am working on the "As pests" section that I have just started, and plan to continue afterwards with the locust section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, OK, I've started a new Lifecycle and Reproduction section, cut down some of the basic stuff common to all insects, and sorted out the Humans bit. I don't think we want a huge amount on locusts for the obvious reason that they have their own articles, so we ought to proceed as if we were summarizing those articles (supposing they were of GA quality, ahem). And we should have a late instar or adult insect as the lead image, ideally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, I've tidied up locust somewhat, you might care to look, given the overlap between the two articles; it may be easy to bring both to GA at once. There may be some useful facts or leads worth following. I think the locusts need a brief desc. of grasshopper biology; otherwise, they're just grasshoppers that swarm, so the article ought really to focus on swarming. I've cut an enormous lump of stuff about other uses of the word locust. Way off beam - someone had even tagged it but taken no action.Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll get to work on Locust. The extinction of the Rocky Mountain locust is pretty amazing, and the whole subject is fascinating. I wrote an article on the Moroccan locust some time ago. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

My today's task is to work on locust control, first in the Locust article and then summarising the information in Grasshopper. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: OK, I'll leave you to it. I started on it before I read my email this morning, added some refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have added a section in Locust called "Solitaria and gregaria phases", please feel free to alter the title as you see fit. I am going to allow myself to be diverted by the articles on Desert locust and Migratory locust which have plenty on swarming and economic losses, but very little on the description of the insects, their distribution, life cycle etc. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

On further thoughts, I think I will write a new article on Locusta migratoria migratorioides, the African migratory locust, a subspecies of L. migratoria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Locust and Grasshopper are both much improved (and not far off GA now); I've tweaked a few related articles also (we'll need a template if we go much further!). Perhaps the list of species in Locust should have images? I'll think about the title, it does seem a bit super-latinate at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I rather think that the lack of general biology in Locust is appropriate, I'm inclined to axe whatever's left because, after all, these are just grasshoppers in their gregarious phase, so we should only cover the phase transitions and the nomadic, swarming behaviour (and its consequences). Are you expecting to use more detail of the individual species in the main article? If not, we can get it GAN-ready fairly quickly, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I don't think we need more detail of the individual species in the article Locust, but the information does want to be somewhere, hence my desire to work on the individual species and subspecies articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made the camouflage/mimicry/aposematism images into a gallery as we have 5 images, all interesting and relevant, for one shortish section and it looks less cluttered like that. I think it's defensible at GA for these reasons, even if the guys at FA are pathologically averse to them. (They were forced to walk round art galleries as children, probably!). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the gallery is fine but I think the article needs a bit more work before it is ready for GAN. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi, would you please help me to correct these two sentences of the Stuckism article, my English is not very good:

• The first sentence of the second lead paragraph (starting Childish and Thompson have issued) is grammatically wrong as far as I can tell.
• So is the following sentence in "Manifestos": The second and third manifestos, respectively An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota and Remodernism, were sent to Nicholas Serota, which letter received a brief reply

Thanks.

I've done that for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. lapsking (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Tables

Are you knowledgeable about tables (databases not furniture) because I am pretty clueless? I am working on one in my sandbox and want to change the appearance, layout and dimensions of the cells etc. Can you help or advise who else might do so? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks much better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Chocolate and Soldiers

Hello, Chiswick Chap. You have new messages at Michitaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Dragonfly

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review of Noh

Hello Chiswick Chap, Thank you so much for reviewing the Noh article. I think I can work on it this weekend and next weekend. Would that work for you? Decafespresso (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Decafespresso, yes, that would be fine. Thanks for getting back to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've added the reference for the "Theme" section in the Noh article. Thank you so much again for working with me on this! Decafespresso (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Bovidae

Remember having worked a bit on this article? I am going to nominate it for GAN, thought you may be interested. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sainsf: it's looking good. It should pass like a knife through warm butter. Let me know if you need a hand for anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Art of Cookery made Plain and Easy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Art of Cookery made Plain and Easy 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Art of Cookery made Plain and Easy

The article The Art of Cookery made Plain and Easy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Art of Cookery made Plain and Easy 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter to you too. That bunny looks delicious, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Helen Macdonald

Hi, I've added some material to this article and think it may no longer be a coatrack. Remove expansion tag? Best, Mick gold (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mick gold@ Thanks, and yes, it's definitely better. Now it can grow gently with suitable sources as they arise. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A big thank you for the superb editing of the Koinophilia article

Hi, The editing you have done to the koinophilia article is truly first class. A very big thank you is in order. The article looks very good and reads very smoothly now. Congratulations. I'm not sure how medals for this sort of thankless work are awarded, but you definitely deserve one. If it falls within my permit, and I knew how to do it, I'd award you one right now. Oggmus (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	There - I have awarded you the Editor's Barnstar, for the editing work on the koinophilia aricle.    Oggmus (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Oggmus: wow, thank you, that's really kind of you. If we can just ensure that each paragraph ends with a reference - that all the text is cited, not invented - then the article should get through GAN without too much trouble. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts on insect articles

I have been thinking about what should and should not be included in a higher taxon insect article. On the whole I come to an article and accept what is there, trying to improve it and add references as appropriate. After all, it is the work of other editors trying to make Wikipedia more comprehensive. In the case of Dragonfly, you had already attacked it ruthlessly and cut out the flab and then we expanded it together. It has a "General description" section and did not refer to any wider insect issues. Grasshopper on the other hand has both a "Characteristics" section and a "Biology" section with subsections on "Diet and digestion", "Nervous system", "Circulation and respiration", "Jumping" and "Lifecycle and reproduction", at least part of which information is common to most or all insects. Beetle is similarly inclusive, and one could argue that if you want to know about a grasshopper or a beetle, it is good to have all the information on one page. Do you think all (or most) of this information on biology is redundant and should be removed? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Hmm, well, yes, that was my general point of view, but I agree that the matter could be argued either way. I think the middle course is to avoid a general recap of basic insect biology ("Insects respire through small holes called tracheoles") and to describe as little as possible of their anatomy and physiology except for those features that are distinctive of the group. So "Like all insects, dragonflies/beetles/grasshoppers/wasps have a three-part body with six legs" is I guess ok; then one goes on immediately to "The head of dragonflies is almost totally covered by the very large dome-like eyes which provide excellent binocular vision... etc etc" to bring out the essential characteristics of the group. It'll always be a balancing act. The decision on Dragonfly was made easier by the fact that it was almost all uncited, of course. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Dragonfly is probably the better model but I am inclined to think either is acceptable, and I would not be keen to remove the basic biological material from Grasshopper. Of the five subsections I mention above, it is the second and third that are dubious, and in polishing them up and finding references, I have learnt quite a bit about grasshoppers, and insects too. The extra ventilation involving abdominal pumping in larger insects for example. If an insect has a specialised diet and digestive system worth mentioning, it seems a bit unbalanced to make no mention of its respiration and circulation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: If its respiration and circulation are entirely undistinguished, then the discussion should be brief, and can with benefit refer to a generalized discussion of insect physiology. I guess I agree these sections should not be empty; but consider an article on a single species, say the broad-bodied chaser. Isn't it rather clear in this case that we don't want to repeat the details of dragonfly anatomy and physiology? We want to say no more than that they are typical, except its abdomen is broad and of such and such coloration; then we focus on the places where it lives, and how abundant it is, which are its distinctive features. I conclude that we want to reduce the "respiration and circulation" (and any other such sections) to the barest minimum, which could be no more than a mention that they are not exceptional. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: By the way, Locust is a special and extreme case, as all of its biology except swarming is in Grasshopper, so it certainly should not repeat any of the general material. If possible coverage of general biology can range up to 100%, Locust should be at 0%. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I have reduced the "Nervous system" section of Grasshopper and changed the section name to "Sensory organs", and will pare down other sections that start "Like other insects, grasshoppers have..." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: OK. What needs doing to Locust and Grasshopper, then? I think Locust is pretty much ready. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This round of the WikiCup is finishing at the end of the month and as I have plenty of points already, I would prefer to defer nominating them for a week or ten days to make sure they fall into the next round. Shall I nominate Damselfly for DYK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Aha! That's fine with me. Go ahead with the DYK, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

The best of luck with the project. I'm afraid it's almost completely outside my ken. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Damselfly

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Damselfly 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 Shyamal -- Shyamal (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. @User:Cwmhiraeth - please note. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems there is quite a bit to do. For the moment I am going to concentrate on the Behaviour section, getting rid of much of my lengthy paragraph on the blue-fronted dancer, and working on courtship and territorial behaviour. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Cwmhiraeth: Yes, it's all hands on deck. I think it's a very useful review but probably going quite a bit beyond the "main points" coverage required at GA. I'm minded not to object straight away: let's see what we can do first, even if it's somewhat beyond the call of duty. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Caption

Please have a look here. The photo you can see at the left has no info in the caption. (Though what I had typed also had no good info except the location where the species was found/seen). Please can you update the caption because The lizard has a spiny back. is non-sense as Calotes is a chordata.
Sorry if I was annoying.
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :)

@User:Acagastya: Thanks for asking. However, the caption makes perfect sense - spiny does not refer to the vertebral column, but to the sharp-looking spines in a row along its back. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so you meant the projections! I am sorry. I misunderstood it. I thought you meant about spinal cord for spiny. Sorry for disturbing. It was my bad! I never recalled spiny isn't always about the spine!
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :)

And sorry, no time stamp with signatures! actually i am blocked and now at present an IP editor!
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :)

@User:Acagastya: OK, but please don't edit as an IP while blocked, that can get you blocked for ever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been blocked on user request. Just to grab some more time to study for entrance. To minimise the shortage, I asked for block. But still while studying, if i get some doubt, I prefer to mention it.
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :)

War Film

I do not understand why you reverted my edit. All the film I mentioned are war films. For example, Waterloo. There are all the evidences you may need. I suspect that your decision — no offense is intended — be related to the fact that in USA the term "war film" is mostly used for film about wars where Americans had been involved. But — surprise :-) — there had been wars which did not involve Americans. For example, Waterloo was shot in 1970, in Ukraine, and will remain perhaps the only war film in cinema history to boast such a large number of soldiers among the extras, with Rod Steiger to interpret Napoleon (perhaps his best role and certainly the best film adaptation of the historical figure), Christopher Plummer in the role of the Duke of Wellington and a small but sublime cameo of Orson Welles as the King of France. You will hardly find an America journalists speaking of an European film. You have to read national criticism. By the way that movie provides a very well reproduced timeline of the battle. Very precise from Historical perspective.--Dejudicibus (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Post Scriptum: look at this on Wikiquote. You can use Google Translate if you do not know Italian. It is the list of War Films in WikiQuote. There are movies like 300, Troy, Giovanna D'Arco, just to mention few.

@Dejudicibus: Hallo, and thank you for your reply. By the way I'm a Brit not a Yank, I can read Italian, and I have worked hard to *reduce* the American emphasis, introducing coverage of film from many countries and a far wider range of time periods and wars. My concern is 100% about sources, as I said already. What you say may very well be true, but it is not verifiable as it stands. Neither Wikipedia nor Wikiquote are reliable sources; we need published, scholarly texts such as research articles, or articles in quality newspapers like the New York Times (just an example). This is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia, we require verifiable sources, not opinions of editors, however expert and well-informed they are. Please read WP:Verifiability if you have even a small doubt on this point. With my best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, does not matter. Some of those movies are quite old, so no digital source exists if we focus on newspaper, and I have no way to look for microfilms in libraries to search for those sources in this moment. Anyway I understand your point even in this specific case I am not sure that a "reliable source" is necessary. A war film is a film where war is not simply part of the setting, but it is central to the story. Waterloo is an example. It is a matter of definition. You do not need a source to say that Matrix is a movie and the Divina Commedia a literary work. It is what they are :-) By the way, I have some reliable sources for some movie, for example MoviePlayer (an Italian movie database similar to IMDb) where the movie is classified as "war" (guerra). Would that be ok for you? I cannot find anything like that in English. (and sorry for assuming you are Yank rather than Brit ;-) I appreciate your support, by the way. --Dejudicibus (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Damselfly

The article Damselfly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Damselfly 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 Shyamal -- Shyamal (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shyamal: Many thanks for the careful review. @Cwmhiraeth: Thank you for all the work on this and other Odonata articles! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A satisfactory conclusion. Thanks for all your hard work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Mrs David

Now see here! I am the One True Voice of Mrs David hereabouts! What? Oh, all right then. Excellent new article. You will spur me on to do more chez Mrs D. Do we need a plan to get her up to FA in some form? I appoint you Project Leader, and I shall follow. Tim riley talk 19:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC) p Tim riley talk 19:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Tim riley: I hear and obey, O Mighty Leader!!! I might have guessed. Maybe we should try for GA and then see if we're feeling brave enough for anything else... but by all means make articles for some of her other books. And chip in with whatever you feel like doing on this one. There are more than enough books for everyone. My goal is actually to rewrite English cuisine - I've started, but have chewed three pencils down to the lead wondering what to do about all those uncited stereotypes! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

GANs

There are two cookery book GANs still unreviewed. I'm perfectly willing to review, but having reviewed your previous two I am a bit uneasy about doing these two as well: it could look like the process of a cosy coterie. If you are happy for me to review one or both I'll do so, but will quite understand if you prefer to wait for a fresh eye. Tim riley talk 19:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm always happy for anyone to review my articles, especially when they're enthusiastic and knowledgeable. I agree there's such a thing as too close. Since you've waited a while and nobody else has turned up, I'd have thought you could do another now if you wanted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gunnersbury Triangle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gunnersbury Triangle 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 Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for guiding the edits on the Koinophilia and Averageness pages

	The Editor's Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded for your guiding role, suggestions and the excellent editing of the Averageness and Koinophilia articles .    Oggmus (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That's really very kind of you. I did my best to understand what everybody wanted, and things almost got rough, but we made it through somehow. Thank you so much for the barnstar, and your patience. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gunnersbury Triangle

The article Gunnersbury Triangle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gunnersbury Triangle 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 Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Chiswick Roundabout is the start of the M4, not Hogarth Roundabout.

You reverted my change correcting the description of where the M4 converts to a 'non-motorway' highway.

Here's the map on bing.

Here's the map on Google Maps

Clearly from both of those maps, my change is is the correct one.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.186.241 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Then it belongs in the Chiswick Roundabout article. However the motorway flies over that roundabout, so the change in status of the road is invisibly above the roundabout, not on it, and motorists don't see the start or end. And you need a reliable source for this, not a map which isn't in any way definitive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Coral

Are you interested in Coral? The article is a GA but I do not think it deserves to be. I have just been working on some stub articles providing definitions of coral terms and I think that the main coral article is scrappy, missing important information and sometimes plain wrong. I am hesitant to intrude into a GA, but in this instance I don't think it has a guardian angel nor is it being maintained to any great extent. I could nominate it for a GAR review but am more inclined to try to improve it myself. Want to help? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, why not, a meaty subject and much to say. I think you're not specially trying for FA, which is fine with me. I shall be away next week but am happy to be pottering along with it. The human section is not bad but is not fully cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I am working on a better taxonomy section in my sandbox. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the section on hermatypic corals to replace inaccurate information that was there previously. You have equated stony corals with hermatypic corals but they are not the same. Perhaps what I wrote, or part of it, could be inserted into the Reefs section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Yes, there is overlap. The equation actually came from the source, but I see there are ifs and buts all over the place; the text had become too tricky, I think. Go right ahead, edit and merge. I'm mainly adding refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. I am intending next to work on the Anatomy section, rewriting it to illustrate the things the different coral types have in common and the main differences between them. A passing thought, a sea anemone is just a coral that hasn't bothered to go along the colonial route or build a supporting skeleton! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think my zoology lecturer described a coral as a medusa that unaccountably stood on its head and built itself a house... I've added refs for most of the more egregious bits of OR and have tidied up the books. The human section doesn't seem to me to need much doing to it; I think we ought to do something about the fossils, for taxobox, phylogeny and diversity (e.g., we should illustrate tabulate, rugose etc alongside (in a table?) some sort of description of the groups -- name, time range from-to, description, ref, image (or something). BTW I shall be offline all next week. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW I've fixed two other articles that equated hermatypic and xanthellate. Might have been better just to talk about reef-forming so people would have understood it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Thaumatoneura inopinata

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Experienced English Housekeeper

Hello, Chiswick Chap. I'm pleased to tell you that I've begun reviewing the article The Experienced English Housekeeper 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC} and rewritten in English by Tim riley talk 16:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Experienced English Housekeeper

The article The Experienced English Housekeeper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Experienced English Housekeeper 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Modern Cookery for Private Families

The article Modern Cookery for Private Families 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:Modern Cookery for Private Families for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Disruptive coloration

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Disruptive coloration 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) 10:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk : Hi, thanks for taking this on. I've been offline and will try to get to it later this week. Thankyou for your patience. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Damselfly

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rodent --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Grasshopper

The GAR is in progress, Bfpage having taken it on today. I have responded to some of the points made but it is not always easy to understand what he wants done, if anything. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will see if I can help, probably in a day or two's time. If his suggestions simply aren't clear we can just ask for clarification or where appropriate say that it seems fine to us. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grasshopper

The article Grasshopper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Grasshopper 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. Ms.   Bfpage |leave a message  18:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

War film?

But is it really a war film? It's certainly war-related, but ... does it warrant being defined as a war film? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a powerful war propaganda film, with war as its subject. "Defined": a topic may fall into many categories. As well as a war film, it was a propaganda film, a silent film, an animated film. As for what a "war film" is, see the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

But that's the thing: do we then call it a "war propaganda XYZ film"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, why not?! Seriously, please feel free to rearrange the links - it seems entirely fine if we link these things in separate sentences, in the body of the article, or whatever: one can only do a very little in one sentence, and definitions are much less useful than detailed descriptions. Since it is actually discussed as an archetypal war animation film in war film, and could equally have been listed in the same article as an archetypal war propaganda film - there's the difficulty with definitions, if you needed an illustration - there is no doubt that a link will be helpful to readers, which is all I care about. With best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think Crisco had something to do with adding the film to the war film article. I wonder what he thinks. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• It depends on your definition; the current definition at war film would certainly allow it. The film's listed as a war film here (not all that reliable, admittedly), an anti-war film here (much more reliable), and a propaganda film here; all three are covered in the war film article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Sorry, the issue wasn't whether it could be called a war film, but whether it should be defined as such in the opening line of the Lusitania article. CC edited the opening line of the article to do so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As I've now said twice, I have no special attachment to that line, and am perfectly happy for any suitable mention of the fact anywhere that people find helpful in the article. Crisco's response seems to me extremely helpful as clarification of what needs to be said; it could be that this was one of the earliest [[war film|war]] [[propaganda]] [[film]]s to be made, etc etc, I have, I repeat, no special opinion on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I got that this was about the article. Personally I don't mind war film being in the body... not sure about the lead. Propaganda (with a link) covers it much more succinctly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. It seems unquestionable that war propaganda films and anti-war films are types of war film; the only reason people find it at all hard is that "war film" is sometimes used in a very narrow sense to mean noisy combat movie, which is arguably just one subtype. Any form of words which gets this well-supported point across is fine with me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you're getting at the heart of the problem: the majority of readers will read XXX is a war film and interpret that in the narrow way you describe. Communication is a two-way street, and we have to anticipate the way that readers will interpret our words. We have to proactively choose those words that will get our intended message across, not merely the words we think are most "correct".

Having said that, I think the rest of the lead more than sufficiently gets across the message that the film springs from propagandist ambitions and takes place under war conditions. "War film", I think, only detracts from that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for thanking me

Very many thanks for thanking me for the additional "before-and-after" pictures I added to the Rate of evolution page. Oggmus (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Disruptive coloration

The article Disruptive coloration you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Disruptive coloration 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) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award for Grasshopper

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Grasshopper (estimated annual readership: 267,416) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Bobnorwal (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, CC! Although you already saw this award on your collaborator's talk page, I thought there could be no real harm in putting it here too. Great work! BTW, I've been flipping through some of your articles -- I particularly like Natural History (Pliny). Although I'm a big supporter of the Million Award project and its mission, I'll always have a soft spot for Wikipedia's more, uh, offbeat articles. Bobnorwal (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and keep up the good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luis_Walter_Alvarez

Hey,

I saw that you did proof-read the section of Luis Walter Alvarez. Could you check it again, it has been vandalized I think and no clue what to do or how to report it.

Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avampace (talk • contribs) 21:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Eusociality

Hi,

I'm not certain how editing and talking occur, and don't wish to get into any prolonged exchanges, but I'm hoping this works.

Concerning "eusociality", you undid my edits.

All but one reversal are okay. However, you should change "survival" back to "reproduction"; survival is important for adaptive evolution to the extent that it results in differential (and successful) reproduction. If you wish to keep "survival" instead of "reproduction" there, then please provide a modern citation saying that it is so (you will not find it). We can add any modern basic evolution textbook as the citation for differential reproduction.

Concerning reverting "Apparent paradox" back to "Paradox": Although it might be technically correct to say that eusociality represents an evolutionary paradox, it really is not. It therefore is somewhat misleading to say that it is a paradox, and perhaps damaging, because it makes it sound as if we don't have the answer. But we've had the answer for 50 years!

Regards,

Ryan Hechinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Hechinger (talk • contribs) 22:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ryan Hechinger: OK, I've done that. I'm afraid I mistook you for an unread semi-vandal, partly on the basis that you haven't set up a user page for yourself here on Wikipedia (so your name appears in red, not blue). Unfortunately, that's a clue that many of us partly rely upon, as with 99% significance it means random editing (sighs). You might like to put a link about yourself (to your institutional homepage...) on your user page so people will know who you are, given that your username is "in clear" already. I can do that for you if you like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty. Thanks for the welcome on my talk page and for helpful suggestions. I'm sure I'll become a bit more sophisticated w/ this as time goes on. I did just set up my page, add a blurb & link, and will try to appropriately sign this. Best, Ryan Hechinger (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Biomimetics

Hello,

The revision I made to the 'Biomimetics' page was undone due to, as you noted, "this seems like advertising; if something definitively new and notable is there, it could be used in article." The resource I was attempting to link (Tapping into Nature) is a recently released, free publication that does a very good job at summarizing the activity in the field of biomimetics.

I noticed the revision when I recently returned to the page to add another external resource (the free publication Zygote Quarterly) that would fit well into the 'Reports' section I had added. I felt these two resources did not fit within the three existing external links categories...

Both resources are publications that contain a lot of information on biomimetics, and I would like to include them in the external links section. Would you provide me some guidance on how to do this in an acceptable manner? (I noticed you mentioned to another user about updating their userpage so their name wouldn't appear 'red'. I did that just now!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NY biomimicry (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:NY biomimicry - free publications may or may not be reliable, independent sources. If they have something definite to say, it would be far better to add those facts, properly cited. If they are general background on the field then they may possibly be worth mentioning in the ext. links section, but you'll have gathered that, as with the See also and other miscellaneous buckets ("In popular culture" is yet another fluffball attractor), many of us consider them the absolute pits. The problem is compounded in the case of the biomimetics topic as it's a barely-disguised list, i.e. a random miscellany of wow! yeah! look at what my company just did! factoids, all of which I'd cheerfully consign to a black hole's accretion ring. If, given all this, you see a way to make the article LESS of a cruft-fest, feel free to let me know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Crickets

What do you want to do about Cricket (insect)? I mentioned the prospective name change on the WikiProject Insects talk page but got no response. We could request the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves but that might be a lengthy process. We could request some specific admin to make the change, or we could nominate the article for GA under its present name. Or you may have some other solution? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd go for the GA under the present name, unless you fancy asking a friendly admin. We can always request a move later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will nominate it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Book of Mediterranean Food

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Book of Mediterranean Food 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Book of Mediterranean Food

The article A Book of Mediterranean Food you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Book of Mediterranean Food 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:George Ewart Evans.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:George Ewart Evans.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ensifera

Harrias ^talk 07:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Etymologiae

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Etymologiae 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 Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Damselflies

Reading the sentence "their dependence on freshwater makes them vulnerable to damage to wetland habitats" does not read well. I had to pause and read it again and again to try and figure out the meaning. Perhaps it's the "to damage to", but it needs to be reworded to make more sense.Avi8tor (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Etymologiae

The article Etymologiae 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:Etymologiae for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi CHiswick Chap, just wanted to let you know that I am very happy that you've brought the article this far, and that we will definitely make it a GA through this review. I have posted some suggestions for improvement at the review page, I hope you find them reasonable and feasible.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tessellation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tessellation 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Etymologiae

The article Etymologiae you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Etymologiae 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 Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tessellation

The article Tessellation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tessellation 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Mail call

Dropped you a line Worm^TT(talk) 12:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Have replied to your email - hopefully you'll get this one. If not, I'll just have to go public :| Worm^TT(talk) 07:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Group selection

Hi,

Thanks for the input. I like what you did with the introduction to group selection. I added just a bit of info to the very end of the intro, I think it makes it a little more clear that it's still highly disputed. You will probably have trouble with this article because the concept is so highly disputed. Looking at the talk page of that article my feeling is that what you described as an unsure student is really the result of two diametrically opposed camps of researchers trying to edit their own views into the article, ultimately creating disjointed confusion. Otherwise, it's likely the result of confusion among students because there are so few proponents of group selection. It isn't taught in most classrooms as anything more than a cute idea that everyone but a few stubborn holdouts discarded decades ago. This is part of why I added the paragraph that I added.

First, and most important to my mind, it should be made more clear that group selection is not accepted by more than a very few evolutionary biologists (probably less than 20). The reason for that is that a very common and widespread misconception is that evolution acts for "the good of the species". That idea is antiquated, at best, and really detrimental to the public understanding of evolutionary theory as a whole. You can obviously tell from this article that most of us believe that evolution acts for "the good of the individual". As evolutionary biologists it is incumbent upon us to better clarify evolutionary concepts because science denial (particularly creationism) is ever present. But this contention among biologists should be introduced in a way that is as unbiased as possible, which is what I was attempting to accomplish.

Second, and more important for your sake and sanity, if the introductory information includes the high energy contention that currently exists in the field, in a way that shows without bias that there are two deeply divided camps, I think you'll have far fewer problems with researchers trying to prove their own points. I wont do it myself until I get feedback from you, but for this reason, I would strongly suggest the language be changed to reflect the voracious nature of the debate in the field, but also make it very clear that there is no consensus. That should placate my more ardent colleagues, so there will be less desire to constantly tinker with the article as a whole. My last comment is that without citations it looks to me like it was written by a student. That will only inspire further edits from researchers. My guess is that the necessary citations can be pulled from the articles you linked to in the intro.

Like I said, you're going to have problems with this article until those stubborn holdouts leave the field. At which point, most of us feel there will be an easy consensus against group selection.

So that's my two cents, let me know what you think.

Regards76.176.121.99 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems entirely sensible to me. Feel free to go ahead as you suggest: we have to be scrupulously neutral, and I entirely agree about the traces of rival editing. I think such things are mainly long ago as far as edit-warring is concerned: if it re-emerges we can get an admin to sit on it. I'll support you in your intentions. As far as introduction ("lead") statements are concerned, they are normally not cited directly - their role is to summarize the rest of the article, which must be cited. If we get trouble we can (exceptionally) repeat citations from the body in the lead to make it explicit that we have evidence. On language about voraciousness and no consensus, we must be very cautious to be neutral. There really is something very close to a consensus against group selection now, with a few outliers who are getting pretty close to fringe thinking (though it was mainstream in the 1950s). So while there *are* two camps, they are now extremely unequal in size; we must not give the impression of a 51/49 split, it's 99.9/0.1 at this point. Finally, I'd recommend you create a user account, it'll make things much easier if you're a recognized editor. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice work on Paul R. Ehrlich

I like how you concisely, factually, and neutrally summarized the arguments of his detractors and defenders. Nicely done!

Thank you very much, that's very kind of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I'ld give you a green barnstar, but we don't seem to have one. Cheers LK (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

About List of mathematical artists

Thanks for editing List of mathematical artists. Recently, User:TheLongTone has asked a question in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mathematical artists. D-4597-aR (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Xenophyophores

Hi, CC. In your recent edits to Xenophyophore and Protozoa you've removed the claim that Xenophyophores are single-celled organisms, on the grounds that, because they're multinucleate, they are syncytial. This is misleading, I think, since the term "syncytium" is rarely used for multinucleate protistan cells (with the exception of those that are formed by agglomeration, like the plasmodial slime molds). Like most Rhizaria, the Xenophyophores are, indeed, unicellular.

Multinucleate cells are quite common among protists. For instance, it's not unusual to find hundreds of nuclei in a specimen of the single-celled Chaos carolinensis (and even nominally uninucleate species like Amoeba proteus sometimes have a few nuclei). Pelomyxa species are all multinucleate, some with thousands of nuclei. Some ciliates (such as Urostyla grandis and most Dileptus species) can have hundreds of macronuclei and micronuclei within the plasma membrane of one cell.

I can supply literature, if you like, but a quick Google Scholar search on "xenophyophore single-celled" will turn up plenty of plenty of authoritative support. Claims about the extraordinary size of Xenophyophores are also true. See, for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096706451100107X Deuterostome (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm: not so fast.

Firstly, a small point: it's certainly true that they're syncitial, even if some people don't use the term much: many nuclei sharing a cytoplasm. Sources which loosely claim "single-celled" do not really rebut the truth of this.

Secondly, and much more importantly, scientists don't seem to call them protozoa/protista/protoctista any more, so they shouldn't be in that article (unless you want to put them in a new History section with the word "formerly" scattered about liberally). The size of Xenophyophores is not in dispute, by the way. Less up-to-date sources which cheerfully continue to assert they are "protozoa" (etc, despite the polyphyletic nature of that random grouping) do not in any way rebut the later understanding, so a reliable source here must be both recent and published in a good journal.

I'm not about to start edit-warring on this abstruse topic: edit as you like, but take care you're telling the latest scientific understanding. The bigger question is what we ought to do with the articles on "protozoa" and "protista". They both stray uncomfortably close to giving the impression in places that the groups are real. Happy editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. :) I'm not interested in edit wars either, which is why I took it to your talk page.

Re. free-living multinucleate cells: strictly speaking, these would be coenocytia, not syncytia, but neither term is used in the literature. While those terms are useful in metazoan and fungal cell biology, they are not really appropriate for amoeboid organisms (except those that form plasmodia).

Scientists publishing in reputable journals frequently do refer to Xenophyophores (and other Rhizaria) as "protists" or "Protista", in both a formal and informal sense (and some, like Tom Fenchel, continue to place them in the creaky old taxon Rhizopoda!) By and large, the people who study foraminifera refer to themselves as "protistologists," belong to organizations like the International Society of Evolutionary Protistologists, and publish in journals like "Protistology" and the "European Journal of Protistology." The polyphyletic nature of the subject matter is not too troubling, since it is understood by everyone in the field that "eukaryotic microbiology" spans the entire tree of life. The strongest advocate of a purely phylogenetic classification of eukaryotes is the International Society of Protistologists (of which I'm a member), which sponsors the unranked schemes presented in Adl et al, 2005 and Adl et al, 2012. The authors of those important papers use the words "protist" and "protistan" repeatedly, as most workers in the field do.

As for the Protist and Protozoa articles, they do require a lot of work. It needs to be done thoughtfully, though, with the long, complicated history of the groups taken into account. The subject is complicated by the recent appearance of a major high-level classification, Ruggiero et al, 2015, in which "Kingdom Protozoa" is redefined as a paraphyletic (but no longer polyphyletic) taxon. This classification will be used by major databases, such as Catalogue of Life and ITIS, so it can't be dismissed as the last twitchings of an academic dinosaur! And, in the meantime, the venerable kingdom Protista still regularly appears in very respectable places, in association with the names of top workers, like Laura Katz, Bill Bourland, Wiebo Song, Peter Vd’ačný ...well, the list could go on a long time: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_ylo=2011&q=protista&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 The Wikipedia articles haven't been well served by the zeal of certain editors to push these taxa into the past. While these groups may well become obsolete in the coming years (arguably, they should), the notion that they have ceased to be used in respected journals is simply untrue. Deuterostome (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

ok, so ... follow the sources. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Grasshopper

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

About List of mathematical artists

User:TheLongTone has written a new comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mathematical artists. D-4597-aR (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@talk: yes, I saw it. I'll consider whether ;-} it needs a reply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Protozoa

Thanks for all the cleanup, and adding the Centropyxis pic! I didn't mean to reinstate the human disease list. I was working from an earlier version, and forgot to incorporate your earlier edit. I did mean to replace the Paramecium pic (which is one of mine), because the Blepharisma in DIC is so much nicer.

There's a lot about the article that still bothers me. The Characteristics section is a problem, because the historic "protozoa" are all over the family tree, and any characteristic that applies to all of "them" will be something that applies to virtually all eukaryotes. The Classification section is not too helpful. Perhaps there is some way not-too-confusing graphic way (perhaps a wikitable?) to show the makeup of the traditional phylum alongside the modern kingdom (per Ruggiero et al.), and the phylogenetic placement of the organims (per Adl et al.) Also, the lede isn't right, yet. I found it hard to fit in everything that needs to be said while keeping the flow.

Protozoa is rated as a "high importance" microbiology article, and for good reason. While it may be in a slow decline, the word protozoa still has a far higher profile than its near-synonyms (a book search on Google Ngrams shows that dramatically). And the text of the protozoa article is often mined or reproduced verbatim by various other sites and sources, including some that look quite authoritative. Sometimes, the results are simply absurd. About 5 years ago, some rascal introduced a hoax organism called "tulodens" to the article. In the 5 years it sat there unnoticed, this nonexistent critter found its way into hundreds of science sites, books, brochures, articles, and, inevitably, kids' science projects. Deuterostome (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was a dreadful mess, and it's starting to look a little better. Good work. There's still a fair amount that's uncited. The lead will be easier to write when all the sections flow properly, are up to date, and cited. The classification is a disaster as basically it's taking sides; I'm not even sure it's necessary as the rest of the article is about the competing classifications anyway: if we are to have such a section then it must be NPOV and might have a tree or cladogram for each rival viewpoint, perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mesentery (zoology)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wasp

Actually Wasp is pretty unsatisfactory to work with because it is a paraphyletic grouping of Hymenoptera without the ants and bees. So the colonial wasps Vespidae are best dealt with in their own article and the solitary species are a pretty mixed bag. A lot of the information on social wasps could be better treated elsewhere. I would prefer the article to be organised more as in the article Bee, ie with sections on different groups of wasps rather than generalisations on characteristics, behaviour etc. riddled with exceptions. I would get rid of "Social wasp reproductive cycle (temperate species only)" for example. It might be better to have two articles, "Wasp" about social wasps and "Solitary wasp" about others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we're perfectly at liberty to do that; we might need one short paragraph with a "main" link to Solitary wasp, just to clear up the point, and then we can concentrate on the social wasps; but Vespidae includes not only the eusocial ones but the Potter wasps and more. The parent group Vespoidea seems to be paraphyletic, and we certainly don't want to cover the ants while writing about wasps. Same trouble if you want to write about reptiles without including birds, of course. We could write only about Vespula but that seems a little drastic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the Families subsection to Diversity. The list of families was very incomplete so I have replaced it with the "Extant Hymenoptera families" infobox at the foot of the page. I propose adding some brief information about the more important groups such as the chalcid wasps. How did you know the size of Megascolia procer for the image caption? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I just measured the dimensions from the 1 cm scale in the image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the domestic dog

Thank you for alerting me to new mtDNA evidence that the domestic dog's ancestors are not the gray wolf, but is now believed to be an extinct Eurasian canid between about 30-40,000 years ago.

This is not Wikipedia material, and I have no idea how how interested you are in any of the following ideas. But here goes:

My interest in the origin of the domestic dog goes back to Konrad Lorenz's "Man meets dog" in which he claims that the domestic dog descended from the African jackal (with, almost certainly, some later admixture of wolf). This made a lot of sense to me in subsequent years when it was established that the "Human Eve" lived in Africa. It is not unlikely that human's first domestication contacts with canids occurred with both sitting around a lion's kill waiting for the scraps. Jackal pups would almost certainly have been brought home at some stage, leading to a lasting relationship between human and canid. These new canine friends would have been an invaluable help in hunting and killing creatures that slow, clumsily moving humans could, in no way, outrun on the savannahs of Africa. A team of humans and and jackals would have made formidable hunting combination from which both species would have benefited greatly.

After the expansion of modern humans into Eurasia I imagine that the domesticated jackals became increasingly admixed with Eurasian canids, and that their DNA became increasingly like that of the Eurasian wolves with which they could interbreed that the majority of the modern dogs (with huge Eurasian wolf genetic inputs) will seem to have descended from Eurasian wolves. Cruithne9 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I remember enjoying Lorenz's writing. His theories weren't supported by much, I think, but the idea that dogs became domesticated after a period of contact with man's encampments must be right, even if he was wrong about the Jackals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This raises fascinating issues. The article on the dog makes no mention about how most of humanity is associated with dogs, and how if the dog's ancestors originated in the Taymyr Peninsula (north-eastern Siberia) they spread to all the parts of the world to be with humans everywhere. This is partly why I am still inclined believe that, despite the DNA evidence that dogs had an ancestor that is now extinct in north-eastern Eurasia, that our association with canids goes back far longer than that. Unfortunately for Konrad Lorenz the African domestic dog seems to have been introduced into Africa from the east somewhere at about the same time as African domestic cattle.

Thanks for alerting me to this fascinating topic. I'll try to find out more at some time. Do you have the article that describes that recent work on the origin of the dog? Cruithne9 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, dog needs updating. And its time and place of origin remain in dispute. I think you can get the article from the Wikimedia library if you ask. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Aposematism

Greetings, Chiswick Chap,

Thanks for your edits of Aposematism -- I'm new to this, so bear with me. Also, if I am making errors in editing or presentation, please let me know why and how -- very specific instructions would be appreciated! I removed the Crown of Thorns photo from Aposematism because this species is highly variable in coloration, often on the same reef -- the photograph shows nearly black spines against a blue dermis, but if you do a google image search of the species, you will see that the spines come in several colors, ranging from orange-red to quite drab. This variability is contrary to the idea that a specific color pattern has evolved through natural selection by predation pressure. I cannot find a photo of Metrodira subulata. The ref to Inbar & Lev-Yadun (2005) suggests that the form of spines alone is aposematic; this seems a stretch, as that would mean that any visual representation of a potential weapon (claws, teeth, etc.) is aposematic. In any case, I leave further changes to your discretion, as you have been curating this article for some time. Question: is it OK to provide a PDF link to journal articles that may be under copyright (ref above)?

Thanks for your help, Pawlikj (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pawlikj: That's fine. I agree that marine aposematism remains controversial; but by that token, we are obliged to state the case in favour (which I've just done) as well as the case against. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of War film

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article War film 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 Onel5969 -- Onel5969 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of War film

The article War film you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:War film 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 Onel5969 -- Onel5969 (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice job! Congratulations. Pleasure working with you. I'm probably going to add the Civil War Section. Onel5969 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Super. Thank you so much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cricket (insect)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anti-predator adaptation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anti-predator adaptation 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) 17:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Mathematical art

I removed the link Ethnomathematics#Mathematics_in_folk_art from Template:Mathematical art. D-4597-aR (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I think that's probably for the best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anti-predator adaptation

The article Anti-predator adaptation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anti-predator adaptation 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) 20:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mayfly

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mayfly 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) 21:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mayfly

The article Mayfly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mayfly 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) 16:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Scania goose, etc

Thanks. The last few IPs that did this, I blocked for 31 hr, but it's pointless really, as he is evidently on a dynamic connection and uses a different IP each time, from two different ranges. We could semi-protect his favourite articles, but that might make it more difficult to detect him, better just to watch-list him and go on playing whack-a-mole until he grows up. At least he is original; not many wannabe pop singers morph into ethologists. JohnCD (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could block each of the two ranges, but I suspect you have the right answer from long experience :-} Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The ranges are too big to block for long - 32K addresses each. JohnCD (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have given up and semi-protected SG for a day. We'll see if he switches targets... JohnCD (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

...and he did, to Twentse Landgans, now also semi-ed, and Ethology. Sigh... JohnCD (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Locust

Gatoclass (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Rosemåling-rosemaling

I see that you moved the article Rosemaling to Rosemåling. I don't think it is accurate to say that this is "actual" spelling. The "å" does not exist in the English alphabet so it is often left out. In Norwegian rosemaling and rosemåling are both used and both are legitimate spellings. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You're certainly right about that. However, we now have both spellings available, and one or other of them has to be a redirect. The article contained both spellings at random, so it's probably better that it is spelt all in one way, except for the introduction. If the -a- spelling is in some way preferable, feel free to move it back, and switch over the -a-s and -å-s in the article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally I prefer "å" according to my dialect, so I like it that way. In fact I guess "å" is most common in the areas where the craft is practised (my original research...). --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok then! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ship camouflage

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ship 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way - I passed the article, but noted that there are a couple of harv errors that crept in when you converted the rest of the refs to sfn templates - didn't want you to miss them. Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Another by the way - I had forgotten that this script isn't the default - don't know if you know about it already, but it makes it really easy to spot harv errors. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I'll tidy up now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

An experiment

Please can you assist me with an experiment? I want to find out whether I receive a "notification" if someone undoes one of my edits, so could you undo (but not rollback) my recent trivial edit on Sphecidae, using the "undo" button that can be seen on the article's history page. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: done. I've been looking at Sphecidae because the taxon has wide (old) and narrow (new) senses, and the current articles on Sphecidae and its components are in total confusion. Whether we can sort out the mess is another matter ... I think Sphecidae should be strictly on the new sense, with a short section somewhere inside Taxonomy describing the old usage and pointing readers to Crabronidae where most of the digger wasps now in fact reside. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I did receive a notification which stated "Your edit on Sphecidae has been reverted by Chiswick Chap." The purpose of the experiment was in connection with this conversation I had with Gatoclass. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: well I hope it all works out. I've reclaimed Sphex and Sphecinae, created a new dab page for digger wasp, and reorganised Sphecidae. I hope it's a bit more comprehensible, wonder what you think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That looks better, though the first sentence of Sphex is a bit too convoluted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've unwiggled it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Darwin list

I saw your list, looked pretty good. Mere lists can't be copyrighted, so that bot can be ignored. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ship camouflage

The article Ship camouflage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ship camouflage 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter Brook

One of Chiswick's most famous sons. We had a session at the V&A Archive today, but there is still plenty to be done at Wikipedia:V&A Peter Brook editathon, 20 July 2015, if you're interested... Edwardx (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Good call. I've added him to the Chiswick article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Edwardx (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

	GA review kiss
	Thanks for your useful, detailed and painless review. This is only a virtual kiss, redeemable for a real one subject to the caveat on my user page. Belle (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. The virtual cep in the middle looks delicious too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Ethology

I am away until about 7 August. I have asked JamesBWatson to keep an eye on JR, but I don't think there's much to except keep reverting and hope he grows up. You could ask at RFPP for semi-protection if he fixes on a particuler target, but he just moves on to the next. sigh... Regards, JohnCD (on hotel wifi so not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.35.216.233 (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aposematism

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aposematism 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) 10:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Dorsal/ventral on Symmetry in Biology page

Dorsal/Ventral is inconsistent with the article that is linked to from the text, Anatomical Terms of Location. Specifically see Table 2 under the subsection Radially symmetrical organisms, which clearly states that Oral/Aboral map to Anterior/Posterior, and that Dorsal, Ventral, Left, and Right are all meaningless terms that map to "peripheral" in a radially symmetric organism.

I've removed the d/v term; that other article was written by someone fixated on vertebrates, as it makes no sense for anything else. Anyway, the discussion is closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aposematism

The article Aposematism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aposematism 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) 09:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dazzle camouflage

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dazzle 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 Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dazzle camouflage

The article Dazzle camouflage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dazzle camouflage 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 Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mayfly

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Stub contest

For the moment, I am taking part in the Stub Contest which runs over the course of August, so am neglecting our current project, Mantis. I will get back to it in due course. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. We can catch up with it later. I think we should do Leech at some stage! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bee

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

een

Your GA nomination of Hemiptera

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hemiptera 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 Shyamal -- Shyamal (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Horse-fly

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Horse-fly 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 Shyamal -- Shyamal (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So as not to duplicate effort, I propose working on the Horse-fly review and leaving Hemiptera to you for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I see your reasoning. However, Hemiptera needs more attention than I can give it while on hols; I'll do what I can for the next week, and as there may be comments on "my" sections of Horse-fly I'll probably have a go at them, but we can discuss that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not in a rush to get these articles passed, it would suit me fine if they took over a fortnight to get there. In some instances I think we are being asked to add information beyond the GA criteria. However, it is good to have a rigorous review rather than a walk in the park! I can have a go at Hemiptera as well, but what I don't like is if I spend half an hour rewriting a section or finding a new source, only to find you have beaten me to it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, the field is yours; I hope nothing like that happened on these articles. I'll leave horse-fly alone except for specific sections with your written permission. I don't intend to do much on Hemiptera for a week or so either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mathematics and art

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mathematics and art 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Manchester Rambler

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Manchester Rambler 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 Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Damselfly

"to damage of wetland" or "to damage to wetland". Just reading this sounds wrong when it's "to damage to". I think it makes more sense and reads easier with the way I had it. Avi8tor (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. I see the slight stylistic imperfection but it seems altogether ungrammatical the other way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Manchester Rambler

The article The Manchester Rambler 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:The Manchester Rambler for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Mantis

Chiswick Chap, The IP user was correct in Mantis. In 2003 the article was started in American English (as Carolina Mantis even) and was subsequently slowly and surely moved to British English. There's no reason for this to happen, so the IP user was technically in the clear.

Yes, the article has incorrectly been edited as British for some years now.

Look through the archives, and you'll see that half the articles now in British English about innocuous topics were probably started in American English, and changed by vigilant editors such as yourself. Cheers~ ipuser 90.192.101.114 (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks like this, on talk pages or anywhere else. They are not allowed on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring The Manchester Rambler to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — Calvin999 07:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Manchester Rambler

The article The Manchester Rambler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Manchester Rambler 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 Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mathematics and art

The article Mathematics and art you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Mathematics and art for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Horse-fly

The article Horse-fly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Horse-fly 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 Shyamal -- Shyamal (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hemiptera

The article Hemiptera you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hemiptera 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 Shyamal -- Shyamal (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture

Thank you for adding a picture of Arthur Wagner. Do you think you could help with Reed Sarratt as well? See my request at Talk:Reed Sarratt. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: My pleasure. I possibly could, but perhaps now is your chance... you can use my NFUR (you need to know what that means) as a general pattern - don't just copy it, each one must be different, as the reasons too will differ. The method is to find a suitable picture, if possible one that is out of copyright. If it is out of copyright, put it on Commons, stating where you got it and why it is free; if not, upload it on Wikipedia, and explain why it is fair usage (e.g. a historic picture of someone who is no longer alive). Good luck! You can always ask for advice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd much rather you did it. I only upload pictures I've taken myself to stay on the safe side.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Safety is achieved either by filling the airplane with concrete and leaving it on the ground, or by learning to fly it. Flying a picture here on WP is achieved by learning to write a non-free usage rationale, which is to say, giving an honest reason why we need to use something for the purposes of the encyclopedia. I'm not going to do all your pics for the rest of your life, or even mine... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I won't ask you to upload a picture of Charles Madison Sarratt then...haha.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure again, but you're right. Good luck with it - you honestly won't find it at all difficult. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Wasp

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mimicry

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mimicry 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) 19:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mimicry

The article Mimicry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mimicry 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) 17:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Barlow reference

In response to your message, I thought that all the references that I had given for my additions to the List of Old Wykehamists did make clear the Win. Coll. association. I already caught the implication of such a criticism when you added a second reference to Lighthill, but my original reference in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography really does clearly state in the second paragraph that Lighthill won a scholarship to Winchester College and was a contemporary of Freeman Dyson there. Maybe you didn't have online access beyond the first paragraph of the article.

The Barlow reference is not so explicit, but it does state that he was at school with Dyson, Lighthill and Longuet-Higgins (adding his regrets that their intimidating superiority in physics and maths hindered him learning more of these subjects at the time!). I hadn't cited the additional reference that you selected because I couldn't access it, but you are right that the online abstract makes the Win. Coll. connection clear, so I can see why you preferred it, besides which it is a secondary source. Anyway it is very good to know that someone is checking my input so promptly: thanks.

It is a little difficult to judge who merits inclusion in the list, but I supposed that any FRS already with an entry in Wikipedia ought to qualify. What do you think? Scientists had seemed somewhat underrepresented in the list, so I liked the idea of rebalancing things, and finding out more about some fascinating characters in the process. Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be necessary to have an explicit mention of Win: Coll: for each list member. Beyond that, we don't really want every OW to be listed; you're probably right that an FRS ought to be enough for a listing, as FRSes aren't yet dished out to jobsworths a la political peerages. Glad to see more scientists; indeed, anything that isn't grey accountancy is welcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

FAC

To my surprise, I see that both Mayfly and Emu were promoted two days ago. My watchlist doesn't seem to have picked the fact up. So that's good, thank you for your cooperation on Mayfly.

My understanding of the FAC rules are that one can only have one individual and one joint nomination at a time. I'm hoping we are going to nominate Mantis before too long, when Little Jerry has acquired his book and been able to add things he may discover when reading it. In order to maximise my WikiCup points, I hope to have a solo nomination also. Would you object if I nominate Horsefly for this? It had a tough GAR and Shaymal mailed me the journal article he was talking about. I have got a couple of other ideas if you don't like me going ahead on my own on what was a joint project. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me, I'm not trying to compete with anyone but myself... I think Butterfly will make a fine article one day, and I'm looking forward to seeing Mantis in all its glory. Meanwhile I'm working on Mathematics and art, with another tough reviewer who gave me a hard time on Tessellation which I'm now pretty pleased with. Guess those have some sort of connection with all those articles on camouflage and animal coloration... Chiswick Chap (talk)

DYK for Horse-fly

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Mathematical art

Hi,

I believe Girih tiles is part of Islamic geometric patterns. So I suggest to insert Islamic geometric patterns instead of Girih tiles in Template:Mathematical art. D-4597-aR (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No reason not to do both. We can put in the Moroccan ones also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hemiptera

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Francis Rex Parrington

Hello! I see you were the last to edit User:EllieBywater/sandbox, a draft on notable paleontologist Francis Rex Parrington that has apparently been sitting in limbo for the past few years (see User talk:EllieBywater#Francis Rex Parrington). EllieBywater (talk · contribs) hasn't been active in over two years, and it seems unlikely it will be moved to article space any time soon. I'm not sure what the protocol is for abandoned drafts that seem ready to go, would you be willing to push it? Please let me know, thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Animalparty: Done, please keep an eye on it, but I think it should be ok. If you know of any more sources, please add them forthwith. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Animalparty! (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cicada

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cicada 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 Atsme -- Atsme (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chiswick

The article Chiswick 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:Chiswick for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Butterfly

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Butterfly 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I will leave you to finish off the Butterfly tweaks and will instead return to Phasmatodea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Super. I've put a couple of <!--Cwmhiraeth?--> comments in the GA1 page on items I'm not sure about - might add more. I'm having a bit of trouble finding much to say about Phasmatodea in human culture, seems pets is about it really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is conducting this review. I do not agree with D's remaining points, so what is to be done? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We can wait for Sturmvogel, and politely beg to differ with D, I guess. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cicada

The article Cicada you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cicada 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. Atsme^📞📧 10:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ruisdael

Thanks very much for your time on getting Jacob van Ruisdael to GA status. Do you have any tips for me to get it to FA? Can I nominate it straight away or should I first work on specific things you know will make it fail? I'd appreciate your insights. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Check the reference formats VERY carefully. Check the image public domain status very carefully too. Then get a few people to check it over. Good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mantis

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cicada

The article Cicada you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cicada 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 Atsme -- Atsme (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Butterfly

The article Butterfly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Butterfly 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Caddisfly

Do you fancy Caddisfly?

@user:Cwmhiraeth: Not sure, I suspect it's below my boredom threshold.

Louse

Perhaps louse or flea would be more in keeping with your pests theme? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer Louse. Half of Flea is currently flea treatments! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Louse it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've ironed out a few anomalies. What else needs to be done? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated it for GAN but may do a little polishing yet. Meanwhile I am working on Eurasian bittern which has an "In literature" section in need of attention ... Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Grey heron

I will get to Louse in a bit, but have got diverted by Grey heron for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I planned to deal with the gallery next. I have nominated the article for GAN, shall I add you as co-nominator? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but I supposed you needed to be sole nom; if you're happy to share then I'm on board. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"There could be some information about evolution, and more on taxonomic history. Synonyms?" Shall I deal with this point? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes please, I'm just on my way out for most of today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you deal with the last point at the GA review concerning the cropped image? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Greylag goose

Heartened by the quick response at GAN, I have now moved on to Greylag goose. I have three volumes (out of five) of Witherby's Handbook of British Birds, acquired at a charity shop, and they make expanding suitable bird articles quick and easy. Louse will be interesting when I get to it, but much more difficult, especially as sources are likely to concentrate on human lice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

ok, I'll take a look. I have all nine volumes of Cramp [& Simmons], the successor to Witherby, but rarely use it, maybe I should, so feel free to ask me specific questions and a five-page answer will be available on any bird of the Western Palearctic (shd be Palaearctic really). Louse is fascinating, and yes, there are rich sources on the human "side". Don't start scratching now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Its splendid finding an "In human culture" section appearing like magic! Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheshire cat grin. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Dark chamber

Hi. I don't know whether you meant to tag Dark chamber with CSD G3 but I have declined it. The article lined in the redirect, Camera obscura, mentions the term Dark chamber so its clearly not a hoax. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC) @user:Sarahj2107:: Oh, I think it is. Camera obscura is used as an English term, and could sensibly be translated "dark room"; if anyone over-literally wrote "dark chamber" there, that is as may be, but the term is essentially never used to mean Camera obscura. It is however used obscenely in street slang. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it has a slang meaning but that doesn't mean that it doesn't also have a legitimate meaning. I can find plenty of reliable sources mentioning the term in relation to photography. If you think it should be deleted you will have to take it to WP:RFD. I don't think it's so obviously a hoax that G3 applies. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phasmatodea

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Phasmatodea 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 Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phasmatodea

The article Phasmatodea 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:Phasmatodea for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It sounds very much like "green" tea, my favourite. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Butterfly

Thanks for the contribution Victuallers (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Greylag goose

Review completed. A beauty. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phasmatodea

The article Phasmatodea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Phasmatodea 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 Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mathematics and art

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mathematics and art 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Phasmatodea

Hello! Your submission of Phasmatodea at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have dealt with this. I am going away for four days tomorrow, and I wondered if you could deal with any queries in the GAN nominations of Louse and Eurasian bittern (if anyone should take up the reviews) as the WikiCup comes to an end on Saturday. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll do my best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Did you know that the American bittern was first described from Piddlehinton, Dorset? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No! What a splendid hook. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reflection symmetry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deltoid. 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) 09:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

TFA Cucurbita

Precious again, your your (biological) fruit and (social) vegetable, important source of human food which play several roles in human culture

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks as always, Gerda. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Phasmatodea

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A New System of Domestic Cookery

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A New System of Domestic Cookery 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A New System of Domestic Cookery

The article A New System of Domestic Cookery 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:A New System of Domestic Cookery for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Greylag goose

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Portrait painting in Scotland

Thanks for all your work on this review. I will keep looking for the minor outstanding points. All the best --SabreBD (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Marie Serneholt

If you want to, please take a look at this weeks TAFI selected article, Marie Serneholt. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: I've found a couple of refs, in both cases discovering that the claims made in the article were a bit inaccurate; or maybe simply that the claims published in the press at the time were all over the place - quite likely, actually. I'm afraid that while I can read the Swedish, the subject of former teenage Swedish pop musicians isn't one that specially interests me. If you guys remain totally stuck on a missing ref then I'll try and fix it for you, let me know if so. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please any help is appreciate and welcomed!--BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Olive baboon

I don't know if you feel liking being a fairy godmother and doing a good turn to the article Olive baboon. I started a GA review of it about a fortnight ago. The nominator was not a regular contributor to the article and has hardly responded to my initial comments. However, it is a well-written article and I would be prepared to pass it even with a rather short lead except for one thing.

I was proposing to failing it on the grounds that it contains copyright violations of this source. The other two suspected copyright violations brought up by "Earwig" are likely mirror sites that have copied Wikipedia but this site is 2006. The violations are not very bad as copyright violations go and can hopefully be seen here. If I worked on it myself, I believe I would not be able to continue the review. If you don't like the idea, I will fail the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Yes, it's a delicate matter knowing how far to go, but that'd have been rather too far, probably. I've had a go at cleaning it up. As you say, it wasn't much of a problem in the first place, though some phrases were rather too close for comfort. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Just what was needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Teilhard

I'm fine with Teilhard de Chardin, but just for the record . . . his given name was Pierre, and Teilhard and de Chardin are both surnames, so to use just Teilhard really isn't unduly familiar and is usual. President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's name is typically shortened to Giscard in the same way. Cheers, Awien (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course you're right; it was very many years ago that I read him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually got curious and followed this up a bit. In some sense as a younger son he wasn't "entitled" to use the de Chardin bit anyway, except that he could as a courtesy . . . unless as a priest he considered it prideful, or as potentially a republican he wanted no truck with the ancien régime . . . names are such a can of worms! In case you might find it fun, this is what I found: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/noblesse.htm#19th. Bonne journée! Awien (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But Giscard d'Estaing feels preferable to just G. also. I'm certainly not going to get tangled up in French "nobility", however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of extant first appearances

Extant is the opposite of extinct, in other words "still around". So Category:Extant Cretaceous first appearances includes taxa that evolved during the Cretaceous but haven't gone extinct. Abyssal (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I kind of like the current phrasing for its conciseness. Can I compromise and just include a statement of scope in the category header like in the regular Category: Cretaceous first appearances? Abyssal (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll get right on that. Abyssal (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Grey heron

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Cockroach cladogram

G'day, I noticed there is a statement saying that the cladogram in the image should be converted to an editable one. You could go to IJReid and request one there. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Mm, yes, or do it myself if I was feeling strong! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well the cladogram looks great! Better than what I'd be able to do by far. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Gotta keep them roaches clean and tidy ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Vendela Palmgren

Hello, I would've normally pinged you at this article's AfD page but I wanted to know if you could help with some Swedish insight with this (I noticed you're listed for WikiProject Sweden) as I simply haven't found anything and there are no past contributors or taggers to notify as well. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Croatian Natural History Museum

Thanks for dropping a note! I've seen the review and added |language= params accordingly, but I did not quite finish the job yesterday. I'll take another look at the review and try to expedite whatever is left. GregorB (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Batesian mimicry

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Batesian mimicry 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Replicative editing of bee articles

See here: User_talk:Thine_Antique_Pen#Leaf-cutter_bees Gidip (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cockroach

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cockroach 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) 03:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article Lena Andersson that I have created. Could really need some help with it. Any help is appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Um, BabbaQ, you don't seem to have edited either of the two Lena A. articles, or the dab page for that matter? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, I linked the wrong article. wooppps. Lena Larsson. regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

GAN

Hello, CC! I wonder if you would be interested in doing a GA review of Isabella Beeton? I'd do it myself, but I have provided some archival material for the use of the principal editor, and I think I ought therefore to keep my distance. Knowing you to be our leading contributor of GAs on food writers I found your name came immediately to mind as a possible reviewer. No obligation, natch. Tim riley talk 21:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for A New System of Domestic Cookery

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Eurasian bittern

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ornithological Dictionary; or Alphabetical Synopsis of British Birds

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ornithological Dictionary; or Alphabetical Synopsis of British Birds 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Droste effect

This isn't good enough is it? [2]. But as you can see only the human player's helmet has a dolphin on it and the dolphin player's helmet does not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are finding this uncomfortable, and I don't want to make it worse for you. However, if you are interpreting the photograph, that is in Wikipedia terms "Original Research". I don't want to get all philosophical here, but the picture contains only pixels of various values. Objects and meanings are in your mind, and no doubt other people's too; the encyclopedia relies on written sources, not editors' interpretations of things they have seen. This has to be so, because otherwise I could write "I saw the man in the moon eating flakes of green cheese last night", and no-one could gainsay me, as my observation would be unchallengeable - you would have no way of interviewing me or otherwise verifying my observation and assertions about it. So, we are explicitly forbidden from using our own observations. The use of images is a borderline case because readers can indeed see and judge for themselves: but making inferences from images is at best risky.

The other point, which I did not make earlier, is that articles are not meant to be exhaustive lists of occurrences. Once a topic has been concisely defined, adding more cases is not necessarily an improvement: that depends on what value is being added. I'm not against the use of the photo, nor a mention of sport, but these things are at best marginal. Earlier historic usages such as those in the Middle Ages would actually be of greater relevance to the article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Islamic art template

Re: User_talk:Grenavitar#Islamic_art_template

I like the work you've done! It looks better and more complete. I don't know if it's going to make me a more active editor in the Islamic art articles, though :) gren グレン 02:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It has I think inspired Johnbod to join in - he's been active in the area for many years. I hope we can make the page a decent reflection of one of the world's great traditions, to counter some of the worrying ignorance in some places. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

A question

What do you make of this site, which I came across when searching for Dromia demannii, something that is mentioned as a synonym on my sandbox page? It is not a copy of my talk page, sandbox or user page but contains some elements of them plus some other things. I have no connection with Facebook or any other social media site. Maybe its got something to do with A*******, but then again its in Turkish. I'm puzzled. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing sinister there, other than its odd existence. I suspect you're right about A. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@78.26: Many thanks! Congratulations, Happy Christmas, and good luck with the mop. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reference!

I see you answered my request for a more specific reference at History of medicine#Greece and Roman Empire. Thanks so much, I really appreciate it. I did update it to link more directly to the quote, but your help put me in the ballfield. My interest is in the history of medicine, and I have no expertise in the The Iliad at all, though I knew of it. I really didn't want to have to read the whole thing end to end looking for one quote. I figured someone who was already familiar with the work could give me something more precise to work with. Thanks again!

73.219.226.54 (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@73.219.226.54: My pleasure. I suspect you will have to come to terms with the fact that much of this article (like many others) was drafted by editors of different degrees of wisdom many years ago, and it will now often be impossible to track down whatever sources they may have used. If you find something wrong, it will probably be best to fix it yourself - or delete it as uncited. If somebody cares about it, they may then pop up. But I fear many editors have long since departed. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

True. The original authors may be gone, and we might not always be able to figure out the cryptic notes they left behind. But some may still be around, and others may find meaning in what I cannot figure out myself. So in the off chance that the latter may be the case, I think it's best to ask questions, first, if I'm not certain about making an edit or tag, myself. Who knows who you may meet and what you may learn, in the process, like yourself. Thanks much again for your help. Hi-storian (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)