User talk:SP-KP/Talk page archive 2010 a

River Parrett
Hi, A few of us are working towards nominating River Parrett at FAC and I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at the new ecology section.&mdash; Rod talk 15:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review & tips. I've tried to make the changes you suggested, but would welcome further comments or edits.
 * The Aller Hill citation sheet is unclear about the rare species.
 * Do you have a page number for Ornate Brigadier in Stubbs & Drake?
 * I'm not sure about adding sections as FA reviewers tend not to like too many short sentences or sections making the toc long - but feel free to suggest it at the peer review.
 * Thanks.&mdash; Rod talk 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Van Remsen


The article Van Remsen has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No WP:RS cited. Fails WP:N. Delete.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Basket of Puppies 20:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Van Remsen
A tag has been placed on Van Remsen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 20:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
See User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 21. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello SP-KP! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 9 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Richard Lewington (artist) -
 * 2) Oliver Skeete -
 * 3) Hadoram Shirihai -
 * 4) Killian Mullarney -
 * 5) Margaret Gilmore -
 * 6) George Sangster -
 * 7) Jane Smart -
 * 8) Ralph Hollins -
 * 9) John B. Cox -

River Parrett (again)
River Parrett was not promoted at FAC but has since revieced lots of comments & areas for improvement on its talk page. Recent reviews have included: Could you help with formatting the species properly?&mdash; Rod talk 14:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not going to check them all, but some of the species names not linked have articles here, see Tilia cordata
 * If the species is linked like Tilia cordata, should "Lime" also be linked?
 * What is "neutral grassland"? Langmead and Weston Level is nationally important for its species-rich neutral grassland and ...
 * "It" is unclear here (assume it is the river) It then passes through the Somerset Levels National Nature Reserve which contains a rich biodiversity of national and international importance.[148] Also we have not heard much about the river passing previously, so "then passes" is a bit odd
 * I think the use of Latin names should be consistent - Naming conventions (fauna) may help
 * Can the one sentence paragraph on Screech owls be combined with another paragraph to improve flow?
 * Thanks again.&mdash; Rod talk 17:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: WP:PEREN
No, the issue of censorship for "public good"/"moral" reasons has come up at least 3 times, not wildlife specifically. See the PEREN entry I linked to. --Cyber cobra (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Lady's slipper
Thanks for letting me know about this, that's much appreciated. I'm not familiar with this book, but it seems clear to me that's it's going to be a reliable and in all ways appropriate source of information about biodiversity in 1977, but it isn't a source for info about biodiversity now. Of course, you could cross-reference what this book says with other, far more recent works that say that one lady's slipper has existed at an undisclosed Yorkshire site for many decades, but I'd say that would be in breach of WP's rule about synthesising material from different sources. BTW, I think there are issues about the dating and therefore usefulness of biodiversity info in many wildlife articles on WP and indeed in many other publications...but maybe I won't go into that wider issue now. As you might imagine, I would argue that in view of a highly unusual set of circumstances (the plant's solitary status, its obviously vital role in the propogation programme, and the known threats to it - e.g. the Lancashire lady's slipper's being attacked in 2004 and 2009) there is a case for choosing to exclude info about its location, in 1977 or whenever, under the policy about occasional exceptions to rules. Perhaps you might put your proposal to reinstate the site info on the species's talk page before actually adding it to the article? This would give myself and others a chance to comment on it, and also give Natural England a chance to make any representations they wish to.Jimi 66 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lady's Slipper in Yorkshire
Hi again. I believe I've now found a reliable source for the occurrence of Lady's Slipper Orchid at Grass Wood - but, before adding the information, I wanted to check with you whether you agreed. The source is Ratcliffe, Derek (1977) A Nature Conservation Review ISBN 0521-21403-3 published by Cambridge University Press, and the reference is on pages 90-91, in the entry for Conistone Old Pasture and Bastow Wood. This is a somewhat larger area than Grass Wood, but it does state that the orchid is found in the wooded areas of the site, which are basically Grass and Bastow Woods (looking at an OS map, the two seem to merge into each other anyway). Looking at the Natural England website, the reason the two are regarded as distinct sites is that one is grazed and the other ungrazed, so they have different ground floras. I guess that an alternative solution would be to create an article for Conistone Old Pasture and Bastow Wood as per Ratcliffe's definition, although I'd prefer to keep separate articles for separate SSSIs, as that seems to be the convention we've adopted elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think. I've sent the same message to Jimi 66. SP-KP (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be a reliable source, though you would need to stay within what it says in the source. Is it short enough for you to copy out for me to look at, so I can give you more precise advice?  SilkTork  *YES! 10:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The section which mentions the orchid says "The main feature of interest is the herbaceous flora which is outstandingly rich. The woods of the area are known as a locality for the very rare Cypripedium calceolus, which has been reduced almost to extinction by plant collectors". SP-KP (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And how is "the area" under discussion described? Is this a section headed "Conistone Old Pasture and Bastow Wood"?  SilkTork  *YES! 11:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, that's correct. SP-KP (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you would be limited to putting the information in the Cypripedium calceolus article and using the same terms as Ratcliffe. Something like: "Cypripedium calceolus was known in the late 1970s to be present in the woods of the Conistone Old Pasture and Bastow Wood area. [cite]" You would not be able to put the information in the other article. We do not appear to have an article on Bastow Wood or Conistone Old Pasture.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Long Dole Wood photo
I took the road south from Hinton Blewett and was intending to take the lane off it to the south east (on my map as Hollow Marsh Lane), however this was not suitable for a car. So I drove a little further south to about N51:17:56, W2:34:31 (ST599556) & parked the car. A short walk to a rise in the ground & looking east (towards Farrington Gurney) when I took the photo - checking the map now it could have been Chewton Wood - what do you think?&mdash; Rod talk 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alula (journal)


The article Alula (journal) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Defunct non-notable journal.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 07:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)