User talk:DrChrissy/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for editing the page on Gallus Gallus Domesticus, I appreciate it! AvesDiscoveries (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you create a Poultry farming by country article

Based on you editing history I think you are a good candidate for creating a Poultry farming by country article. It is a gap in the list of articles that WP should have. Are you use for it? I may be able to help. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you from your comments on the talk page on "debeaking"

I'm well aware of both terms, as I have inlaws that own farms. It seems to be an educational issue AND a media issue. US media will get FAR more attention with "debeaking" than with "beak trimming". That said, I have some thoughts, which were influenced by comments made by both the better educated inlaws and the lesser educated inlaws, as BOTH have extensive poultry experience in a free range environment. In an intensive environment, would it be effective (OK, it'll require an experiment) to filter the ambient light to remove the ability to see red, rather than trim beaks? That would influence the industry in a positive way, as less labor would be involved. Your thoughts?Wzrd1 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The experiments you suggest have already been conducted in a variety of ways and over many years. Hens have been reared under red lights (this removes the ability to see red), and they have also been reared wearing red spectacles (again removing the ability to see red). I am assuming you are thinking beak trimming is related to cannibalistic behaviour and the sight of blood. Beak trimming is usually performed to prevent feather pecking rather than cannibalism, although feather pecking can lead to cannibalism. So, the most effective way to reduce the need for beak trimming is to reduce feather pecking. Feather pecking is caused by having inappropriate foraging opportunities, so the best way to reduce the need for beak trimming is to provide more foraging opportunities. Hope this helps. DrChrissy (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. Stress from close confinement does tend to drive aggression, leading to feather pecking. However, I was also considering pecking after a laying hen has a prolapse and the red tissue is pecked.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Most scientists working in this area would not agree with a link between aggression and feather pecking. This is perhaps most easily seen in the areas of the body pecked during these behaviours. During aggression, pecks are directed almost exclusively at the head and back of the neck. Feather pecking can be targeted almost anywhere on the body although the area over the base of the tail is very frequently targetted. Vent pecking is another form of behaviour which is probably motivated by the hens feeding behaviour - they are omnivores and in the wild do eat animal tissue.DrChrissy (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is "data" necessarily plural?

Howdy. This is as trivial as it gets, but I'm curious why you think "data" is necessarily plural. For example, see here. Personally, I tend to think of data as forming a data set, and as such being singular.--Epipelagic (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hiya. I tend to agree this is rather trivial and perhaps I should not have made the change. As a scientist, I have always been told that 'data' is plural. You are correct that data form a data set, but it is the set that is singular, rather than the numerous pieces of data it contains. I looked at the Merriam Webster reference and this looks like it supports your argument, so my interpreptation is perhaps a rigid use in scientific writing. Happy for you to revert my change if you wish. All the best DrChrissy (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If I can chime in here, what I believe has happened is that once upon a time information was relatively scarce, and a single item of information was called a datum, with the plural being data. But in the modern world information has proliferated to such a degree that most people think of "data" as a mass noun, like "sand" -- a type of noun that does not have a plural. People no longer speak of a datum, they speak of a piece of data, analogous to a grain of sand. I too have been told by my Ph.D. supervisor that data is always plural, but I don't think that accords with modern usage. Looie496 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You make an excellent point -I shall not write about a sandum ever again  ;-) Thanks for your input.DrChrissy (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article Rodent! Chrisrus (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

X

I chanced the BE parts to AE, and left the AE parts alone. Feel free to change them ALL to BE if you feel so strongly. Gigemag76 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Idea

Hey, I think it's far past time we expand {{Poultry}} to include the articles not just of species, but of poultry farming and related practices (free range, debeaking, and so on). I can take a first stab at it, but you have edited a lot of these general poultry articles, so I'd love your help. Thanks! Steven Walling • talk 23:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hiya - I would be happy to help on this. As you might have guessed, my knowledge in this area is greatest in behaviour and welfare, but I also know the UK egg layer and broiler systems quite well. All the bestDrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have been working on {{Poultry}} and will forward it to you in a day or so. Thought I would let you know so we don't duplicate effort. DrChrissy (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Broodiness

Hi DrChrissy, thank you for your polite and ethical offer to help with the written English, which indeed, is not my native language. According to your scientific profile, you seem to be the most suitable person to make substantial changes to this article. Do not hesitate to make them. Sorry I have not seen my User page. I am so limited in hours of internet connection that had not enough time to check all the pages. Cacucho (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for accepting my offer of help. I'll make changes in smallish steps so that you can discuss changes you might want to. This is probably best on the Talk:Broodiness page so other editors can follow the changes and discussion. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Delayed feathering in chickens

Hi, DrCrissy, you might probably be interest to see my last article on delayed feathering in chickens. --Cacucho (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

About "Broodiness"

Hi. I very sincerely appreciate the improvement you have done to the article "Broodiness". Thanks to you it's now a great article. Please, note that you have a "Disambiguation link notification" to your last edition. Yours, truly --Cacucho (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Glad I could help. I did not change the Disambiguation because I felt it was changing your writing on a technical matter. You might prefer to call it the hypophysis rather than the pituitary gland and I did not feel I should change that. I suggest you use which ever term you prefer and link it as you wish. All the best.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This one might interest you too

Hi. Can I point out m:Wikimedia Medicine? It is a proposed formal corporation, based in New York, with members from all over the world, whose job is to raise and disburse funds, and engage with governments, institutions, non-profits, and other corporations to support the dissemination of free health-related information via Wikipedia or any other means. If you'd like to show your support, please add your name to this list. If you'd like to get involved, join in the conversation at m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine, your thoughts would be very welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories in a sandbox

Hi DrChrissy, I noted that your sandbox was subject to Alan Liefting's purge on categories in the "user space". The primary reason is that when someone clicks on the category link, they shouldn't see sandboxes etc listed alongside mainspace articles. The best way of getting round this in your sandbox is to place a colon before the "Category" and after the [[, such as Category:Dogs. This still appears as a link to the category but won't list the sandbox as a member of the category (and when you're ready to move the page to the mainspace, the preceding colon can be removed). Sorry you were given no real explanation as to why Liefting made the edit he did, but hopefully I've clarified the situation? Feel free to ping me if you'd like any further help with this. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, good luck with your ongoing edits! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

Aren't Chicken eyeglasses and Blinders (poultry) the same topic? Steven Walling • talk 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No, not exactly. Chicken eyeglasses are transparent or transluscent; they allow the bird to see ahead although its vision is interfered with. Blinders are totally opaque and prevent the bird from seeing forward. It might be less confusing to have them both in the same article where the difference can be made more clear (no pun intended!). Their intended function of reducing feather pecking and cannibalism is the same, so a merge does make sense. To the best of my knowledge, chicken eyeglasses are no longer used, but blinders are, so this might be the better title of the article if a merge were to occur, or perhaps Chicken blinders and eyeglasses.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Chicken blinders and eyeglasses may be a good idea. I just posted at Talk:Chicken eyeglasses#Removal of merge tag (Clearing things up), and now am reading about this suggestion. Consider removing the merge tags as step one. Then perhaps post at both talk pages proposing the Chicken blinders and eyeglasses plan. Avoiding merge tags for now may be best, as the target is still a redlink. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Poultry

Please don't add "poultry" tags to entire families of birds. For example, of the 300+ Columbidae, I doubt if more than one or two species are farmed, so it's difficult to justify tagging the whole group. On that basis you might as well tag bird, since some birds are poultry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I've added the {{bird}} template since this is effectively an Order. Bit of a cop-out really though since I don't think we have a general template for family level taxa Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Entirely up to you, but I wonder if you've thought about working up pain in invertebrates to a Good or Featured Article? It's a bit different, and would generate plenty of interest. Although FAC in particular is not everyone's idea of a quiet life Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
These are the GA criteria. You need to make sure that everything is referenced to RS sources, shouldn't be a problem since mots of it already is. Note that the OR bit doesn't apply to your peer-reviewed publications. The other criteria are pretty well fulfilled already, although the article needs a little tweaking for prose quality and WP:MOS issues. If you want me to comment at any stage, I'd be happy to do so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ethology

Glad to see you recently made a separate template for Ethology.
Q--Is the difference between animal behavior and ethology that animal behavior studies a specific species in depth and ethology is the comparative study of animal behavior between species? --e.g. between chimpanzees and bonobos--between various mammals--the similarities and differences between imprinting and attachment (which serve a similar purpose but evolved separately)--does it include evolutionary comparison? such as that human social behavior is built on a mammalian foundation with the addition of a much larger neocortex. My understanding is that Bowlby was seeing existing similarities between primates and humans.--Margaret9mary (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In my experience, the difference between animal behaviour and ethology is rather subtle. I always thought that ethology was the study of animal behaviour in the animal's natural environment. But, the question then arises 'What is the animal's' natural environment?' For a blue whale, this is the ocean and they would only ever be studied there, but for a laboratory rat, the laboratory cage is the 'natural' environment, even though they can be (have been) studied after release in the wild. The same is true for farm animals, etc. The 'naturalness' of this interpretation of 'Ethology' also makes studies conceptually rather limited. If we are wanting to conduct robust, hypothesis-driven research, this is much more easiy done in the artificial laboratory environment. Is this animal behaviour, or, ethology? Furthermore, this 'natural environment' interpretation complicates matters for human ethology...what is the natural environment of humans? I suspect this is not helping you much, but to my mind, there is a difference between animal behaviour studies conducted in a natural environment and those in an artificial environment, without making judgement about the quality or importance of the work.

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue


Elephant

Thanks for your interest in the article, but when your adding in a source, please make it consistant with the others; no "and" inbetween authors and use a citation template. The new source you added didn't work with a template so I removed it. Your welcome to add it back if you can make it work. LittleJerry (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Elephant again

It seems the information you added is too techinical and needs to be put in layman's terms. I checked your sources and found that you either directly copied from them or did close paraphrasing. This is detrimental to it reaching FA status (I learned that the hard way). I would also like to know how my edits make the text "inaccurate". LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume III, No. 3 – December 2012

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10