|
User talk:SP-KP/Talk page archive 2010 aRiver ParrettHi, 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.— Rod talk 15:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 The article Van Remsen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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 Talkback Message added 10:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. See User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 21. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Unreferenced BLPs
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 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?— Rod talk 14:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: WP:PERENNo, 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. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Lady's slipperThanks 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 YorkshireHi 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)
Sorry, yes, that's correct. SP-KP (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Long Dole Wood photoI 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?— Rod talk 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC) The article Alula (journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
