User talk:Richard New Forest/Archive 2009

This page is archived discussion from User talk:Richard New Forest. It covers the period from January 2009 on.

Suffolk Punch

Hello Richard! Just dropping you a note to let you know that we're pushing to get Suffolk Punch to FA status. I know you dropped in some comments and info/sources a few months ago, but if you would like to take another run through the article, it would be fantastic! All the eyes we can get will be helpful. Thanks in advance for your time. Dana boomer (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dana. Yes, I'd noticed that idea, & I'll have a run through it when I can. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

Hi Richard, just thought you might be interested in the WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland. We're covering and organising wildlife from Great Britain and Ireland, most of the articles of which need love and attention! Hope you can spare some time to have a look. Cheers, Jack (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons, Enclosures Tragedy of the Commons and German de:Allmende,

I had edited some of he articles based on Joachim Radkaus famous book about history of the environment. I have as well adapted the Wikimedia Commons entry in the German wiwki. Would be great if you could have a look. It resulted in some heated discussions on the german Wikipedia. A comprisive statement about the actual 'state of the commons' is to be found in (Baland & Platteau, 1996; Leach, Mearns, & Scoones, 1999)." (Banks 2003, p. 2130): "A major deficiency of both the conventional and new institutional economic approaches is that they are too closely tied to ideal-type property rights regimes, private and common property respectively. It could be erroneously concluded that the choice was between one or the other, and that significant efficiency costs of one kind or another were unavoidable. Fortunately, however, property rights in practice are far more diverse than what four ideal-type property rights regimes (private, common, state and open-access) encompass. The concept of co-management has gained increasing attention by researchers, policy makers and development practitioners in recent years BR --Polentario (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Specie/Species

Not over here it isn't. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.127.170 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is, whichever variety of English you speak. It's a misunderstanding, arising from the belief, mistaken in this case, that every noun ending in "s" must be a plural of a word whose singular has no "s" – it's called a back formation. This particular one is still not generally established, and "species" does remain the proper singular.

Some similar back-formations, though originally mistakes, are now fully established in English: "pea" is a back formation from "pease", which was once a mass noun with no singular (like "rice"); "cherry" is a back-formation from "cherys", the singular English form of the French cerise (the plural would have been "cheryses"). Give it a few more decades or centuries of misunderstanding, and "specie" may perhaps become an acceptable usage – at present I'm afraid it's merely a mistake, like the opposite case of using "sheeps" as the plural of "sheep". Richard New Forest (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be lurking, but had to dive into the middle of some discussion I know nothing about. Whatever it is "over here", in the USA it's "species." (at least out here in cowboy country it is, pardner...) A species, singular. Like Richard said. Like cactus. ( Except cactus has a really weird plural, so never mind) (Those Brits sure do talk funny, but he's right this time! LOL! ) (grinning, running and ducking)... also, note Specie is a term related to money. Sorry to be so random. Long day... Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair play to you, sir, but I currently reside in Azerbaijan, and although I speak fairly good English, the rule here is we use the correct Azerbaijanian plural and singular rules. Thus, even though I am speaking English, the context of Azerbaijan remains. So 'specie' from here is accurate. Sorry to be an pain! Mattrius (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! And anyway, aren't we discussing a word with Latin roots that neither Azerbaijani nor English can really claim? What do YOU call hard currency, then? Montanabw^(talk) 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

English is a language full of irregular constructions. It has more than one plural construction – the "s" plural is only the most common. There are quite a few "en" plurals (children, oxen, brethren etc), very many words with the plural the same as the singular (sheep, deer, cod etc), and some with no singular (trousers, binoculars). Words originating in other languages often retain their original plurals (larvae, graffiti, stomata, fungi). In the case of "species", the "s" is not treated as a plural in English, whether speaking it in Azerbaijan or in Timbuktu; whatever might happen in Azerbaijani, in English this word keeps its Latin form in both plural and singular. Perhaps a move familiar word following the same construction is "series". No-one tries to say they watched a "serie" on the telly – you watch one series or many series.

PS: "a pain": "an" is only used for words beginning with a vowel sound ("an apple", "an orange", "an hotel", "an MP", but "a unicorn", "a horse", "a PM" ... "a pain"). Richard New Forest (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am so, so sorry. The 'an pain' was a typo, but my people would not stand for such a mistake. The punishment would be very severe, I am glad that you are not of Azerbaijanian origin. I beg your forgiveness, friend, my English is not totally accurate. Mattrius (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Effusive apology accepted. I promise not to report you to the Azerbaijani authorities, however draconian they may be, and however far you may be from Azerbaijan... Richard New Forest (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

'Azerbaijani'!? Why would you use such a derogatory term? The phrase is Azerbaijanian, NOT Azerbaijani"! But yes, you do seem to have grasped the type of life we lead here... It is fairly appauling. Did you know that our gracious President is considering killing every specie of bird in Azerbaijan at the moment? It's awful... Mattrius (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

All very amusing, but now you've blown your cover... (Or will you reopen the discussion on the two words on Talk:Azerbaijani language, where there was no suggestion that "Azerbaijani" is considered derogatory?) It's clear enough that you're a native English speaker with indifferent spelling and grammar, and you clearly have more spare time than imagination – I suggest you concentrate a bit more in class, wherever that is (I'd guess the southern or south-western US). You'll find a warm welcome on Wikipedia if you respect other users, make intelligent contributions and avoid vandalism and trolling. By the way, it's spelt "appalling", you still haven't got species singular right, and "Azerbaijanian" is not a phrase but a word or a term. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha! Ahhh.. And I thought I was being so sly ;) It would seem that I have been bested. Quite alot, to be honest. Nevermind eh? I really enjoyed talking to you, and you provided my I.C.T. Group with alot of laughs. Thanks alot. ^-^ Mattrius (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The way I typed "specie of bird" was deliberate. You know... To echo back to the whole point of this conversation... Over my inability to admit that I was wrong, even after looking it up. =) Mattrius (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)um

Oh dear me, keep up... Richard New Forest (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What doth thou mean, 'keep up'? And did you really write the above comment at midnight? You were on Wikipedia at midnight? Mattrius (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, midnight, sad isn't it? "Keep up" means you should have realised that yes, I knew that already. And "doth" is third person archaeic singular: it goes "I do", "thou dost", "it doth" ("How doth the little crocodile" etc). Richard New Forest (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Sad? Maybe... I wouldn't say that though. I just think it shows how dedicated you are to Wikipedia. And yes, I realised you were mocking me. But, I was mocking your mockery of me by asking about it. =) Mattrius (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard, my old chum! Long time no talk! How are you? Are you well? I do hope so. Anyway, onto buisness. In your opinion, what sounds more effective out of the two following sentances? 'Please consider this proposal.' or 'Could you possibly consider this proposal?' I guess what I'm asking is... In persuasive writing, should I end with a statement or a question? Reply ASAP! Mattrius (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your advice, I'll be sure to use it! And you would not believe how hard I tried not to make a single mistake in my above post. ;) Mattrius (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heyy there guys, I found it right insulting about your reference about SW US, I myself am from Tennessee and find it so very rude for you to insult our Azerbaijanian friend here. The Rossicle (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Relax! No slight or insult to the worthy citizens of any part of the US intended – or indeed made. It was just my guess (probably wrong) as to where Mattrius is from, going from his/her phrasing. I'm sure the standard of spelling and grammar of everyone else in those parts of the US is no worse than anywhere else. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged, Rossicle! And really now Richard! It's pretty darn obvious that I am a male, as Matt or even Mattrius is a male name! And I am infact from the UK, Azerbaijan, so your guess wasn't far off. :D Mattrius (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow the UK! Are you in Wales or England or Scotland? I went to England once, your youth can be quite patronising. :< The Rossicle (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah now Mattrius – I'm not going to guess the gender of anyone online who hasn't actually said. If you now say you're male, I shall of course respect that. From Azerbaijan.

Where in Azerbaijan, by the way? I'm in the New Forest, as you might have guessed if you were going by my name.

Rossicle: Don't forget that Northern Ireland is part of the UK – "he" might be from there... Richard New Forest (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Baku. Don't you just love our little chats, Richard? If I may call you Richard. Of course, I don't know what else I'd call you. Richy. Rich. Pilch. Richard is less annoying in my opinion. 92.0.127.190 (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about my restricted geographical knowledge, as you may already know the US educational system is very self centered. The New Forest is situated in the south of England I think, If I remember correctly it is a badger hot spot. The Rossicle (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the right area – between Southampton and Bournemouth. Don't worry, we're just as ignorant about American geography. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Southampton? Is that a port? I believe it to be. And as for Bournemouth I think I have visited that area... Lots of ice cream. I am a keen beach walker, could you recommend any good walks on the south coast? Preferably with lots of badgers. The Rossicle (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Southampton is a major freight port. As for walks – where to start? The New Forest, the Solent coast, the Isle of Wight, the Isle of Purbeck, or really just anywhere in the countryside. Not at all easy to see badgers (except of course dead on the road), as they're nocturnal – I spend most of my time out in the countryside in areas with very many badgers, but I've only seen them perhaps twice in daylight. Some pubs put out food for them and put on floodlights so customers can see them, or there are organised badger watching outings (including some in the New Forest). Mid to late summer is best, as the nights are short and the animals are forced to come out at dusk and dawn – the cubs are also coming out then. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

From Azerbaijan to badgers. Can't argue with that. I too am a fan of the badger, Rossicle. Their antics are most amusing! But yes, I agree with Richard - The New Forest is the best place for badger spotting! Mattrius (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha thank you my middle eastern comrade! Badgers are most fascinating beasts. By the way Richard you said, "Very many". As I have viewed in previous posts you seem to make a habit of correcting grammar. So I did the same :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rossicle (talk • contribs) 11:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about that. Logically it's either many or not, and so it can't be a little or a lot many. "Very" can be a comparative adverb, and used like that you'd be right, it would not be logical. However, "very" can also mean "true" (as in "the very same") and I think the colloquial use in "very many", "very few" is this meaning. I would therefore have been saying "truly many badgers", which is logical, more or less. Not that colloquial language is necessarily logical, as we have discussed above. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha! No worries then. Your grammar knowledge is commendable, if only our Azerbajian friend was so good at typing eh? Badgers. The Rossicle (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Duely noted! Thanks for everything, interview went excellently. :D Don't forget to reply to Rossy boy up there! He does like his badgers o.o Mattrius (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Heath/Heathen Etymology Reference

I've added a reference leading to Etymonline. Would this be sufficient? If it isnt, I'd like your assistance please. Thanks! — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wōdenhelm – well, it would, but the ref doesn't really support the derivation – it just says "could be..", which is hardly definitive. Can we find any better refs? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the OED. It discusses the heathen-from-heath theory, but essentially it dismisses it, on "etymological and chronological grounds" (for example, it appears that the word-endings in the various languages are wrong for that derivation). The OED favours the Germanic heathen words being derived from an Armenian word derived ultimately from Greek ethnos, meaning "nation", "heathen". Richard New Forest (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Above discussion moved to Talk:Heath (habitat) Richard New Forest (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you censored the information, but did you bother adding it to the Germanic paganism article as you yourself suggested in your edit summary? — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not "censored" – I realised, as I ought to have done before, that it did not belong on that page. No, I didn't add it to Germanic paganism, because I think it is insufficiently referenced, not to say dodgy. Try it yourself if you like. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I felt it belonged more so on the Heath article as it relates to "heath" being the origin of "Heathen" (which, btw, ethnos is not related to, as Old English did not borrow it), as a form of trivia. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

British English and American English Differences

Oops. Didn't realised I'd inadvertantly cut half the article. I was only trying to cut n paste one sentence at the time. Sorry. (sheepish smiley, however that one goes)

Ddawkins73 (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference between ditch and dyke

This difference is a wee bit more then "grammar changes" it is basically a complete difference in meaning and consequently I have reverted the lot. Thanks but no thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Oostvaardersplassen. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Woozles

You undid my Jeff Dunham edit to the Woozle page. But if you look at the Jeff Dunham page, the reference to Peanut as a Woozle refers to this page. And that page is locked. So it would make sense if the Jeff Dunham page links to the Woozle page, the Woozle page should reciprocate, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spetnik (talk • contribs) 14:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. It should link, and it does – but now in the hatnote instead of with your bit. Whatever "Peanut" is, it's not a Winnie ther Pooh woozle, which is what the Woozle article is about. "Peanut" therefore doesn't really belong in that article, and also the woozle link in Jeff Dunham is wrong, so I've unlinked it there. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Headwords in dabs

Re Rush, I noticed that you edited this dab to have entries start with the disambiguated term even if they linked to a differently name article (Rush, any of the...). Last time I edited in that fashion, which was some time back now, it was reverted by someone who seemed to know more about dab standards (of the time?). Lazily avoidant of edit conflicts, I'm wondering if you can direct me to anything in MOS:DAB which we may cite regarding use of headwords? ENeville (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, well, to be honest, I can't... It hinges on what exactly WP:MOSDAB means (or should mean) by:

"The link should be the first word or phrase in each entry."

As it is written, it assumes that the name of the link includes the headword (eg "Rush"), but it does not deal with the common situation, as in Rush, where the name is an alternative word (eg "Juncaceae"). The result of one interpretation of the guideline would be, much as you put:

• Juncaceae, the rush family

This does put the link first. However, it conflicts with the construction of all the dab entry examples given in the MOS, which follow the pattern of:

• [Headword], [definition]

The question is, which is the key thing, starting with the headword, or with the link? It seems logical to me that it must be the headword. Some editors get around this in what seems to me to be an unnecessarily clumsy way, by making a special redirect to avoid linking the non-headword, such as:

• Rush (plant), any of the members of the rush family Juncaceae

There is some discussion on this: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Where to place links to terms that are not variants of the term being disambiguated?. It doesn't seem to have reached consensus, and meanwhile I feel the start-with-headword construction is reasonable. I can't see how it actually conflicts with the letter of the MOS, and it's certainly consistent with the spirit. It would however be good to get a clear consensus on it. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My goodness, all this sure can seem more complicated than necessary, eh? I waded through the linked discussion, and tried to absorb all the morphings of MOS:DAB since my last visit. My take is that, if I'm understanding the starting points here, we don't need to be strict about starting entries with the disambiguated term (see Synonyms and the example at Order of entries). After review, I'd say "rush" is a synonym for "Juncaceae", so "Juncaceae, the rush family" would be the preferred entry. I don't see a need for a Rush (plant) redirect in the case of a synonym, and don't read such at MOS:DAB. Anyways, my two cents.  :-) ENeville (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Blackbird

Richard, any objection to move Blackbird (disambiguation) to Blackbird as most links are for the birds anyway? Blackbird was moved to Common Blackbird because it was ambiguous, so I fixed a bunch of redirects to reflect that blackbird is a rather wide term and not just common blackbird. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me – pretty much what I was suggesting. Could be a move or a merge, but I don't think it makes much odds, as there is history on both pages. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Above copied to Talk:Blackbird. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Portland

This is in regards to this edit; if the size isn't relevant, why does the entry below it have a size listing? I agree that the line you removed was too long, but shouldn't there be *something* about why one is notable over the other? tedder (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably neither should have their size. A dab is to distinguish between similarly named articles, not to explain the articles nor to tell you which is more important. Size is not usually going to be the thing that tells you whether you want Portland, Maine or Portland, Oregon. However, I suppose it might tell you which Portlands are large cities and which are small towns, so there is some argument for a brief mention of population for both. I'm not convinced that either of these cities deserves a special mention at the beginning of this dab – I think really they ought to be lower down, in the list of places. Perhaps the same for the Isle of Portland itself. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard. The guidelines I'm going by are WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (to determine which deserves special mention, if any), the "prime example" of Lift, where each entry has at least some context, and the MOS entry. As far as "Size isn't going to tell you [which one you want]", I think that's partially untrue: I may not know which Portland someone is referring to if I am unfamiliar with the states. However, you have more experience at dab pages than I do, which is why I am curious about what you think.

FWIW, some grok.se stats, using viewcount for ranking (higher=better), with 200902 data:

• Portland, Oregon: 95k
• Portland, Maine: 20k
• Isle of Portland: 4k

That makes it clear that Isle of Portland should definitely be removed from the "often" list. Cheers, tedder (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)