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)

Damned yellow composite

Hi. WikiProject Plants has been discussing developing Damned yellow composite as a Did you know, but to get to the required 1500 characters the article needs more content. Can you help? --Una Smith (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Will see what I can think of. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Earmark (agriculture)

Would you please make any neccessary edits to the above article which I have added to. There are so many regulations that I'm uncertain as to hwo to deal with it. TIA. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thrush

I have a secondary source stating that thrush is not a general term for all types of candidiasis, but specific to oral candidiasis. Do you mind if I fix that redirect? kilbad (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that can't be right. Look for example at the Google searches for "vaginal thrush" and "penile thrush". These both come up with thousands of hits, and many of those are for technical medical material. It's certainly not limited to oral candidaisis – could your source be saying that oral thrush is the same as oral candidaisis? Richard New Forest (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is candidiasis limited to mucous membranes. I'll post this issue at WT:MED and see what people think. Thanks again for your work on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

One for your watchlist

Hey Richard, if you don't already have New Forest pony on your watchlist, maybe go over there and take a peek. It's getting some editing activity and I lack the knowledge or the time to spend the attention needed on the topic. Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks – I thought I had that one, but didn't... Richard New Forest (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Manor

Sorry about that, I didn't realise the Manor page was only for links. Have copied my passage into Manorialism and will look at putting it on Wiktionary now. 86.143.231.244 (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Those were about something before and someone fixed it, but I guess I forgot to remove the tags. --Abce2|Howdy! 12:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Above copied to User talk:Abce2 and replied there. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Botany

True, it seems I overreacted, but it seemed very hard not to assume a self-centered mentality had to be behind whoever failed to comply to the universality (or, better said, cosmopolitan) nature the article deserved... And that makes it hard for self-control, as unjustified use of what lacks pertinent notability cannot be explained otherwise... Or can it? An by self-centeredness I mean racism, classism, xenophobia (or nationalism that is the same) or any other form of prejudice that groups those closer to one's own self (and that which belongs to these) above the others (be it by race, class, country or a similiar poison) attributing notability and universality to what lacks it, but now I've read this... I will try give some brakes to my words...Undead Herle King (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

White Park Cattle

Hello Richard I am here asking why did you change the white Park Cattle page infact White Park Cattle did originate in Ireland and is one of the Oldest Cattle to do so. I suppose you always get one idiot trying to change the matter. Tamworth Pigs originate in Ireland iswell if you read your history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.184.133 (talk • contribs) 25 May 2009 14:59 (UTC)

(Please put new comments at the bottom of talk pages, and remember to sign your comments with ~~~~).

White Parks certainly originated in Britain, though there may well have been herds in Ireland too. We can't say "in fact they originated in Ireland" without proper references, however much we might want it to be true. Unfortunately the ancient records about white cattle with red ears don't tell us anything about the origin of the White Park – all it shows is that cattle of that pattern occurred in Ireland in ancient times. The colour-point pattern is widespread in many unrelated breeds, and we have no way of knowing if the modern White Park (and other colour point breeds) are related to those ancient cattle or whether they arose independently. Do you have any good refs for an Irish origin? Were there Irish herds, and if there were did they originate there, or were they brought from Britain? Or don't we know?

Tamworths come from Tamworth. There is a theory that the red colouration (but I think not the breed as a whole) comes from Irish pigs, but that is certainly not an uncontroversial view, and red pigs were widespread in England too. Again it needs good refs, and I think the most we can say is "the Tamworth may be derived partly from Irish pigs". Even if it did derive largely from Irish pigs, it was developed in England and I think it would be a stretch to count it as still an Irish breed.

You may find it helpful to read WP:Reliable sources. For example, we can't say the White Park is known as the "Irish White" unless we can find a reliable source that supports that name. Also, we need to be careful about using private websites as refs – the B-Bar ranch site is dodgy to say the least...

I see at least two of your breed articles have been proposed for deletion. I think there is a case for an article about Irish breeds overall, but I can't really see why we need to split it into cattle, horses etc. Remember that the main material for each breed will always be in its own article, so a "list of xxx from Ireland" has to be a short article. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Calf issue

Una's soliciting votes on the disambig issue... Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Epicormic

Hi, should Epicormic shoot be at Epicormic growth instead? "Epicormic shoot/s" seems to be a much more popular term but then there are epicormic buds to deal with. Drawn Some (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too – in fact I think that's what I was going to call the article I never got round to creating. I was planning to leave the deletion thing to run its course ("keep", surely...), then suggest changing the name, so as not to muddy the water. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Drawn Some (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Seaford

Hi,

The way you had Seaford, East Sussex transcribed, there was not equal stress on each vowel. If there were, it would be /ˌsiːˈfɔːd/ "sea ford" (like two words) rather than /ˈsiːfɔːd/ "sea-ford" (like a compound word). kwami (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether /siː.fɔːd/ might be better? It sounds like "Sea Ford". A similar thing happens with many other Sussex place names: Arding Lye, Chidding Lye etc. Also, I realise we ought to have the square bracket form for a dialect pronunciation. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific name of cashmere goat

Thanks for your contributions to the Wikipedia entry on cashmere. The Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute is very interested in an accurate definition of cashmere, including the correct name of the species of goat. Can you please contact me at dtrumbull@cashmere.org. If the scientific community is generally using a different designation than what we are using, and which we got written into U.S. law, we need to kknow about that. -- David Trumbull, Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Trumbull (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see from the Cashmere goat article there is no single cashmere goat breed, and the various cashmere breeds do not seem to be all closely related – they seem to be all the breeds of goat which happen to produce cashmere. It's therefore not really possible to define a subspecies (let alone species) for cashmere goats – indeed, all domestic goats together are now regarded as a single subspecies. Even if the cashmere goats did fall into a well defined subspecies I don't think it would help you, as it would be a biological definition, not necessarily related to the animal's suitability for producing down. For example, a single-coated mutant with no down at all would still fall into the subspecies, but would obviously not be a useful cashmere goat. All I think you could do is define a cashmere goat as a goat producing cashmere – then define that. Alternatively you could restrict the definition of cashmere to certain breeds, in the way, for example, that certain wines are produced by certain grape varieties, or Single Gloucester cheese can only be produced by Gloucester cattle (in Gloucestershire). Gloucester cattle are not a subspecies, but they can still be defined clearly. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Breed identification

My best guess is that the image I added here is a Dalesbred ram. Would you concur? Steven Walling (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me – I even wondered for a bit whether it was the same individual as the ram on the various external links... It would be good to have confirmation though. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Another eye

Richard, would you mind taking a peek at Dominant white and offering your two bits? The lead editor (a wonderful and talented one, too!) wants to take it to GA and this will be her first attempt at the GA gauntlet, so all friendly eyes that can offer constructive help prior to GAN are welcomed! I've helped her some with the article, but mostly it's her effort! Montanabw^(talk) 21:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Marine

Thank you for watching out for advert style; Wikipedia is really often abused for advertising purposes. Now, in the Hunter Marine article, one of the sentences you removed was "Hunter focuses on spacious interiors, ease of sailing,comfort, and substantial storage." While the language may not be optimal, this is indeed a true statement, at least according to my original research of having owned one for eight years. Maybe we could reintroduce this sentence if we added that the flip side of the coin is that they're not optimized for racing? (There's already a related sentence where the article talks about changing designs frequently. Speaking of that other sentence, I think mentioning the competitor is not a typical sign of advert style, but rather adds valuable information. Can this be reinserted, too? — Sebastian 06:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea – I probably ought to have edited that sentence instead of deleting it – I agree that it's really a matter of style. My own OR is about a "real" Hunter, a Sonata, which can't really be said to be optimised for spaciousness nor ease of sailing – however it does turn on a sixpence and sail in no wind, and is great fun to sail. Perhaps rather too exciting in a chop... Richard New Forest (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mangrove

I do not understand your comment at Mangrove: Yes, but leave option for both open. Tidy lead elsewhere. Straight seawater will not support mangroves (Rhizophora) or mangel. Only a few plants can tolerate straight seawater. It is the nature or mangroves to utilize brackish water, often from near-surface groundwater sources. It complicates the lead to say seawater and it isn't correct. Take a look at the cited article (or at least the abstract at "Mangrove trees growing in a very saline condition but not using seawater") and other literature. -- Bejnar (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that mangrove swamp is often brackish, but that some species can tolerate seawater or even considerably higher salinity where evaporation concentrates the seawater. (I remember reading a paper on this, but can't now remember where, nor what species were involved.) Also, doesn't mangrove swamp often form vegetation along coasts outside estuaries, where there is no fresh water at all? The areas where no mangroves grow are on the upper mangrove, where the same seawater is exposed over long periods to evaporation, making it much more saline than seawater.

In fact quite a few flowering species can live in pure seawater – I'm not familiar with mangrove swamp, but I am with saltmarsh, and could show you square miles of saltmarsh in UK estuaries with no or very little fresh water dilution. Such saltmarsh often has a couple of dozen flowering plants. (Not forgetting of course really highly adapted saltwater plants such as Salicornia and seagrass, which can live under seawater much or all of the time.) Of course with our high rainfall and cool climate we don't get hypersaline upper edges to saltmarsh.

That abstract you link does not in fact say that the plants can't tolerate seawater. What it is actually saying is that some of the saline water in this particular case is not derived directly from seawater, but from fresh water which has dissolved previously dried salt. It does not say in the abstract how saline this actually is – but the "in a very saline condition" in the title does imply not very brackish... It also talks of one species living "on the seafront", implying that this is living in pure seawater or close to it. (A similar thing happens in a few places in the UK, where saltmarsh vegetation occurs many miles inland, near springs of saline water derived from fresh groundwater dissolving rock salt.)

I do agree though that my edit may not have made the para as clear as it might have... I think the article overall needs a bit of work. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion at Talk:Mangrove, to where I've copied the above. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Binomials

Richard, I notice that you have been doing some sterling work tidying bird articles. Just a note that it's no longer project practice to bold binomial names, just italics, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim – as always, thanks for bringing me up to date. Can you point me to the discussion? (Surely the binomial is an alternative name like any other...?) Richard New Forest (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Heather

Hello. My reasons for modifying the Heather disambiguation page, is to bring it more in line with the MOS:DAB guidelines, before the pages that link to it are fixed. I understand that the term "heather" does not ONLY refer to Calluna vulgaris, but it would be more constructive for you to better reflect that by editing the intro of the page, rather that simply reverting my edits. The section titles are cluttered, and not suited for a disambiguation page with only 11 links on it. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see comment I was already writing at Talk:Heather. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference systems

Following moved from Talk:Marco Polo sheep

At the moment we have lots of very brief in-line refs, with a corresponding list of full refs at the end. Is there any reason why we can't have the full refs as in-line ones, or is that intended later? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The references in this article are set up by the Harvard Citation system. Each inline ref links to the reference in the "references" section, which in turn links to the source's information in the Bibliography section. It's not as common on Wikipedia as the simple "insert ref info and reflist," but works just as well. Fleetflame 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the Harvard system, but a hybrid. The Harvard system has, for example, "Wilson & Reeder 2005" in brackets in the text, then a single bibliography list at the end, including that ref in alphabetical order – in WP, we can use templates which allow these to connect automatically (see WP:HARV for how to do it). In this article at the moment we have only ref numbers in the text, then two ref lists at the end, which do not connect automatically. We need one system or the other – I have no preference as to which. (Incidentally, we have some of the short refs duplicated.) Richard New Forest (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking properly at the markup, I see that it is done using templates, and that the double list is a deliberate format. It isn't the Harvard system, but that covered by WP:Citing sources#Shortened footnotes. I've not seen it actually used on WP before, and I need to think about whether it's better or worse. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you took another look at the template syntax, etc. to see the way it works. None of the refs are "duplicated"; they link to other pages in the source. That whole setup is not just one big mistake - it works exactly like it's supposed to. As for "not seeing it on WP before," this particular form is actually required for featured articles. Fleetflame 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen FAs with other systems. Can you point me to this requirement? Richard New Forest (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just checked a random selection of 10 FAs: five had the shortened format (only one of those used the templates). The others all had the more common ref-ref/ system (no true Harvard system ones), so surely the shortened format can't be an actual requirement....? Richard New Forest (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Section 2c of the featured article criteria says "consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)." You would have easily seen this had you bothered to check. I absolutely refuse to argue the positives and negatives of the various citation systems with you; if you don't like this one, I'm fine with that. Fleetflame 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I was being lazy, but I wanted to know where you were getting it from. I am not arguing for one method or the other, just trying to get it clear in my mind, and reserving my opinion until I have. At first sight this method looked clumsy to me, but after working it through I'm warming to it (a little) – thanks for your help.

So in fact it's not strictly correct to say that the criteria do require the format we have here: they require referencing, either the ref-ref/ system or Harvard referencing. But I can see nothing about the shortened format version, as opposed to Harvard referencing proper... Where is that recommended? Richard New Forest (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-moles

Richard, please look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Molely_cow There is also some discussion elsewhere. I have asked everyone there to go to the talk page for the article mole where you and I have been talking. I'm trying to get everyone on the same page, litterally, I don't know which is the best place, it doesn't matter, so long as I don't have to carry my arguements and yours and theirs back and forth between talk pages anymore. So like I say, please read that page I just linked you to, but understand that I've asked them to come to you, so to speak, to go to the Mole discussion page where you and I were talking and for them to weigh in there. Everyone has legitimate points of view, but I seem to be the only one who is aware of the existence of all these editors involved and the position of each one. So just read that and wait a bit to see if they show up at the mole talk page like I asked them to. "They" refers to Clarityfriend, Silence, and Zach, who are all sort of "Project Disambiguation Patrol" guys, if you know what I mean. Chrisrus (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you call something a duck eagle, are you calling it a duck or an eagle? You are calling it an Eagle, of course.

If you call something a sea horse, are you calling it a horse? Yes, you are. You are calling it a horse, but that doesn't mean you think of it as a horse. I added the part about "and thought of" because you brought up sea horses, your point, I understood, that just calling it a horse doesn't mean we think of it as a horse. That I understood was your position. I wrote that because of you. We don't think a sea horse is a horse, or related to horses, because it doesn't have the features of a horse at all. This is not the case with non-moles! Non-moles have the basic external features and they have the name "mole". I go to dictionary dot com and enter "mole". I get this as the first entry:

"any of various small insectivorous mammals, esp. of the family Talpidae, living chiefly underground, and having velvety fur, very small eyes, and strong forefeet."

Does this describe the non-moles? Yes, except the Talpidae part (which, I would like you to note, says "especially", not "exclusively"). This is because they know that there are other animals also called moles that aren't Talpidae, or true moles, but that they aren't really "moles" because they aren't the same as the species that Saxons called "moldywarps" and so don't have first dibs on the word. Goldens and Marsupials fit the definition to a tee, with the one caveat. All that it takes for people to think of something as a mole is for it to fit the basic gestalt of features that people mean when they say "mole".

Do you want me to cite the fact that if you call an animal a "something mole", that you are calling it a mole?

No one claims that New World Vultures aren't called "vultures" or that aren't "vultures" in the minds of most people that don't study about them. That's not what is in question by anyone. What is in question is whether or not they really are vultures, which, it turns out, they are not. Say I wrote "there are other birds commonly called and thought of as vultures, but are not true vultures", and just cited the usual taxonomy reference that we always use. Would you ask me to cite that as well? If so, what sort of citation would satisfy you? Do you think there is written anywhere that "people call the black vulture a vulture and think of it as a vulture"? No one writes that because it's just too obvious. It passes the duck test, that's all they care about. The umbrella article vulture has to say words to the effect of "there are two distinct groups of birds called and thought of as Vultures: new worlds and old worlds." And then it has to go on to explain facts of the situation to them.

Do you think this?: That the English-speaking South Africans and Australians or English speaking visitors to those areas who see Goldens or Marsupials already know that those things out in the yard, that they are not really "moles", and they don't think of them as moles, or just call them "moles" without the "golden" or "marsupial" part every time. It's assuming too much. You can't assume that, do you see what I mean? All you can assume is that they speak English. We can assume that they speak English and have all the basic words at a non-expert level, including the common English word "mole" and the basic dictionary definition. That's all you can assume about the readers. That's why I always delete the brackets when someone writes "the girl and her mother walked down the street to the store to by some food for their dog.

If I'm wrong about that, please tell me what I could do to get you to remove the "fact" and "cite" notes on the statement that there are other animals called and thought of as moles, but they are not moles. What can I do to satisfy your objection? Chrisrus (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As always, all that's needed to remove a "fact" tag is a ref, and it should not be removed without it. The ref you give above would nearly be enough, though it's a bit vague and I think really needs some corroboration. I'll have a look at the OED for a better one. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)