User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 1

Peter Coxhead has earned a plusbox for doing something witty, brilliant, or otherwise noticable. Thanks for your recent contributions. WOOOOOOOO.

Amazing what spaces do... thanks for fixing that! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way-- be sure and document any and all changes to the taxobox template family on the appropriate talk pages. That way we're not "working under the covers", so to speak. People don't really like the invisibility so much on Wikipedia as they do in the real world-- instead, they consider it "creeping around". The way we've been doing this is by creating a section dedicated to logging edits at the top of the talk page for the template. If you make an edit to an upper-level template, use your best judgment in deciding which talk page to log it on. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I do want to implement |taxon= as an alternative parameter to |genus= and |species= in {{Speciesbox}}. I think my version of the template works correctly, though it's not easy to test – it's the interaction with the page name which has been slightly wrong, and you can only test this on pages whose title is the species name, which rules out special test pages.

I suspect the decision (?Martin's) to allow taxon details to be omitted and then picked up from the page name, although apparently helpful to users, may actually be a mistake, in terms of the complexity of coding which results. Looking at the code, {{Subspeciesbox}} doesn't allow this (although the genus and species could be found from the page title) – however the documentation currently doesn't explain this difference. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if we discuss it on the actual pages, we are more likely to get input from other minds. Have a look at Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 8#Speed and scalability-- I've detailed the methods I've used for evaluating the speed. Martin knows of a way to see how much memory is being used during the code expansion, but I don't remember what that was. And I just graduated from computer science with a CIS minor myself. I believe Martin's another CS student (graduate?). I'm not sure about him, but I got sucked into this whole spiel when I first heard he was working on it back in the summer-- it's very exciting to work on and see what we can do with this wikisyntax which was never intended for actual programming! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Ok, I'll stick to the talk page of the template. However, I'm concerned that people only interested in using the templates may avoid the talk page if it looks too technical.

I left a note on Martin's talk page drawing his attention to my query about speed, but he doesn't seem to be around at present.

You'll have to excuse me if I now go into teaching mode. On the subject of wikisyntax and programming – this is the kind of excitement I used to lecture against when I taught software engineering (and I hope you were taught the same!). Yes, it's exciting to find that something designed for one purpose can be used for another, but in any engineering discipline, the best quality product comes from using the best (i.e. most appropriate) tools (aka don't use sledgehammers to crack nuts). The wikimedia expression language is definitely not a good tool to use in writing programs. I've suggested a couple of MSc projects at my institution which might help if anyone is willing to take them on ([1]). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But when it all boils down, a dime is a much handier screwdriver, and a paper clip is wonderful for retrieving a CD from a powered-down computer. On Wikipedia, we work with whatever syntax is available. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Peter coxhead! While reading the cladistics article I happened upon the phrase "It has been argued that this kind of reasoning has been used by proponents of the view that birds are nested within the theropod dinosaur clade" with a reference to James, Frances C. & Pourtless IV, John A. (2009), Cladistics and the Origin of Birds: A Review and Two New Analyses, Ornithological Monographs, No. 66, American Ornithologists' Union. I understand that this article might be useful to source certain valid general criticisms of cladistics. However, its particular criticism of the "dinosaur hypothesis" of bird origins or the methods underlying it, should, I think, not be mentioned as it would give undue weight to what is an extreme minority position regarding both. As far as the hypothesis itself is concerned: the majority of palaeontologists, whether they prefer phylogenetic nomenclature or Linnaean taxonomy, support it. But also the claim by James & Pourtless (2009) that homology had been assumed because of some confirmation bias is a very marginal position, in fact even one they themselves do not really defend. To the contrary, as reading the article makes abundantly clear: the proponents of the dinosaur hypothesis are accused of interpreting identical traits as homologies! James and Pourtless then systematically question each homology merely because it would support the hypothesis — and thus commit the very sin they perceive in others...

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two points here.

1. James & Portless's views on the evolution of birds
2. Using their paper to support the possible circularity of character-based cladistics approaches.

I would entirely agree, from my relatively limited knowledge of the field, that it would be undue weight to emphasize (1). They clearly hold a minority view. This isn't what their article is used for.

As for (2), James & Pourtless may well be wrong in their conclusions about the evolution of birds. They are not wrong in questioning whether making prior decisions as to which characters are sympleisomorphic begs the question the cladistic analysis is trying to answer. The fact that they commit the very sin they question in others surely only reinforces the point? However, I would be happy for a better example to be used if one can be found which is as accessible as the dinosaurs/birds example.

(An example which is, in my view, much less accessible although supportable relates to the early evolution of land plants, where initially purely character-based cladistic approaches suggested conclusions which molecular evidence later showed could not be correct. The error lay in the assumption that isomorphic alternation of generations was a pleisomorphy, so that both gametophyte dominance in "bryophytes" and sporophyte dominance in tracheophytes represented apomorphies. Cladistic character-based analysis of extinct land plants, as in Kenrick & Crane 1997, now uses molecular evidence from extant groups to define the outgroups and thus the ancestral characters/pleisomorphies. But this would take too long to explain and isn't of interest to most readers, unlike dinosaurs/birds.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the dinosaur-bird example is very appealing to a general public. But should not this example be only presented if there would be some minimal acknowledgement outside of the narrow circle endorsing their minority view that James & Pourtless might at least be possibly correct in their assessment? E.g., in geology there is a comparable circularity problem in that the identity of the guide fossils used to determine the identical age of strata is in danger of being presumed because we already assume the layers to be of the same age. Would it be correct to give an example of this problem by stating "It has been argued that this induced geologists to assume the Earth is more than 10,000 years old" while referring to a creationist paper? If it should be doubted that James & Pourtless have stooped to comparable levels of pseudoscience, allow me to point out in some detail why their paper is flawed. Before the famous Chinese discoveries of feathered dinosaurs were made, the authors unproblematically accepted that creatures like Velociraptor and Troodon were indeed dinosaurs, that their traits were obviously homologous to identical traits in other dinosaurs — and that there was a false homology with the only seemingly identical traits in birds. When the discovery of the feathers made the authors feel that their previous position was untenable they suddenly unproblematically assumed that creatures like Velociraptor and Troodon were birds, that their traits were obviously homologous to identical traits in other birds — and that there was a false homology with the only seemingly identical traits in dinosaurs. This remarkable volte-face was made without the slightest attempt to empirically test the homology. Far from being particularly biased or naive, mainstream palaeontologists to the contrary have taken the problem very seriously and continuous research has resulted in a growing body of evidence, either supporting the homology or, in the case of the famous "digit homology problem" bringing forth a whole new line of investigation into what we exactly mean with the concept. In view of this situation, citing James & Pourtless as if they might have a point, will raise quite a few palaeontological eyebrows!

For a more humorous illustration of how the paper in question is regarded in mainstream circles ;o), see the fifth image in this blog by Naish: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/05/no_necks_for_sex_in_sauropods.php#more

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so given that you agree that there are "certain valid general criticisms of cladistics", one of which is that there can be (but of course equally may not be) some circularity in deciding what traits are pleisomorphies, and accepting that the James & Pourtless paper isn't a good one to cite to support this view, can you suggest a source that is? As I noted above, I'm very happy to change the source, but not to see the point removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could keep the point together with the source — and only remove the reference to the bird-dinosaur issue...--MWAK (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps the quickest solution: will you make the change? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter coxhead! In appreciation for your attention to detail, and steadfastness in trying to tackle categorization in an ocean of plant articles, here is a sort of unofficial barnstar (as I'm not sure if only admins are supposed to give 'official' ones). This creature is a very robust ochre sea star (Pisaster ochraceus). It may look simple at just a glance, but when seen up close, it is complex and intricate. Hamamelis (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks, this is much appreciated; I was coming to the conclusion that I may be wasting my time on this topic, but perhaps not... Peter coxhead (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter coxhead, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature should have little to no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on

Hey, since you are obviously one of our more trusted contributers, I am wondering whether you would be interested in supporting

New Page Patrollers by helping us patrol articles in the backlog of Special:NewPages. Thank you for being a great content contributer and happy editing! Sadads (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It's very nice to learn that my efforts to create good new pages have been endorsed to this extent.

As for page patrolling, at present I'm more interested in creating new content in the area covered by

WP:PLANTS. Further, I'm very unsympathetic to Wikipedia's containing so much material on living people and current (and hence transient) popular culture, most of which would not be considered suitable in a traditional encyclopedia. Simply removing almost all such added pages would be my solution, which I guess would make me an undesirable page patroller! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem, glad to see that you have your niche, keep up the good work! Sadads (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though thinking about the proportion of living people and current popular culture, you might actually be impressed at what percentage of the new articles are not about that. An amazing number of the articles I have been reviewing lately are about geographic locations or historical biographies, Sadads (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if something affects all the taxoboxes,

I see no need to confuse the user by linking to an article with a different title. "Scientific name" is good enough. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the community here makes it really hard to move forward with change for the better, but I've been harassed quite extensively for not requesting consensus before. I'd hate to see it happen to you, too. Requesting consensus is the least we can do to avoid a fight. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your concern here. Murderbike (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! I just converted the redir to a disambig page. Just two points, A.) we need to see the "what links here" link to change anything that links specifically to zoology or botany (which isn't such a big concern since I blinked and you made

Hi Peter, I noticed you are not including changing "name" to "epithet" in your dab edits to zoological articles. I realize that International Code of Zoological Nomenclature on Wikipedia mentions 'epithet' nowhere, but I did some searching on the web, and it appears that the term is used in zoology as well, for both the specific and subspecific. Are they synonymous with each other in zoology? If so, I'll stop adding it on my edits to save some time! Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly my information about the zoological code comes from International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (so as it's in Wikipedia it must be right – how many times have I told students not to use Wikipedia as primary reference!). I believe that in zoology you can say either 'name' or 'epithet', whereas in botany you can only correctly say 'epithet'. All I would say is that there are a very large number of articles on dinosaurs, which seem very detailed and well-referenced, and they all say "specific name" and then talk about the epithet, not the binomen. So I've left them alone. (Reading and trying to make sense of the ICBN is quite enough for me, I'm not going to start on the ICZN!) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I may not have internet access for the next couple of days as I'm travelling, but won't forget the long list of articles awaiting us... Peter coxhead (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Peter. I think I'll do it for now the way you've been at it, and not bother with changing zoological dabs to epithet. Maybe later... It reminds me of the tasks pyramid, where one can continue to find problems, and continuously add them to the 'to do' list, until you have erected a virtual pyramid of priorities. Wikipedia's great for that! Hope you are on holiday, and whether or not, hope it is enjoyable for you. See you later. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... is now complete. zzzzzzzzzzzz Hamamelis (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been exceedingly busy! Fantastic job! Actually, by going back to Specific name and looking at "what links here" I found about another 20 that need fixing (i.e. are not in "Talk:", "User:" or "Wikipedia:" space). If I haven't done them yet, they will be listed at User:Peter coxhead/Work page.

Some were where unnecessary second wikilinks existed on the page; I just removed the link.

Some were where the link to covered both zoology and botany (e.g. "specific name or epithet"); on reflection, I've changed these to something like the second part of a [[binomial name]] to avoid ever linking to the dab page (e.g. Problematica).

Others are just odds and ends. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, some of those last twenty I did just leave alone, where I thought the context was already ambiguous, and so should just point to the disambig. page. Others I wasn't sure (protists, for example), and others I just missed. Two had been added within a short time of my "completion", and so weren't on the original list.
   Glad to see you found a way to rewrite around some of them, either to link to both animal and plant related articles, or prevent pointing to the dab link - I could have done that with some of them, but was so sleepy at that point.
   One thing to keep in mind is that, hence forward, some editors will still be adding to the list. Only, now it is quite manageable, and we can check "what links here" from time to time and correct the new ones as they arise. To the extent that it is not any longer 'huge' (and should remain so), boy, am I glad! Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After speaking with

International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria). And since protista includes algae, then I think those should point to the same. I have just edited those few pages from "what links here" to reflect this. Hamamelis (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, so when in doubt, point to the botany version seems to be the rule! The only one you'd missed, I think, was Pfiesteria piscicida.

Now the task is to try to sort out the articles on botanical nomenclature, so that there is a page "specific name (botany)" to link to (or perhaps a section of an article). At the moment I'm just trying to understand what articles there are and how they interconnect. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, good catch! :) Hamamelis (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that there ought to be an article in its own right at

Specific name (botany), rather than a section of another article, least of all because of the disambguation requirements and parallel article for zoological specific names. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I incline to agree. The problem at present is that, as noted above, there is a confusing jumble of articles on biological nomenclature, some of which were clearly written by editors who don't understand the differences between the two Codes (or even that there are differences). I'm trying to understand and sort out some of these. If no-one else does (be my guest!), I'll start an article "Specific name (botany)". I think that there could usefully be three articles:

• Binomial nomenclature, which is really "Specific name (general biology)", and is a relatively non-technical introduction to the general topic, and as far as possible, Code-neutral, while of course acknowledging that there are differences. The current title may not be the right one. I think that quite a bit of the stuff at the end of the article should go and should be in the other two articles. I see this as the place that non-biologists, school students, etc. would start.
• Specific name (zoology) which, now that the botanical stuff has been removed, I'm happy to leave to the zoologists.
• Specific name (botany)
  which is to be written.

But I don't want to pre-judge the issue of an ultimate merge after discussion; previous threads suggest that editors are quite divided about whether one long article or several short articles are best. You and I have both disagreed with User:Ettrig in the past about merging pages, but he got support from others. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and Hamamelis are doing a great job, and I've generally intended to stay out of it until you seemed to have finished, but made that one edit that you responded to because I thought it was uncontroversial, oops! What a mess! I'll stay out of things for a while, I don't have time at present to think about these things in sufficient depth.

Please revert my edit if you like, I was about to do so in response to your comments, but then noticed that there is also a page Linnaean taxonomy. Perhaps a pointer to that on the Binomial nomenclature page could be helpful to make clear that Linnaeus' classes and orders aren't part of binomial nomenclature. Nadiatalent (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is correct for how the page should be, and how I hope it will be, i.e. an article only about the binomial part of Linnaean nomenclature, so I think it should be left. "Linnaean nomenclature" and "Linnaean classification" are both redirects to Linnaean taxonomy, but although classification is roughly the same as taxonomy, nomenclature is not: Linnaeus could have come up with a different system of nomenclature for the same classification/taxonomy (e.g., as I think the original of your edit was trying to say, it could have been the rule that a species is named as Family-name Genus-name species-epithet rather than just Genus-name species-epithet). Wikipedia articles on this subject are just such a mess, it's hard to know where to begin! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter! I am very sorry for delaying in answering your commentary. In fact, I revised Amaryllidaceae in the spanish wikipedia in order to conform APG III and also I placed Alliaceae and Agapanthaceae as subfamilies of it. All of them are GA, and for this reason I wanted to chage them first of all. I also changed Alstroemeriaceae to conform APG III and I am still working on Asparagaceae (a lot of work!! :-) I do not edit Asparagales yet because I want to change the families first. Hope I respond your question! Regards! --EnCASF (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the reply. I worked the other way: I changed en:Asparagales first and then the families. Changing Asparagaceae is a lot of work; when you have finished I will see what I can translate and use in the English version!! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help translating Spanish, I can do that. I have a bit more free time this month than I usually would, if I can be of help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks; I hope to get back to this which interests me much more than some other stuff I've got rather bogged down in lately (template writing and the nomenclature/taxonomy articles). I didn't intend to get involved with the latter, but they annoyed me so much whenever I looked at them, I just couldn't resist. The problem, I find, is that my "to-do" list grows much faster than the time I have available to devote to Wikipedia, especially in the summer when I am out in the garden (and I keep finding terrible articles by accident and can't resist meddling: all the tagging at Ape is my latest). By the way, I have produced a translation of de:Joachim_Christian_Timm, which you were interested in (it's just on my computer for now). The problem is to translate or find the English equivalent for some of the very "German bureaucrat" job titles. I kept forgetting to ask German colleagues at the University; I've now sent off an e-mail to one so I should hopefully be able to create this article in English soon. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your observations on my Buddleja pages. Yes, I would be minded to agree with you regarding 'Cultivation' were the pages envisaged as completed works; however, they are clearly identified as 'Stubs', in the hope others will contribute. I feel the inclusion of a Cultivation section, no matter how initially banal or parochial, should serve to stimulate further information from elsewhere around the globe in the true spirit of Wikipedia. Its a habit I developed writing my Ulmus pages, as I believe anyone sufficiently motivated to research a plant would almost certainly be interested in its cultivation and acquisition? Regards, Ptelea (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a tricky issue as to how to leave stubs. I understand your logic, and perhaps a somewhat provocative statement (well, provocative to those outside the UK!) might provoke a response. On the other hand, there are few active plant editors, with the result that stubs sit around for a long time (years often – as a random example, Torenia fournieri has been a stub since it was created in 2007). I wonder if "This species is not known to be in cultivation." would be better than specifically mentioning the UK? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed; seems a sensible compromise, the banal rather than the parochial. Ptelea (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...for your interest in and contribution to mapping Wikipedia's existing Tree of Life. Chrisrus (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! Actually, I get very frustrated with the consequences for Wikipedia of all the current uncertainty and confusion in taxonomy. I'm happy to see all the different approaches explained in the body of articles, but I really hate to see all the inconsistent classifications in the taxoboxes. I guess it's because of my computer science background. I used to teach students that a database must have completely consistent relationships. If only this were true of taxonomy! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was thinking that if we could easily look at the Wikipedia's taxon-based tree of life, we'd be able to see problems like you describe and maybe that might help us fix them. But I agree and also am happy to see the different approaches explained in the body of articles. Maybe the tree would help us to see which articles need to have such text, and what they might say. Chrisrus (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever been? It's "tree of life" based, and has changed the way I've seen the world ever since. Chrisrus (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic; I go to Canada often for family reasons but not further south. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your comment on the talk page of Synaptula lamperti where you expressed the view that there should be more background information to make the article easier to understand for a non-specialist. This is something I have often wondered about and to which I do not know the answer. Providing a wikilink to a relevant more comprehensive article helps and one can say "Unlike other sea cucumbers, this species has no tube feet, etc" but on the whole I feel there would be a lot of duplication within Wikipedia if much background information were given in each species article. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is, I think, an important issue, not sufficiently discussed. When I started serious Wikipedia editing (which is less than a year ago), I held the view that duplication was bad, and should be avoided where possible. I think I was influenced in this by years of teaching software engineering: software should be composed of self-contained, isolated modules. Now this model is good for software and good for editors. Duplicated but not identical information is more work to create and much harder to maintain in a state of consistency. However, I have gradually been persuaded by other editors that we should always start from readers' needs, not editors' needs. It's easy to say that readers can just click on a link and read the more comprehensive article, but this is disruptive. Further it's often hard to find just that extra bit of information in Article B that you need in order to understand Article A, particularly when Article B is "upwards" in the taxonomic hierarchy, and is therefore to some extent less focussed. On the other hand, readers need good editors and good editing; creating and maintaining duplicated material can be seen as a waste of editors' limited time compared to creating genuinely new material.

So I don't know the answer either. But I do think that "Unlike other sea cucumbers, this species has no tube feet ..." is a useful expansion. Whether you can or should explain in the article what "tube feet" are or rely on a wikilink is another matter. There's definitely a point at which a wikilink is the only sensible answer. So I think there's no general solution, just the need for us all to try to keep the target reader in focus. Whether I practise what I preach is another matter! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking on the matter overnight and have decided you are right. I plan to go through the marine life articles I have written and expand the lead section, starting with Synaptula lamperti.

When writing an article it is nice to make it "complete" with information on the species' description, distribution, habitat, reproduction etc. When the organism is obscure some of that information is difficult to find. Research papers often concentrate on the specifics and omit generalities. Do you think it is all right in articles to make use of deduced information? For example, organism B is in group A, the characteristics/distribution/reproduction of group A are such and such and therefore organism B has the same characteristics/distribution/reproduction. Such a statement is probably accurate but it is not easy to provide a reference to demonstrate its accuracy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, don't give me any credit for "being right"; this is definitely something I learnt from others.

You've posed another very interesting question, I think. It goes to the heart of what exactly is meant by

WP:SYNTH

. It bothers me. I don't see why the following would be wrong: "The Harvard Writing with Sources manual defines "plagiarism" as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.[REF] If Jones did not do this, he did not commit plagiarism according to this definition." I'm not sure this is really different from the example condemned there, yet the second sentence is a simple logical deduction from the first.

I think the problem is that many WP policies are written from an arts/humanities/social sciences perspective, and don't really make sense in scientific or mathematical contexts. (Another example is the prohibition on primary sources at

WP:PRIMARY. Scientific articles make heavy use of primary sources.) So I think it's fine to make 'simple logical deductions' when the premises are supported by reliable sources. But it may not be in accord with a strict interpretation of WP policies. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. All very complex Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just revert my edits without discussion/explanation. As it happens, I agree with one of your points, namely that the term "Watsonian" properly applies only to the VCs of Great Britain. The article should really be re-named "Vice-counties of the British Isles" since this is the term used in all sources I can find for the VCs of Great Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man (with/without the Channel Islands). I see no point in an article on the VCs of Great Britain alone, given that the VCs of Ireland were a deliberate extension of the GB system. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to answer in the same place rather than on both talk pages.

Actually I am very interested in academic excellence. Further, I do not entirely agree with Stemonitis' comments to you; in particular I think that you are right to say that "Watsonian" applies to only the GB vice-counties.

Why don't you explain your objections here, rather than just keep reverting my changes, which did NOT simply undo yours, but starting a different line of approach?

If you were really intersted in Acadamic excellence you would be getting your mate to tone down on the personal attacks. MacStep (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am angry because I am being patronised and insulted by anglocentric supposed academics. MacStep (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how I am patronizing or insulting you. Further, I resent the accusation of being anglocentric. As it happens – not that it's relevant – I am 1/4 Irish and my wife is 1/2 Irish, so that I have many Irish relatives from County Cork, an area not noted for its political sympathies with the English.

This is simply not relevant to the issue. Watson introduced a system of VCs for Great Britain. A variant of this system was later introduced for (the island of) Ireland. The combined system is called in all sources I can find "Vice-counties of the British Isles". I personally think it's wrong to fall the entire system "Watsonian" not because of my view but because I can't find a source for it. I have been trying to improve the article in this respect. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]