Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon/archive1

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon edit

I'm nominating this primarily because I want to get feedback on how it (and the equivalent lists for other "Areas of Search") can be improved. But if WP gets a load of new Featured Lists out of this exercise, even better. SP-KP 23:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References? Renata 01:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the "Note on sourcing of information"? SP-KP 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is not a conventional method to cite sources. Renata 11:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you tell me which of the conventional methods you think would work best here. SP-KP 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the usual ==References== section at the bottom with properly formated references (i.e. using {{cite web}} or cite.php or something like that). Renata 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With 86 references?? SP-KP 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? :) Well, this would cover the names of the sites. But then you need to show where area and years and reasons for designation came from. Renata 14:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I thought 86 would be an unreasonably large number, but if not, then that's fine. What do you would be the limit though? Cumbria has the largest number of sites, 240, I think - would a list of 240 references be acceptable? SP-KP 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, Cumbria's count is 278! Also Devon has 210, and North Yorkshire 240. SP-KP 15:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you could show some address where you only need to click into subpage that would be fine, I think. But I went to the address above and I could not find the area of year quickly... Could you give an exact address with all info for one sample site? Renata 17:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. All the site-by-site data is taken from documents called SSSI citation sheets - as an example, Ashton Court's is here SP-KP 18:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would adding an extra narrow column to the right hand side of the table & using cite web (copy & paste from the individual pages) would automatically generate the ref list at the end - I will play with this on the List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset as there are currently far fewer entries than on Avon & see if this meets what people are recomending. — Rod ^talk 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umh, I think all you really need is this link. No? Renata 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold star for you. Brilliant - thanks. SP-KP 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So just now convert everything correctly into ==Reference== section and be done with it ;) Renata 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved in editing some of the entries on this page & have raised the issue of Avon no longer being a county, but I hope the explanation at the top of the page covers this. References are included on the linked pages (at least to the English Nature citation) but I'm not sure how these could/should be included on the list itself.— Rod ^talk 09:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very nice. How about a link to this search for all SSSIs in Avon? It would also be good to add a link to the citation sheets for each site in the table. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should this not be at List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon? The current title assumes the reader already knows what the acronym refers to. Oldelpaso 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of existing featured lists use acronyms in their titles, and SSSI is explained in the first line of the lead. However, happy to go with consensus on this. What do others think? SP-KP 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with fully spelled out name. Renata 11:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spell it out. "SSSI" is not a common acronym. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I'll do that. SP-KP 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you make the link to Avon in the introduction go directly to the specific Avon rather than to a disambig page. Witt y lama 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot! Fixed. SP-KP 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Needs areas in square miles or acres. No explanation of checks and x's (would be less confusing if only checkmarks were used.) Rmhermen 17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll add a note explaining crosses & check marks. I note your comment abour areas - can you explain your reasoning? SP-KP 22:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While not wanting to be presumptuous by stepping in on someone else's comment, that looks like a reference to WP:MOSNUM. Oldelpaso 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expland on that? SP-KP 22:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, WP:MOSNUM#Units_of_measurement, the convention that units should be expressed in both metric and imperial to reach as wide an audience as possible, with the converted unit in parentheses. Oldelpaso 22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which line is that on, I can't see it. SP-KP 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I paraphrased to include more than one point in one sentence, but to quote from said page:

Wikipedia articles are intended for people anywhere in the world...
...put the source value first and the converted value second.
Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose SI units as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. Mostly U.S.-centric subjects will have a reason to use non-SI units with SI units in parentheses.

List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, to pick a featured list using units regularly, gives examples of this in practice. Oldelpaso 23:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, although I still can't see any explicit mention of Imperial units in those points (it just says non-SI units, which could mean any one of many systems of measurement). Is there anything which says that Imperial units specifically need to be given. SP-KP 10:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American traditional units is the intention of those rules (not Imperial). We want articles to be usable by the widest audience possible. Rmhermen 16:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American as in USA, or ? SP-KP 17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rmhermen, any chance of a reply? SP-KP 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object until a proper "References" section is added. Otherwise, I am content. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]