Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire edit

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in British counties are FLs. Almost all were passed in 2006-8, and in my view the fields chosen were not always the most helpful for readers. I have deleted designation date as this will be of interest to very few readers, and added columns for the Natural England information pages (which were previously references), photographs and access. The other designations column was added before I started working on the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw Another interesting list - just a few comments/questions:

  • I'm not sure that everything included in "Other designations" should be called "designations". The AONB, GCR, LNR, NNR, RHPG & SM are formally recognised by government agencies or quangos with statutory roles, whereas NT, RSPB, WT & WTBCN presumably represent the organisations which own or manage the sites, but don't have statutory powers. I'm not sure about NCR.
  • Yes this has occurred to me. Whoever started putting in the other designations column used it as a ragbag. I don't think GCR and NCR are official designations - they indicate that the site was listed in authoritative works called Geological Conservation Review and Nature Conservation Review in the 1990s which are mentioned in SSSI citations. RSPB and WTBCN mean managed by the organisation. NT and WT mean (so far as I know) owned by the organisation but not necessarily managed by it. I cannot think of a better heading and I am reluctant to delete useful information. Any suggestions?
  • Maybe "Other designations, owners and managers" in the key but that gets a bit long for the column header.— Rod talk 21:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "Other classifications"?
  • That would work for me.— Rod talk 17:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the location column I'm glad you have included both Lat & Long & Grid Ref; however I would have used <br> to put the grid ref onto a third line to make the column narrower - minor and not covered by the criteria.
  • I am not clear where to put <br> as it comes out on the third line on both the computers I have checked. Can you advise where I should put it in {{gbmappingitem|TL088298|51.956|-0.418|name=Barton Hills}}
  • I haven't used Template:Gbmappingitem and have always entered them as separate items - it probably comes out as two lines for me because I use wide screens.— Rod talk 21:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure the change is necessary if narrower screens make it three lines, but I will change it to be the same as List of local nature reserves in Somerset if you think it would be helpful. What do you think?
  • No its not necessary. As I put in my original comment "minor and not covered by the criteria".— Rod talk 17:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yelden redirects to Yielden - any particular reasons for the choice of this version of the name?
  • It is Yelden on the SSSI citation - and on road signs in the area. I thought it would avoid confusion to use the same spelling rather than the alternative one in the Wiki article.
  • If you sort by area there is a problem that 130.9 & 148.4 come before 16.4
  • It is sorting on the first digit and I cannot work out why. I have posted a request for help on the convert talk page.
  • PS An editor has kindly fixed the problem.
  • wasn't aware you could add |sortable to the convert template either.~~
  • We have discussed this several times. NE consistently capitalises whereas Wiki is inconsistent - Site of Special Scientific Interest but National nature reserve. I think it is better to follow NE rather than have one line capitalised and another not depending on the vagaries of Wiki usage.
  • I see the list is already has inconsistent capitalisation as LNR is shown as Local nature reserve so I have changed NNR similarly.
  • But now we have capilatised "National Nature Reserves" in the lead & lower case "National nature reserve" in the key (it also has a comma which the other don't).— Rod talk 17:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6 Natural England list does have a publisher/accessdate
  • Fixed.
  • Refs 19 & 20 "Dunstable Downs and the Whipsnade Estate" from NT both point to the same document with slightly different titles - why?
  • Fixed.
  • Refs 24 & 25 "Galley and Warden Hills SSSI" point to the same document
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 28 "KENSWORTH CHALK PIT" is capitalised
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 44 (Totternhoe Knolls) has a stray ~ before the reference
  • Fixed.

Most of these are fairly minor and shouldn't be too difficult to fix.— Rod talk 09:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • All my queries have now been addresses, so I can support as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 16:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Think the last sentence in the third paragraph could do with a reference
  • There is no reference. I just counted up the number of sites in each local authority area. I can delete is this is OR.
  • Should be ok thinking about it, as each site is individually cited anyway. NapHit (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the first row of the table has rowscopes, the rest need them as well to meet MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS
  • Done.
  • Do the images in the table need alt text?
  • Done.
  • Just a suggestion, could maybe add a tooltip for the B and G columns in the table
See here and note the Pts column. It's up to whether you include it's not a major issue. NapHit (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Support List meets the criteria. Great work. NapHit (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – At first reading I was surprised to see external links from the last column to citations, but this makes good sense and is easier for the reader to follow (one click rather than the two clicks if the links were banished to the references section). Moreover there are ample precedents for external links from tables in Featured Lists on SSSIs (here, here and here). Very pleased to support the promotion of this page to FL. Meets all the criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 12:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Sites_of_Special_Scientific_Interest_in_Bedfordshire/archive1&oldid=1138484437"