User talk:Dipu k
|
E group discussions[edit]
Hi Dipu, Check Reliable sources policy - so discussions are not reliable, the only sources can be those from journals, books or other reliable sources and from certain high quality websites which are operated by organizations known for their reliability. Most people in discussion forums will also be able to cite their sources. It is unusual for any quality information to be claimed to be known to only one person or a few persons and not found in a publication. Shyamal (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so the description of the courtship of Painted Bush Quail fails the reliable source test - so unless Nitin can publish a full description of the display in a newsletter (which would require comparisons with the displays of other related species, the info cannot go into the wiki article). Shyamal (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The whole idea is that Wikipedia does not take the onus of ensuring accuracy of information- instead by ensuring that it is traceable to other reliable sources, it delegates this responsibility. Essentially like all encyclopaedias it is a tertiary source, putting in direct field observations would make it a minefield of original research (see WP:NOR). The idea however is that all material be traceable to other sources. This is precisely why more people should be publishing in the numerous bird journals and also doing more literature research. I certainly think that a high quality reporting website where photographs, sight records and behavioural notes can be collated with a bit of rigour (just a bit of effort in addition to uploading photos). If such a site is set up and gains sufficient reputation, then that could be cited. Shyamal (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, if we are working on the Indian bird articles, we could distribute our efforts - I have worked up a number of them and mainly working from common to rare - my progress and status list is on User:Shyamal/todo Also note that most of the bird editors on WP are on WP:BIRD and discussions happen on WT:BIRD. Shyamal (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dont bother/worry about that list, just for my reference. I tick it based on what extent of the available literature is covered (big tick means most major refs seen, small tick when I feel uncertain) and (stars) how well the life-history aspects are covered in the literature. As you might expect, a lot of work remains to be done in terms of actual field research. The items lower down the list with no ticks or stars are all articles to be improved. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah ok. The list was generated from BirdSpot and the numbers were the number of reports for that species, a rough indicator of how commonly the bird was encountered. I had then sorted it by descending order so that I would work on the commoner species first. Of course, I have frequently broken order of working to cover some enigmatic and rare species. Shyamal (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dont bother/worry about that list, just for my reference. I tick it based on what extent of the available literature is covered (big tick means most major refs seen, small tick when I feel uncertain) and (stars) how well the life-history aspects are covered in the literature. As you might expect, a lot of work remains to be done in terms of actual field research. The items lower down the list with no ticks or stars are all articles to be improved. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, if we are working on the Indian bird articles, we could distribute our efforts - I have worked up a number of them and mainly working from common to rare - my progress and status list is on User:Shyamal/todo Also note that most of the bird editors on WP are on WP:BIRD and discussions happen on WT:BIRD. Shyamal (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- The whole idea is that Wikipedia does not take the onus of ensuring accuracy of information- instead by ensuring that it is traceable to other reliable sources, it delegates this responsibility. Essentially like all encyclopaedias it is a tertiary source, putting in direct field observations would make it a minefield of original research (see WP:NOR). The idea however is that all material be traceable to other sources. This is precisely why more people should be publishing in the numerous bird journals and also doing more literature research. I certainly think that a high quality reporting website where photographs, sight records and behavioural notes can be collated with a bit of rigour (just a bit of effort in addition to uploading photos). If such a site is set up and gains sufficient reputation, then that could be cited. Shyamal (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Nicobar Megapode[edit]
Good start with that one. There is a public domain image here Shyamal (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was hoping that the image could be uploaded to http://commons.wikimedia.org but I just noticed that Cecil Boden Kloss died in 1949, which means the image will go into public domain only in the year 2019. No, external site images cannot be linked into Wikipedia articles, the only option is to obtain public domain or images released under creative commons licensing without any restriction (including restriction to non-commercial usage). Shyamal (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
May be of interest[edit]
Wikipedia:Meetup/Bangalore/Bangalore16 Will look over Tibetan Snowcock soon. Shyamal (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Look out for Hume's Ground Tit on your trip and in general would be great it would be nice if you could also get photographs of anything people, landscapes, plants from the region. Shyamal (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
All ok?[edit]
Heard about the terrible weather and flash floods, hope all is well. Shyamal (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)