This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In light of: (1) the bird's no longer breeding in Kent, as the article notes, (2) the widespread distribution of the species, and (3) the multiple common names given, among other factors, should the name of the article be changed (presumably to the scientific name)? -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Appears that the Kentish Plover and Western Snowy Plover are genetically distinctly different and it has been proposed they be recognized as separate species: http://www.bath.ac.uk/bio-sci/biodiversity-lab/publications/kupper_auk_2009.pdf --— Gaff ταλκ 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Current information based on research and literature is rather lacking and needs to be updated. Additionally, all infoprmation on the Snowy plover populations in the US is false and lacking.
Info to add:
Current distribution
Current listing status (T&E)
Recreational disturbance issues
Habitat loss due to coastal development (world wide)
Coatal engineering projects
Climate change and coastal impacts
Snowy plover girl (
talk) 15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Common Snipe which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 09:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It caught my eye when we googled some Kentish Plover photos to help some friends with ID that a prominent result shows a photo that does not look like a Kentish plover at all and to my surprise, this link led to Wikipedia. I discussed it with some other birders on birdforum.net and the consensus seems to be that it was a Lesser Sand Plover, a species common in the area from which the photo comes according to Commons. Sadly I do not have a very nice photo of a Kentish Plover myself to provide, but I think no photo is better than a misleading one, seeing how this photo has already spread over the internet, presumably from here. Opisska ( talk) 13:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@
The Great Mule of Eupatoria: this really takes the cake. By your inventive reading, it is not only illegal to photograph the species in Poland, it is illegal to observe it! With all respect to the mind-controlling powers of the Polish government, that is as simply ludicrous misreading. Some basic common sense should tell you that this passage states does not state that there is an interdict on photography and observation because these practices disturb or crowd the animals, but instead an interdict on photography and observation practices that disturb or crowd the animals. Which is an entirely different and entirely commonplace regulation that differs not a pip from that of the US, UK, or France, to name a few. And then you add this: That is further supported by the fact that practically no photograph of the Kentish plover has been taken in Poland, even though it is well within its range
. Head meet desk.
Rather than slug it out about a Google translation (
which supports MY interpretation, BTW), I'll ask the interpretation of a couple editors that I know speak Polish. @
Piotrus and
Darwinek: could I please ask either of you for your interpretation of the following passage:
W stosunku do dziko występujących zwierząt, oznaczonych symbolem (3) w załączniku nr 1 do rozporządzenia, wprowadza się dodatkowo zakaz fotografowania, filmowania lub obserwacji, mogących powodować ich płoszenie lub niepokojenie.
-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
We shall see about it The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 01:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems that it has been resolved. The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 03:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In light of: (1) the bird's no longer breeding in Kent, as the article notes, (2) the widespread distribution of the species, and (3) the multiple common names given, among other factors, should the name of the article be changed (presumably to the scientific name)? -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Appears that the Kentish Plover and Western Snowy Plover are genetically distinctly different and it has been proposed they be recognized as separate species: http://www.bath.ac.uk/bio-sci/biodiversity-lab/publications/kupper_auk_2009.pdf --— Gaff ταλκ 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Current information based on research and literature is rather lacking and needs to be updated. Additionally, all infoprmation on the Snowy plover populations in the US is false and lacking.
Info to add:
Current distribution
Current listing status (T&E)
Recreational disturbance issues
Habitat loss due to coastal development (world wide)
Coatal engineering projects
Climate change and coastal impacts
Snowy plover girl (
talk) 15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Common Snipe which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 09:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It caught my eye when we googled some Kentish Plover photos to help some friends with ID that a prominent result shows a photo that does not look like a Kentish plover at all and to my surprise, this link led to Wikipedia. I discussed it with some other birders on birdforum.net and the consensus seems to be that it was a Lesser Sand Plover, a species common in the area from which the photo comes according to Commons. Sadly I do not have a very nice photo of a Kentish Plover myself to provide, but I think no photo is better than a misleading one, seeing how this photo has already spread over the internet, presumably from here. Opisska ( talk) 13:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@
The Great Mule of Eupatoria: this really takes the cake. By your inventive reading, it is not only illegal to photograph the species in Poland, it is illegal to observe it! With all respect to the mind-controlling powers of the Polish government, that is as simply ludicrous misreading. Some basic common sense should tell you that this passage states does not state that there is an interdict on photography and observation because these practices disturb or crowd the animals, but instead an interdict on photography and observation practices that disturb or crowd the animals. Which is an entirely different and entirely commonplace regulation that differs not a pip from that of the US, UK, or France, to name a few. And then you add this: That is further supported by the fact that practically no photograph of the Kentish plover has been taken in Poland, even though it is well within its range
. Head meet desk.
Rather than slug it out about a Google translation (
which supports MY interpretation, BTW), I'll ask the interpretation of a couple editors that I know speak Polish. @
Piotrus and
Darwinek: could I please ask either of you for your interpretation of the following passage:
W stosunku do dziko występujących zwierząt, oznaczonych symbolem (3) w załączniku nr 1 do rozporządzenia, wprowadza się dodatkowo zakaz fotografowania, filmowania lub obserwacji, mogących powodować ich płoszenie lub niepokojenie.
-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
We shall see about it The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 01:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems that it has been resolved. The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 03:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)