Talk:Kentish plover

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Body

message: :Text: "This bird has six geographical races". 
:Taxobox lists 3.
:I was too lazy to look it up on the quick back then ;-) but basicallly, this article too needs a solid secondary WP:RS as groundwork. If you check the sourcecode you'll note that there are a lot of primary souces waiting; while "hard science" PS data is OK if it's mainstream, it still shouldn't stand on its own but complement a secondary source. In this case the RS to choose is probably Shorebirds and/or HBW. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter is touched on in the paper cited at the end of the paragraph. It says subspecies rather than races. William Avery (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradict

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo showed wrong species 

message: 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: . 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.  could I please ask either of you for your interpretation of the following passage: 
--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's pretty simple - you have to photograph (observe, film) in a way that will not disturb the animals. It is not a blanked ban on all photography-like actions, just on the ones that disturb the animals. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. It's a relief to know that the Policja is not actually lurking around wetlands, waiting to nab anyone who looks in the direction of a bird. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Piotrus. It's really not a rocket science. - Darwinek (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to you as well! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Illegal to be photographed in Poland"