Talk:Site of Special Scientific Interest

message: The list of SSSIs on this page is never going to be complete, I suspect. I'm not sure it adds much to the page. Perhaps it should be made into a category (if there isn't already one) and removed from the actual SSSI page? A few examples of SSSIs with reasonable pages can serve instead. Any views on this suggestion? Naturenet 11:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - given that there are over 4000 SSSIs in England alone , attempting to list them is not only a futile task but could be quite misleading (someone visiting the page at the moment could be forgiven for thinking that they're mostly found in Derbyshire, Kent and Somerset). Most SSSIs would never qualify for an article on that basis alone, anyway. A category is the way forward I think. Blisco 14:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of SSSIs 

message: The article fails to explain what ramifications the designation has. HOw are these areas protected? Owned by the state?, restricted from development?, restricted from entry? just a pretty name to hang on the door? Rmhermen 17:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go at covering the legal aspects -- any comments?   Richard New Forest 23:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How protected

message: I've set up a new template, . Using *  generates:
Link to example
I'm happy if people want to copy this for other countries; or to add a country/ designating body field and the relevant URLs. Andy Mabbett 11:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: The English Nature citation sheets are now no longer viewable at the web location cited in our articles here. I'll try to find out whether they are still online - presumably they're at Natural England's website. We'll need to do an update across all SSSIs - not a small task - maybe it could be done semi-automatically? Does anyone have any experience of bulk updates? SP-KP (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to be back online - lets hope they stay like that! Suicidalhamster (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are? :) A long time in the waiting. Rudget  (Help?) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing problem 

message: to not move the article. While its clear the original legislation did not capitalize the term, its also clear the ongoing, and common usage adopted capitalization. In this case, verifiability trumps any claims of "truth". Rockpocket 18:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone move this page accordingly? Mooretwin (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that does not constitute adequate discussion at all. It needs to have more discussion, and a request made at WP:RM which you should already know about, given your previous contributions on a number of articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it need more discussion? Who is disputing this? Mooretwin (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of editors, if you look at the editing history, where your change has been reverted twice. Take it to WP:RM.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: An oft-repeated mistake is no less of a mistake. The primary source is clear that capitals are unnecessary. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Those categories can all be fixed. This is an encyclopaedia. It should be correct. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: By that logic, should "civil partner" be written as "Civil Partner" because it has a specific legal status? Mooretwin (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would perhaps be logical, were it regularly abbreviated as "CP". But that's really irrelevant here - my comments on logic and clarity are there to explain the likely reasoning behind the fact that it's regularly capitalised in most sources relating to SSSIs. It's the fact that common usage in reliable sources tends to capitalise it that makes that the correct Wikipedia article title - the same is not true for civil partners, making the comparison not very useful. ~ mazca t|c 11:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My goodness, so you think that if something is abbreviated using initials, therefore the phrase itself has to be capitalised? Yes, I accept - indeed, I specifically stated it in this RM(!) - the reasoning behind people using capitals. But that is a mistake - you don't have to capitalise a phrase because it is commonly abbreviated. The capitalisation in other sources is not correct - WP, as an encyclopaedia should reflect the correct form as per the legislation. If other bodies choose to use capitals that is their business. Mooretwin (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion based on what I said, you seem to be completely putting words in my mouth. I've said all I feel I need to here, any further interpretation of what I said is your choice. Thanks. ~ mazca t|c 13:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Natural England's mistakes need not be repeated on Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Natural England is the official agency that oversees SSSIs in England. It is very arrogant of you to suggest that they have made a mistake on every single piece of documentation that they have produced w.r.t. SSSIs. --TimTay (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make it immune from sloppy writing. Look at the primary source - the statute which created the designation! Goodness me. Think about it. Mooretwin (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  Comment - as the nom your !vote of support is already assumed. Please strike this from the !vote sheet. ColdmachineTalk 09:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, we know that, but the designation doesn't have capitals. Look at the primary source which created the designation!! THAT is the official use! Mooretwin (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not the "official use", it is the statute.  "Official use" is what is used in official circles now.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment below: the sources quoted in support are not the primary source.  Richard New Forest (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: That's a very roundabout way to argue for capitals!  The legislation establishes and then regulates the designation, and no legislation ever uses capitals ... yet you say it should use capitals just because the exact phrase isn't used in section 28 (even though the marginal note to section 28 doesn't use capitals!) Tell me - why does none of the legislation use capitals, if the phrase should be capitalised?! Why does the marginal note not use capitals, if the term is meant to be capitalised? Mooretwin (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And - by your own stated logic - do you accept that "area of outstanding natural beauty" should not be capitalised, since the "principal defining legislation" in that case quite clearly uses lower case letters? Mooretwin (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's a recent example, which uses SSSI, but spells it out without capitals: [The Register of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Scotland) Regulations 2008] - article 3(2) The SSSI register is to contain the following information and map in relation to each site of special scientific interest ... Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my comments above.  The phrase does not come directly from the legislation, it is an independent phrase far older than its use in any legislation.  It makes no difference what the usage in later legislation is: usage in legislation is quite different from that in general writing.  Richard New Forest (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the phrase come from, then? Mooretwin (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just made up to be convenient: it was too much trouble to say or even abbreviate "Area of Land of Special Interest by Reason of Its Flora, Fauna, or Geological or Physiographical Features".  The original widely-used "Importance" was later changed to "Interest" to match the phrasing in the Act better.  However, in notification documents the Act's phrasing is used: something like "It is the opinion of Natural England that the land outlined on the map is of special interest by reason of ..." etc.  Site of Special Scientific Interest is a formal name given to the designation for convenience.  Richard New Forest (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: And that formal name does not need capitals, and is not capitalised in the legislation which governs it. Mooretwin (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The legislation does not "govern" the capitalisation.  Anyway, no-one is saying it specifically needs capitals, though in my view if I had the choice I'd probably use them; you would prefer not.  Neither of us can choose: the usage has "chosen", and we are both stuck with it.  In the case of ancient woodland, I backed down on the same discussion, because usage there is generally (and mysteriously) not capitalised.  It's about time you did the equivalent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard New Forest (talk • contribs) 
* Oppose As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.  Most sources I have found use the capitalised version, therefore I cannot support the move. ColourSarge (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: This is a spurious argument.  "SSSI" is not a title, it's a designation, and it makes no difference whether it's the name of a single one or the term for the designation generally: both are almost always capitalised. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not spurious. The same principle applies, whether it's a title or a designation. Mooretwin (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim that this situation is equivalent to President, King etc.  Caps are indeed used for Site of Special Scientific Interest when it is "Somewhere Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest", but (as you now very well know) they are also used for the name of the designation generally – unlike President etc.  The two situations are not equivalent, and so yes, it is a spurious argument.  Richard New Forest (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, spurious.  It's not capitalised because it's an initialism with the initial letters emphasised, it's capitalised just because it is capitalised.  You won't change it by finding other examples which are not comparable.  Richard New Forest (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it shouldn't be capitalised. It is grammatically wrong so to do, and I believe the error has begun by people thinking it ought to be capitalised because the abbreviation is in capitals (someone on here even said as much). An oft-repeated grammatical mistake is no less a mistake. Mooretwin (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammatically wrong...?!  Where does that come from?  Cap initials are common in English for such terms, and there is no "grammatical" rule against them.  Richard New Forest (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I am in doubt wether Natural England still uses the AOSs, as in the database here you can't select for ex. "Avon" but only "Somerset" which also includes some of the Avon entries like for example Ashton Court. For me that seems that Natural Enland is using a new system. Also, many of the links provided in the article are dead. --Matthiasb (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: NE is not using a new system. So far as I know AOS has always meant county as here. Avon is a former county which was abolished in 1996, and when most of the lists were created in around 2006, NE had not got around to updating for the change in boundaries. They finally got around to moving sites to the current counties and deleting the defunct counties a few years ago, but no one has updated the Wikipedia lists. There is a great need for someone to move the sites from Avon and Humberside (the other defunct county) to their current counties, but it would be a big job.  It is also true that many of the links in the SSSI article are now dead links - as in so many articles.Dudley Miles (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, there weren't that many  links in the article to start with. But I've now updated all the dead ones and deleted two to a personal website which only provided a lookup tool which no longer exists. I've worked with SSSIs over many years since 1990, and have to admit to never encountering AOS.The search database uses counties, whilst NE also use Landscape Character Units (formerly Natural Areas). I think the govt's forthcoming 25 Year Environment Plan is using even larger priority areas to take action in. So I suspect it's the tense of this section that needs changing so that it refers to the c1989 selection process, and doesn't imply it's relevant to today's situation.Nick Moyes (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Follow up: I've now changed the tense and added references to support the AOS concept. I've also lowered this section's hierarchical significance by one level, which seems appropriate. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AOSs still valid? 

message: On this page, we have a few instances of the term "an SSSI". From personal experience I've not heard of a Site of Special Scientific Interest being an "ess-ess-ess-eye"; rather, I commonly hear "triple-ess-eye". The latter would mean the article should be "a SSSI". Thoughts? MIDI (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both are correct. If you google how to 'pronounce "SSSI"' there are several audios which all have "ess-ess-ess-eye", but maybe this is more common among non-experts whereas "triple-ess-eye" is more common among experts. I don't think we need to change the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree with . I've worked in the environmental/biodiversity field for 30 years, alongside staff from English Nature and its successor, Natural England. Referring to an SSSI as an 'ess-ess-ess-eye' is extremely common, both amongst insiders and the general public. Clearly, that's how the letters are spelled on the page, ant can't be pronounced as a word.  Yes, We do also call them triple-ess-eyes, but I think that is really on only an expert/insider term. Just thinking about WP:COMMONNAME, how would non experts even think to know it's referred to as a 'triple SI'? Both terms are valid, and "an SSSI" is the right way to refer to a Site of Special Scientific Interest. (and not 'a SSSI'). Thank for raising it, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite article 

message: I have recently learned from a seasoned practitioner in these matters that those GCR sites which didn't subsequently achieve geological (or indeed mixed) SSSI status are nevertheless considered to be 'candidate SSSIs' and as such treated as though they were already SSSIs when it comes to the planning process - at least in Wales though it could conceivably be different elsewhere in the UK. Might be worth adding, if suitable sources are identified. thanks Geopersona (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, in fact I note this text in reference to Scottish sites:"However, more than 200 GCR sites, known as ‘unnotified GCR sites’, have no protective SSSI designation status. Significant areas of almost 30 further GCR sites also have no protective SSSI designation status. National Park authorities and some local authorities, therefore, treat unnotified GCR sites as ‘candidate SSSIs’ and afford them the same protection as SSSIs." on the NatureScot page at https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/protected-areas-and-species/protected-areas/local-designations/geological-conservation-review-sites  Geopersona (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of GCR sites