![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I noticed in your opening comment at WP:AE "seems to have been unwilling to debate the issues", and that struck me as more than a little odd. All that I have been doing is debating the issue. Perhaps there is more to this than I am seeing? For example, later on you mentioned "His posts have, in my view, been somewhat confused and repetitive". First, that is his or her, or their, but in this day and age his has long lost its universal gender. Secondly, normally my writing is at a professional level. Has that really declined to the "somewhat confused" level? Is there actually anything that anyone can point to that I am confused about? Is "confused" a euphemism for "wrong"? Almost all of my focus at MOS has been on correcting an absurd error - of using an endash for a hyphen in names. No one has been able to demonstrate even one name that uses an endash. How is that confused? Apteva ( talk) 17:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I notice at the end "He or she" is used, would it be possible for you to add [or she] to the place where he is used? Thanks. Apteva ( talk) 17:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Peter I put the link in since following the Kew List instructions for the country/region codes got me nowhere so I put the code url in to help. My problem with these pages (I'm only concerned with species found in Ireland) was that they don't present a world (Palearctic) view. Maybe it would be best to write a short article on the Kew list.What do you think? -the alternative is to give a country list in the article.I'd be grateful for any help with the inclusion of text from the Italian pages. Maybe German too. All the best from the Emerald Isle Robert aka Notafly ( talk) 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
We could really use your expertise on the ape discussion board as there is a very active discussion right now. I am trying to get the community to create more balanced articles on apes and monkey to reflect the inconsistent definitions both in and out of the sciences, but the articles are dominated by people who want to push only one definition Historyhorror ( talk) 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Because you participated at some point in this lengthy discussion about the wording of MOS guidelines pertaining to the use of BC/AD and BCE/CE, I thought you might want to contribute to the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE). I'm trying to notify all the individuals who took part in the earlier discussion but haven't weighed in yet for the current one. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style's talk page. Short version: I argue that logical quotation is not akin to misc. ENGVAR issues, because failure to use it opens a floodgate to WP:V problems, and "American" typesetters' quotation can be and is being bent in that direction on purpose for POV/OR-pushing purposes. WP must use LQ or never be credible. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib.
13:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Peter, no problem about overwriting the changes that I made, I was really just testing to see how far off the list was from what it should be. You systematic replacement is much better (and I'd prefer to skip the Spanish common names, leaving them for the Spanish wikipedia). Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 18:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I was merely implementing the changes suggested by Wikid77. I did try to implement a testing process before the implementation. It seems to have not caught all the scenarios. The code is too complicated by for me to understand. I was glad we had one other person who was able to figure out what Martin did and change the code. The taxobox is too important to be single threaded. — Ganeshk ( talk) 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
| parent = {{Taxobox/taxon|{{{taxon|<noinclude>Acacia </noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>|}}}|{{{1|}}} }}<!--
| parent = {{Taxobox/taxon|{{{taxon|<noinclude>Acacia</noinclude>}}}|{{{1|}}} }}<!--
To avoid expansion-depth errors inside of Template:Taxobox/taxonomy/ex3, I have listed the current chains of taxon names under Eukaryota, which could be updated in future years as taxon levels are changed. The taxon names are currently ordered in the sequence as follows:
By updating that one template, then those upper-level taxon names would be changed for all the many thousands of related articles, within minutes. Those specific names are listed in the template to reduce the expansion depth. - Wikid77 ( talk) 12:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:MOS#continuing. Sorry for the inconvenience. Can you reply there? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Peter. I've just had a read of Hyacinthoides lingulata, and was struck by the line "Its leaves are not fully hardy". Although I think I know what is meant, I wonder if such terminology doesn't always need clarifying by geographical context (e.g. in this case, not always hardy in the UK), because of course all wild species must be fully hardy in the area and climate to which they are adapted. This is implicitly supported by my Collins English Dictionary, which lists definition number 4 of "hardy" as "(of plants) able to live out of doors throughout the winter". I know the RHS have their own hardiness definitions (which have changed recently of course), but I'm thinking such descriptions don't fit very well in a global project like Wikipedia. Any thoughts? (I posted here rather than at the article's talk page as I imagine this subject is relevant to many articles, and it just happens that you've written this one). PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have approved your request for rollback. Thank you for all your excellent contributions and HAPPY NEW YEAR :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Peter for your brilliabt contribution to the Gibraltar Botoanic Gardens list. I woke up this morning and it was like the elves had visited. No new shoes but a shiny list with apparently much more content. Pass on my best wishes to whoever is in charge of those clever elves. Victuallers ( talk) 09:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent message, sorry I was inconsiderate and forgot to reply. I also completely forgot that I had created a paleobotany stub type, which is definitely useful in the context you said it was. :) Abyssal ( talk) 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I noticed when editing Musa beccarii that it shows these red links under 'Templates used in this preview'
Also, I've tried keeping to the {{reflist|refs= citation style you've already been using (which I think I will try in the future, as it seems superior to the one I've been using heretofore). Although everything looks as though it worked out perfectly, sometimes I miss things I don't know to look for. Let me know if I've done it improperly in any way. Thanks, Hamamelis ( talk) 20:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
|synonyms_ref=
.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
02:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Hi Peter, your view of some ref displays got me thinking, because I partly agree with you. If you would check out Coopernookia, and see what you think of its species list ref display. It may be an improvement. Hamamelis ( talk) 03:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
|
![]() |
|
No problem, Peter. It's so nice to see Musa (genus) looking so much bluer than red these days, thanks to your efforts. Have a cat! this one looks to be ever alert (mostly for mischief ). Hamamelis ( talk) 07:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC) |
I think this sounds nicer than " skunk cabbage" of any sort. You started the article, and I wonder if you can check any sources on this issue of whether it stinks? In particular there is a UK reference which hints that at least someone noticed there was no bad smell, but without being able to see the referenced article I'm a bit stuck. Please see also the note I wrote on the talk page. Imaginatorium ( talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at the page. I added a reference -- I don't think the introduction as a whole reads well, but don't know quite how to handle it. After all, in a sense, what should the Japanese name have to do with it? Yet the "common name" (I know this is correct as a technical term, but if a plant doesn't grow in an English-speaking area, it isn't really a common name in the normal sense), um, is misleading, and how things are named by people who actually grow up with them should be significant. Imaginatorium ( talk) 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I copied and pasted the list from the Spanish Wikipedia. The source given at the end of the article is Musa balbisiana L. A. Colla, Memoria della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 25 : 384 (1820) and E. E. Cheesman, Kew Bulletin 3 (1): 14 (1948). If some of the names don't agree with reliable sources they should certainly be removed ( Xufanc ( talk) 04:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)).
Probably not an area of your particular expertise, but should you have the time, would you please have a gander at Huckleberry, particularly the Nomenclature section? Much of it appears to include what should be in other sections, but in some cases there appears to be (to my my eyes, anyway) some crossover of topics that may include both nomenclature with other sections, somewhat embedded into one another; that is, they seem to be very mixed up! But I'll admit, I may be wrong... Thanks, Hamamelis ( talk) 23:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Peter, do you agree that the word "supragenus" should be removed from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms? Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 19:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for breaking the impasse at MOSNUM about the grammar. Michael Glass ( talk) 23:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
In regard to
this revision at 23:01, 12 February 2013, please note that "singular verb" does not mean "verb without s at the end", and "plural verb" does not mean "verb with s at the end". A singular subject governs a singular verb, and a plural subject governs a plural verb.—
Subject and Verb Agreement | Grammar Rules
—
Wavelength (
talk)
01:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It's called an "apostrophe", not a "single quote", unless it's used as a quote-within-a-quote. It's so sad that people who set Wikipedia "style" policies seem to be mostly incompetent in punctuation and typography. If this keeps up, mankind will soon be unable to communicate. Babel. — Quicksilver T @ 17:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Do you have an ORCID ID? If so, you can add it to your user page, using {{ Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Peter, if you ever run across another problem like the one you had with http://www.cosbyrampfestival.org, you can try using the wondrous Wayback Machine; it has archived previous versions of websites by date. Although this example was fixed by Michaelmas1957 (by finding a completely other source which had the same info needed), the wayback machine divulged for me this, which led me to this! Hamamelis ( talk) 22:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Peter, any particular reason for reverting my edits? Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 14:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Your last edit to Talk:Pseudotsuga had four effects, and I'm not sure which were intended.
I would really like to close down the move discussions at Talk:Pseudotsuga, to not confuse other editors, admins, or bots. I welcome your participation over at Talk:Pseudotsuga menziesii. May I close these discussions? — hike395 ( talk) 11:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that I inadvertently followed an out of date link from another discussion, and failed to notice that I was adding to an old discussion. Apologies. Reverting is quite correct. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Peter, I used one of your recent comments as an example in a conversation on Epeefleche's talk page. If you have the time, please read the thread. In any event, I don't want you to think I was singling you out unfairly for criticism, and I thought you might want to read my comments to Epee. If you have any questions, let's talk. Best regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I was waiting for you to finish splitting the list, but you seem to have paused. Just wanted to express my appreciation :) Thank you! Hamamelis ( talk) 01:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ARCHAEOBOTANY;c1b55387.1305 for confirmation of my post. Yazee ( talk) 22:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Peter, my reference was to day-month-year dates, such as "15 January 2013," which are the predominant full date format in the UK and Commonwealth countries (with the exception of Canada), as opposed to the American-style month-day-year dates, such as "January 15, 2013," which are the predominant form in the United States. I agree that the abbreviated slash dates such as "12/1/2013" are ambiguous in an international publication and generally should be avoided. My point was that a small percentage of Americans, including the U.S. military, do use DMY dates, but it is an eccentric minority practice outside the military. Forcing LQ quotation conventions into encyclopedia articles written in American English is no less eccentric in the face of the 99.x% of all American writers and publications that use traditional quotation conventions. As a result, the MOS provisions regarding LQ are among the most widely ignored, and inevitably lead to editor conflict when someone attempts to conform an existing article to LQ. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe I made this error at Fe'i banana! Thanks for noticing and correcting it. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Peter,
Here's a rough draft of text intended to fit above the synonyms material that is currently on the project page. I suspect that it doesn't do justice to your point of view, and, of course, would benefit from your perusal/rejection. One further point that I think would amount to clutter if expressed on the project page, is that I don't think that creating redirects for all synonyms is practical, there are just too many. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 21:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The tricky issue here is what "group" means, and I think something needs to be said here. For example, for extant angiosperms it only makes sense, I believe, to use one classification – currently APGIII. Thus either we use the broad Asparagaceae of APGIII or the segregate families of APGII. In terms of page structure and taxoboxes, as far as I can see, we couldn't use Hyacinthaceae but not Agavaceae even if the consensus in reliable sources favours the former but not the latter. Or maybe there's some clever way round this?Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
In many cases, the synonyms for a plant taxon may be uncontroversial and of little interest to a reader except to serve as pointers to the updated name used in the page title. In other cases, the varied classifications require explanation and/or are of interest in themselves. In the second case, a section of the text area of the page would be needed, which could be called Taxonomic history or Nomenclatural history. When the synonyms are uncontroversial, placing them in the taxobox instead of in the text will keep the list from cluttering the page, and may also protect it from accumulating well-intentioned additions from readers who see some different synonyms listed in an old reference, and do not realize that those names are inconsistent with Wikipedia's chosen classification.
Minor point: it's usually a subsection within a Taxonomy (or as I increasingly prefer Systematics) section rather than a full section.
More controversial perhaps is that I find long lists in the taxobox a problem on many pages. On short pages (e.g. species and genera about which there is little in the literature) it makes the page unbalanced. Even on long pages it can make it difficult to put images in the right place when the taxobox runs too far down the page. I wonder about putting long synonym lists in a "show/hide" section, initially hidden. What do you think?Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
[Followed by the current text]
Hi, thanks for the tip. Can you check the above and below articles that are used to be stubs?:-- Mishae ( talk) 03:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
It have a description and even a sentence about its discovery!-- Mishae ( talk) 22:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
So, all in all, the above list and those two articles are the only ones that I have a question about.-- Mishae ( talk) 22:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Peter, would you be available to help assess the relative historical and scientific importance/significance of botany and biology subjects? None of the present VA/E project participants have any particular expertise in botany or biology topics, and I thought it would be a smart move to reach out to someone who did. Please let me know if your would be interested in helping; the time commitment would not be very great, but would involve you reviewing the relevant sublists, and giving us your opinion regarding the relative significance of each subject (see here.) Are you willing to help? Perhaps several of your Botany project pals would be interested in helping, too? (I promise the VA/E participants are much better behaved than the MOS crowd.) Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
All I know is that the page came back onto the uncategorized articles list. If that happens, I'm obliged to deal with it, and I have no way of knowing whether it's a category you're about to create or simply an error — which means I have to then change the category to one that does exist, because leaving it on the list is not an option. In the future you might want to consider creating the new category before you add it to an article, or adding another category alongside it so that it has at least one existing bluelinked category and thus doesn't get detected as an uncategorized page — but it's really not my responsibility to possess the ability to read your mind. Bearcat ( talk) 06:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
It this is some kind of a joke: Blidingia marginata? I wrote some micrometers and got a Skype number. Can you explain to me please, what went wrong.-- Mishae ( talk) 21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
That makes it much easier to edit the article! Thanks, -- AfadsBad ( talk) 21:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I tried to do a page move, the short article about James Reveal is titled, "J. L. Reveal," for some reason. I cannot move the page, because there is a redirect from "James L. Reveal" already. I clicked on the instructions for requesting a move, and there are a lot of comments about controversial moves, however, this appears uncontroversial. Who knows why it was created under his initials to begin with? It seemed uncontroversial until I got into the edit history; in the edit history it seems there was a fight between a couple of editors about whether it should be called "J.L. Reveal" or "J. L. Reveal."
Is this really a controversial move that requires discussion due to this argument about J.L. versus J. L., when there was no real reason to have it at only the initials to begin with? Should it be at James L., or James L, or James Lauritz, the latter being linked from the list of botanical authorites to the J.L. redirect page to the J. L. article? How does anyone do any work around here with all of the discussion?
Any suggestions, pointers? Thanks, -- AfadsBad ( talk) 04:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
-- AfadsBad ( talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I noticed in your opening comment at WP:AE "seems to have been unwilling to debate the issues", and that struck me as more than a little odd. All that I have been doing is debating the issue. Perhaps there is more to this than I am seeing? For example, later on you mentioned "His posts have, in my view, been somewhat confused and repetitive". First, that is his or her, or their, but in this day and age his has long lost its universal gender. Secondly, normally my writing is at a professional level. Has that really declined to the "somewhat confused" level? Is there actually anything that anyone can point to that I am confused about? Is "confused" a euphemism for "wrong"? Almost all of my focus at MOS has been on correcting an absurd error - of using an endash for a hyphen in names. No one has been able to demonstrate even one name that uses an endash. How is that confused? Apteva ( talk) 17:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I notice at the end "He or she" is used, would it be possible for you to add [or she] to the place where he is used? Thanks. Apteva ( talk) 17:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Peter I put the link in since following the Kew List instructions for the country/region codes got me nowhere so I put the code url in to help. My problem with these pages (I'm only concerned with species found in Ireland) was that they don't present a world (Palearctic) view. Maybe it would be best to write a short article on the Kew list.What do you think? -the alternative is to give a country list in the article.I'd be grateful for any help with the inclusion of text from the Italian pages. Maybe German too. All the best from the Emerald Isle Robert aka Notafly ( talk) 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
We could really use your expertise on the ape discussion board as there is a very active discussion right now. I am trying to get the community to create more balanced articles on apes and monkey to reflect the inconsistent definitions both in and out of the sciences, but the articles are dominated by people who want to push only one definition Historyhorror ( talk) 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Because you participated at some point in this lengthy discussion about the wording of MOS guidelines pertaining to the use of BC/AD and BCE/CE, I thought you might want to contribute to the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE). I'm trying to notify all the individuals who took part in the earlier discussion but haven't weighed in yet for the current one. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style's talk page. Short version: I argue that logical quotation is not akin to misc. ENGVAR issues, because failure to use it opens a floodgate to WP:V problems, and "American" typesetters' quotation can be and is being bent in that direction on purpose for POV/OR-pushing purposes. WP must use LQ or never be credible. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib.
13:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Peter, no problem about overwriting the changes that I made, I was really just testing to see how far off the list was from what it should be. You systematic replacement is much better (and I'd prefer to skip the Spanish common names, leaving them for the Spanish wikipedia). Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 18:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I was merely implementing the changes suggested by Wikid77. I did try to implement a testing process before the implementation. It seems to have not caught all the scenarios. The code is too complicated by for me to understand. I was glad we had one other person who was able to figure out what Martin did and change the code. The taxobox is too important to be single threaded. — Ganeshk ( talk) 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
| parent = {{Taxobox/taxon|{{{taxon|<noinclude>Acacia </noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>|}}}|{{{1|}}} }}<!--
| parent = {{Taxobox/taxon|{{{taxon|<noinclude>Acacia</noinclude>}}}|{{{1|}}} }}<!--
To avoid expansion-depth errors inside of Template:Taxobox/taxonomy/ex3, I have listed the current chains of taxon names under Eukaryota, which could be updated in future years as taxon levels are changed. The taxon names are currently ordered in the sequence as follows:
By updating that one template, then those upper-level taxon names would be changed for all the many thousands of related articles, within minutes. Those specific names are listed in the template to reduce the expansion depth. - Wikid77 ( talk) 12:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:MOS#continuing. Sorry for the inconvenience. Can you reply there? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Peter. I've just had a read of Hyacinthoides lingulata, and was struck by the line "Its leaves are not fully hardy". Although I think I know what is meant, I wonder if such terminology doesn't always need clarifying by geographical context (e.g. in this case, not always hardy in the UK), because of course all wild species must be fully hardy in the area and climate to which they are adapted. This is implicitly supported by my Collins English Dictionary, which lists definition number 4 of "hardy" as "(of plants) able to live out of doors throughout the winter". I know the RHS have their own hardiness definitions (which have changed recently of course), but I'm thinking such descriptions don't fit very well in a global project like Wikipedia. Any thoughts? (I posted here rather than at the article's talk page as I imagine this subject is relevant to many articles, and it just happens that you've written this one). PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have approved your request for rollback. Thank you for all your excellent contributions and HAPPY NEW YEAR :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Peter for your brilliabt contribution to the Gibraltar Botoanic Gardens list. I woke up this morning and it was like the elves had visited. No new shoes but a shiny list with apparently much more content. Pass on my best wishes to whoever is in charge of those clever elves. Victuallers ( talk) 09:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent message, sorry I was inconsiderate and forgot to reply. I also completely forgot that I had created a paleobotany stub type, which is definitely useful in the context you said it was. :) Abyssal ( talk) 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I noticed when editing Musa beccarii that it shows these red links under 'Templates used in this preview'
Also, I've tried keeping to the {{reflist|refs= citation style you've already been using (which I think I will try in the future, as it seems superior to the one I've been using heretofore). Although everything looks as though it worked out perfectly, sometimes I miss things I don't know to look for. Let me know if I've done it improperly in any way. Thanks, Hamamelis ( talk) 20:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
|synonyms_ref=
.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
02:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Hi Peter, your view of some ref displays got me thinking, because I partly agree with you. If you would check out Coopernookia, and see what you think of its species list ref display. It may be an improvement. Hamamelis ( talk) 03:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
|
![]() |
|
No problem, Peter. It's so nice to see Musa (genus) looking so much bluer than red these days, thanks to your efforts. Have a cat! this one looks to be ever alert (mostly for mischief ). Hamamelis ( talk) 07:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC) |
I think this sounds nicer than " skunk cabbage" of any sort. You started the article, and I wonder if you can check any sources on this issue of whether it stinks? In particular there is a UK reference which hints that at least someone noticed there was no bad smell, but without being able to see the referenced article I'm a bit stuck. Please see also the note I wrote on the talk page. Imaginatorium ( talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at the page. I added a reference -- I don't think the introduction as a whole reads well, but don't know quite how to handle it. After all, in a sense, what should the Japanese name have to do with it? Yet the "common name" (I know this is correct as a technical term, but if a plant doesn't grow in an English-speaking area, it isn't really a common name in the normal sense), um, is misleading, and how things are named by people who actually grow up with them should be significant. Imaginatorium ( talk) 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I copied and pasted the list from the Spanish Wikipedia. The source given at the end of the article is Musa balbisiana L. A. Colla, Memoria della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 25 : 384 (1820) and E. E. Cheesman, Kew Bulletin 3 (1): 14 (1948). If some of the names don't agree with reliable sources they should certainly be removed ( Xufanc ( talk) 04:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)).
Probably not an area of your particular expertise, but should you have the time, would you please have a gander at Huckleberry, particularly the Nomenclature section? Much of it appears to include what should be in other sections, but in some cases there appears to be (to my my eyes, anyway) some crossover of topics that may include both nomenclature with other sections, somewhat embedded into one another; that is, they seem to be very mixed up! But I'll admit, I may be wrong... Thanks, Hamamelis ( talk) 23:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Peter, do you agree that the word "supragenus" should be removed from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms? Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 19:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for breaking the impasse at MOSNUM about the grammar. Michael Glass ( talk) 23:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
In regard to
this revision at 23:01, 12 February 2013, please note that "singular verb" does not mean "verb without s at the end", and "plural verb" does not mean "verb with s at the end". A singular subject governs a singular verb, and a plural subject governs a plural verb.—
Subject and Verb Agreement | Grammar Rules
—
Wavelength (
talk)
01:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It's called an "apostrophe", not a "single quote", unless it's used as a quote-within-a-quote. It's so sad that people who set Wikipedia "style" policies seem to be mostly incompetent in punctuation and typography. If this keeps up, mankind will soon be unable to communicate. Babel. — Quicksilver T @ 17:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Do you have an ORCID ID? If so, you can add it to your user page, using {{ Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Peter, if you ever run across another problem like the one you had with http://www.cosbyrampfestival.org, you can try using the wondrous Wayback Machine; it has archived previous versions of websites by date. Although this example was fixed by Michaelmas1957 (by finding a completely other source which had the same info needed), the wayback machine divulged for me this, which led me to this! Hamamelis ( talk) 22:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Peter, any particular reason for reverting my edits? Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 14:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Your last edit to Talk:Pseudotsuga had four effects, and I'm not sure which were intended.
I would really like to close down the move discussions at Talk:Pseudotsuga, to not confuse other editors, admins, or bots. I welcome your participation over at Talk:Pseudotsuga menziesii. May I close these discussions? — hike395 ( talk) 11:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that I inadvertently followed an out of date link from another discussion, and failed to notice that I was adding to an old discussion. Apologies. Reverting is quite correct. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Peter, I used one of your recent comments as an example in a conversation on Epeefleche's talk page. If you have the time, please read the thread. In any event, I don't want you to think I was singling you out unfairly for criticism, and I thought you might want to read my comments to Epee. If you have any questions, let's talk. Best regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I was waiting for you to finish splitting the list, but you seem to have paused. Just wanted to express my appreciation :) Thank you! Hamamelis ( talk) 01:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ARCHAEOBOTANY;c1b55387.1305 for confirmation of my post. Yazee ( talk) 22:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Peter, my reference was to day-month-year dates, such as "15 January 2013," which are the predominant full date format in the UK and Commonwealth countries (with the exception of Canada), as opposed to the American-style month-day-year dates, such as "January 15, 2013," which are the predominant form in the United States. I agree that the abbreviated slash dates such as "12/1/2013" are ambiguous in an international publication and generally should be avoided. My point was that a small percentage of Americans, including the U.S. military, do use DMY dates, but it is an eccentric minority practice outside the military. Forcing LQ quotation conventions into encyclopedia articles written in American English is no less eccentric in the face of the 99.x% of all American writers and publications that use traditional quotation conventions. As a result, the MOS provisions regarding LQ are among the most widely ignored, and inevitably lead to editor conflict when someone attempts to conform an existing article to LQ. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe I made this error at Fe'i banana! Thanks for noticing and correcting it. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Peter,
Here's a rough draft of text intended to fit above the synonyms material that is currently on the project page. I suspect that it doesn't do justice to your point of view, and, of course, would benefit from your perusal/rejection. One further point that I think would amount to clutter if expressed on the project page, is that I don't think that creating redirects for all synonyms is practical, there are just too many. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 21:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The tricky issue here is what "group" means, and I think something needs to be said here. For example, for extant angiosperms it only makes sense, I believe, to use one classification – currently APGIII. Thus either we use the broad Asparagaceae of APGIII or the segregate families of APGII. In terms of page structure and taxoboxes, as far as I can see, we couldn't use Hyacinthaceae but not Agavaceae even if the consensus in reliable sources favours the former but not the latter. Or maybe there's some clever way round this?Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
In many cases, the synonyms for a plant taxon may be uncontroversial and of little interest to a reader except to serve as pointers to the updated name used in the page title. In other cases, the varied classifications require explanation and/or are of interest in themselves. In the second case, a section of the text area of the page would be needed, which could be called Taxonomic history or Nomenclatural history. When the synonyms are uncontroversial, placing them in the taxobox instead of in the text will keep the list from cluttering the page, and may also protect it from accumulating well-intentioned additions from readers who see some different synonyms listed in an old reference, and do not realize that those names are inconsistent with Wikipedia's chosen classification.
Minor point: it's usually a subsection within a Taxonomy (or as I increasingly prefer Systematics) section rather than a full section.
More controversial perhaps is that I find long lists in the taxobox a problem on many pages. On short pages (e.g. species and genera about which there is little in the literature) it makes the page unbalanced. Even on long pages it can make it difficult to put images in the right place when the taxobox runs too far down the page. I wonder about putting long synonym lists in a "show/hide" section, initially hidden. What do you think?Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
[Followed by the current text]
Hi, thanks for the tip. Can you check the above and below articles that are used to be stubs?:-- Mishae ( talk) 03:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
It have a description and even a sentence about its discovery!-- Mishae ( talk) 22:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
So, all in all, the above list and those two articles are the only ones that I have a question about.-- Mishae ( talk) 22:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Peter, would you be available to help assess the relative historical and scientific importance/significance of botany and biology subjects? None of the present VA/E project participants have any particular expertise in botany or biology topics, and I thought it would be a smart move to reach out to someone who did. Please let me know if your would be interested in helping; the time commitment would not be very great, but would involve you reviewing the relevant sublists, and giving us your opinion regarding the relative significance of each subject (see here.) Are you willing to help? Perhaps several of your Botany project pals would be interested in helping, too? (I promise the VA/E participants are much better behaved than the MOS crowd.) Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
All I know is that the page came back onto the uncategorized articles list. If that happens, I'm obliged to deal with it, and I have no way of knowing whether it's a category you're about to create or simply an error — which means I have to then change the category to one that does exist, because leaving it on the list is not an option. In the future you might want to consider creating the new category before you add it to an article, or adding another category alongside it so that it has at least one existing bluelinked category and thus doesn't get detected as an uncategorized page — but it's really not my responsibility to possess the ability to read your mind. Bearcat ( talk) 06:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
It this is some kind of a joke: Blidingia marginata? I wrote some micrometers and got a Skype number. Can you explain to me please, what went wrong.-- Mishae ( talk) 21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
That makes it much easier to edit the article! Thanks, -- AfadsBad ( talk) 21:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I tried to do a page move, the short article about James Reveal is titled, "J. L. Reveal," for some reason. I cannot move the page, because there is a redirect from "James L. Reveal" already. I clicked on the instructions for requesting a move, and there are a lot of comments about controversial moves, however, this appears uncontroversial. Who knows why it was created under his initials to begin with? It seemed uncontroversial until I got into the edit history; in the edit history it seems there was a fight between a couple of editors about whether it should be called "J.L. Reveal" or "J. L. Reveal."
Is this really a controversial move that requires discussion due to this argument about J.L. versus J. L., when there was no real reason to have it at only the initials to begin with? Should it be at James L., or James L, or James Lauritz, the latter being linked from the list of botanical authorites to the J.L. redirect page to the J. L. article? How does anyone do any work around here with all of the discussion?
Any suggestions, pointers? Thanks, -- AfadsBad ( talk) 04:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
-- AfadsBad ( talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)