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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I'll extend the olive branch | |
Trying to "win" a fight with you is not my intent, and I hope to collaborate with you more peacefully. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
[Borrowing this template-of-sorts from Chris Troutman.] I'm going to endeavor to stop arguing with you so much on this capitalization thing, as we have better things to do (both separately and collaboratively), and we tend to agree on a lot of other things, which makes this doubly frustrating.
NB: I think I have a way out of the species common name capitalization morass (for anyone who cares about why capitalization was ever used in the first place, instead of fixating on the form that emphasis has taken): User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#Proposed alternative solution. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
{{tdes}}
to the MOS:ORGANISMS draft. I wasn't sure recommending small caps in it was "right" just because ICNCP used that. The underlying idea for {{vernacular}}
could still be useful. My solution for the complexity of the situation would be to have it use separate parameters for separate name-parts, which could be independently operated upon by user-level Javascript, e.g. {{vernacular|Texas|lizard|-|hawk|t4=y}}
or something to this effect (the t4 here means "true" member of that bird family/kind or not in parameter 4, such that if you're an IOC fan, you'd capitalize after the hyphen, if a AOU fan, you wouldn't – if t4=y in that one). A max of 12 parameters ought to do it, but 20 wouldn't be too bad to code up. Might have to account for optional hyphens, though, too. (I know the cuckooshrikes are sometimes called cuckoo-shrikes). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
{{vernacular|Texas|lizard|-|hawk|t4=y}}
stuff, especially if that had to be complicated into something like {{vernacular|Texas|lizard|-|hawk|h3=o|t4=y}}
to account for optional hyphenation. In Lua, hyphens could be marked up with a character too, to indicate when they're optional. I'm pretty sure all the possible cases in various org.'s codes (and regular English) are lizardhawk (common in many cases), lizard-hawk (common in many cases), lizard hawk (probably deprecated), Lizardhawk (IOC + AOU in some cases), Lizard-hawk (IOC + AOU in some cases), Lizard-Hawk (IOC only, and only in some cases), and Lizard Hawk (maybe), but LizardHawk suppressed. I'd have to go over what HBW, etc., are doing again and re-read AOU's stuff and some other regional authorities, and see how flying-insect entomologists, the capitalizers among herpetologists, etc., do it. Anyway, such a thing could take care of English plants, and dragonflies and whatnot. It could also be used for breed names (maybe fork the template for that - I don't think it would need the same level of smarts). I think the only quarrel left would be over what the default display is, and of course I'd vote for lower-case. There's also the UK/US spelling issue to account for. Oh! It belatedly occurs to me that Lua can probably allow us to do the {{EngVar}}
template I've been envisioning for years, where we can stop writing articles in one variety of English, and write them in several at the same time (defaulting to that of first major contributor still). Hmm... Double-hmm... —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. malvacearum | |
---|---|
Cotton bacterial blight | |
Scientific classification | |
Domain: | Bacteria |
Phylum: | Pseudomonadota |
Class: | Gammaproteobacteria |
Order: | Xanthomonadales |
Family: | Xanthomonadaceae |
Genus: | Xanthomonas |
Species: |
X. axonopodis |
Pathovar: | X. a. pv. malvacearum |
Trionomial name | |
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. malvacearum |
--EMPTY--
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. malvacearum | |
---|---|
Cotton bacterial blight | |
Scientific classification | |
Domain: | Bacteria |
Phylum: | Pseudomonadota |
Class: | Gammaproteobacteria |
Order: | Xanthomonadales |
Family: | Xanthomonadaceae |
Genus: | Xanthomonas |
Species: |
X. axonopodis |
Pathovar: | X. a. pv. malvacearum |
Trionomial name | |
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. malvacearum |
--EMPTY--
{{Vernacular}}
: Definitely worth looking into further. The hyphenation and stuff need only be complicated for fields with weird capitalize-after-hyphen rules, which is probably only birds.{{EngVar}}
: Oh, I didn't mean full-scale machine trans. The idea originated as just a human-edited thing, like {{EngVar|us=cute hottie|uk=lovely bird|sc=bonnie lass|ir=fair colleen|au=pretty sheila|ca=attractive woman, eh}}, and user-level JS to pick a value based on a user setting. Maybe use a Lua trick to prevent it from being used for more than 20 or whatever characters at a time, to prevent vandal/POINT "versions" of entire paragraphs. What caught my attention about the Lua stuff is that it could actually be used to auto-trans some things put into it (-or/-our, etc.), maybe with an |auto=
parameter. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Hi Peter, I don't quite follow your "proposal" on the talk page of Dioecy. Can you point to where you think changes are needed? Thanks. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 10:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from English name. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from English name redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD ( talk) 21:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Since I can't edit protected templates, I was hoping I could persuade you to incorporate parameters into the redirect templates relevant to organisms, in order to sort the redirects into subcategories. You sounded amenable when I brought it up on the Tree of Life talk page a couple months ago (and we'll see what the Plant project people think about it now). I don't see myself going through all of the redirects already in the large categories to sort them into subcategories, but I'm continuing to add redirect templates, and it might be nice to have organism group subcategories set up going forward (I continue to work on plant related redirects, and have been doing a far amount with fish redirects the last couple of weeks). Plantdrew ( talk) 20:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
{{R from alternative scientific name|X}}
it would create the category "Redirects from alternative scientific names of Xs", regardless of what X was but this wasn't a good idea, because:
Hello - I'm inviting you to be part of a small group to help devise a comprehensive RfC on the topic of diacritics usage on WP. I'm trying to include editors with a broad range of approaches, and openness to collaboration, in order to make it as strong a proposal as possible. If you're interested, let me know, or pop over to User:Dohn joe/diacritics to participate. Thanks! Dohn joe ( talk) 17:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
So I have no idea why that worked, but it certainly did. Thank you! czar ♔ 08:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I may need taxonomic help with a little battle going on currently re: Equisetum. Editors wish to place this in Phylum Pteridophyta, and have reverted my attempts to call Phylum "Division". But Pteridophyta is not a valid taxon anyway. Are you up to speed with current views of the taxonomy of Equisetum? Ferns and other "pteridophytes" seem to be placed in Division or Phylum Pteridophyta here, which seems to me to be incorrect. Surely the status of any container group for ferns and fern allies should be declared as unranked taxon. What say you? Plantsurfer ( talk) 20:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I notice you protected page edit request. I seems quite reasonable. I'm having great difficulties adding in recent research. Could you help support me in overcoming the kabal of editor hell-bent in white-washing all views that don't support the status quo? You help would be greatly appreciated. This struggle also has extended to referred itch and myofascial meridians where I've started a Rfc to help gain more viewpoints. - Technophant ( talk) 10:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I've just noticed a copyeditor down-casing the names of cultivar groups, and have made changes at Cultivar group and at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) to emphasize that they should be capitalized. I wonder if there are other places where this needs to be stated, and also can't think of a systematic say to find them in wikipedia; they have forms like "Cynara cardunculus Scolymus Group". Would you have any suggestions on how to do better with this? (As an aside: I think that quite a lot of plant pages for economically important plants might benefit from changing to use a cultivar group name instead of something unofficial like Cardoon.) Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I just ran across the actual source of the quote. They deserve the credit. [1] ``` Buster Seven Talk 05:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter coxhead. The fruits are indeed all of the same species. The palnt has been domesticated for a long time, so, just like apples or mangoes, they have been bred/ cultivated into hundreds of varieties, with very different colours, shapes and sizes and surprisingly very different flavours. The texture is mostly the same too, though some varieties tend to be 'drier' with a mealy texture. It is quite common with informal sellers to present them grouped by colour (peeled or unpeeled) for extra effect. In South Africa they mostly grow wild and rural people sell them next to the road. Commercial farming was going well in the late 90s, but seems to have lost mometum - I guess it is impossible to compete with Israel and Spain. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 14:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 20:i
Hi PCh. I see that you are familiar with botanists databases. What would "8889" be a reference to here and here, pg 35. Correia was my father, who worked as botanist in Angola, Namibia and South Africa. Any help will be welcome. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 13:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. In List of botanists by author abbreviation, yr reversal edit : ""Moric." is the abbreviation for Stefano Moricand". True. Look here pls : http://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/botanist_search.php?id=129. The same site in this page give a "moricand?" search result with no Stefano, even though Stefano Moricand is better known (at least from me until yesterday, I don't go editing others' work without checking). Also here http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Mo%C3%AFse_%C3%89tienne_Moricand it says "Commonly cited as Stefano Moricand". Here: http://www.ansp.org/research/library/archives/0200-0299/coll0277/ says "MORICAND, STEFANO, 1780-1854... Swiss botanist and conchologist, whose full name was Moise Étienne Moricand..." The spanish wiki gives the same. So ? What you? Do you have a link to the page you say supports your reversal? (which may be exact, for all I know, just need to prove it). Basicdesign ( talk) 11:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Another Russian botanical author (of Iris Narynensis and iris albomarginata) but not listed on http://www.ipni.org/ipni/advAuthorSearch.do;jsessionid=AF48723248F887A3B1B50F78EE81B011?find_forename=Fedtschenko+&find_surname=&find_abbreviation=&find_isoCountry=&output_format=normal&back_page=authorsearch&query_type=by_query under different spellings ! But is listed on http://plants.jstor.org/person/k3153 and http://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/botanist_search.php?id=1808 ! Just wanted to know if he should go on the list ! No wiki page but seems lots of links under google about him and his wife Olga :) so another article for me to work on ! DavidAnstiss ( talk) 12:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi PC, point taken, you are right. How about "The species in the genus have attractive flowers"? Also, having looked at in more detail, how about removing "and have two distinct ranges, seeing that "recent studies suggest that" ... "the single species indigenous to England, Wales, Ireland, and the fringes of Western Europe" ... "does not belong in the genus"? Regards,
Dear Peter coxhead
Thanks for your edits on the article
Hippeastrum
Regards
Aftab Banoori (
Talk) 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter ... you effectively reverted an edit of mine on the above subject, where I corrected the attribution of the "hookeri" synonyms. Please note that the attributions I put in are according to IPNI, which is more up-to-date than WCSPF (as the latter admits it can be up to 2 years behind IPNI). Do you not agree? MisterCDE ( talk) 08:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Rich T| C| E-Mail 17:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The Blazing star barnstar | |
For stellar contributions to improving plant related articles. |
Excellent technical work, excellent arguments at talk, excellent breadth of coverage of plant related topics, and excellent responsiveness to requests by many editors. I was surprised not to see more barnstars already on your talk page. FloraWilde ( talk) 14:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter -- appreciate your having taken the time to comment on this. I made a small but important correction to the wording of the question at hand: here. It doesn't bear upon what the phrase "real acupuncture was no better than sham" refers to. But the difference between a statement being a conclusion of the paper vs. the conclusion of the paper is a difference worth noting, and may or may not impact how you choose to word your remarks at WT:MEDRS. Best regards, and a toast to scholarly pedantry, Middle 8 ( POV-pushing • COI) 00:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Peter coxhead,
as you are at least observing the
Rosa Iceberg article, I'd like to ask if you could look over my changes to
Rosa Peace - and if you have any suggestions what to do with information I can't verify (the story about Viscount Alanbrooke which seems to be incompatible with the naming by the US partner). I normally don't change more than a few sentences...
Best wishes,
Anna reg (
talk) 21:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I saw your contribution to the Violet saga, after I was considering asking your advice about it. I haven't had a chance to read all the MOS material in detail, after clearly misquoting it the first time. It's heartening that you also see what the style-enthusiasts are doing as flawed. I'm too tired right now, but am wondering if there's some awful confusion somewhere between redirecting and piping that may be leading to serious deterioration in disambiguation pages as people apply "the rules" without thinking about how to help the reader. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 22:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Peter. I thought I'd better come over and explain why your edit to
Violet was incorrect. (It wasn't me who undid it, but only because somebody beat me to it; I'd have done it if they hadn't.)
You are correct that "Redirecting may be appropriate ... when linking another disambiguation page"; however, that's irrelevant to the edit in question because it didn't involve redirecting (linking to a page that redirects to a different page), but piping (linking to a page using something other than the page's title as the link text). Piping is covered by different guidelines than redirecting, and they don't include an exception for linking to disambiguation pages.
It's also worth noting that in the specific case of List of plants known as violet, redirecting isn't possible, regardless of whether it's appropriate; there are no redirect pages that point to List of plants known as violet.
I hope this helps clarify the situation. — Paul A ( talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Peter. Thought I'd leave a note to let you know that I restored Category:Bruniales. There is a difference between small categories that have no potential for growth and small categories that at this moment contain only a few articles but could potentially contain many more ( WP:SMALLCAT). Sure, I'm usually all for getting rid of nonsense categories for extremely small genera, families, and orders, but Bruniales could have around 80 species articles some day and thus, it seems, WP:SMALLCAT suggests we keep them. I appreciate the work you're doing to upmerge other unnecessarily small categories from the hierarchy. Any thoughts or comments? Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 04:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been frustrated with the taxobox template and the accompanying articles for awhile. More of me not understand what is going on. So, instead of fixing a problem with what I think is right, I thought I'd ask you why it is being done. Hopefully I'll have a better understanding.
I was alerted to bad syntax with this edit. Can't start lines with "=" unless it is a section heading.
Bgwhite ( talk) 05:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Peter, I'm curious as to your thoughts about the general concept of adding the material in landrace that currently discusses plants into a separate section of cultivar. (putting aside for a moment the drama that would be likely to ensue) I am absolutely not a plant expert (I was raised on a wheat/cattle farm/ranch, FWIW), but it seems that the "plant landrace" and heritage seeds/crops stuff is not particularly well covered in the cultivar article, so maybe there is a place for it. I originally tried to tone down the drama on the landrace article by suggesting a split of the landrace article into plant landrace and animal landrace as I think some of the disputes on that article stem from the very different definitions and uses of the term in the plant and animal kingdoms. But that proposal just generated even more drama and I really don't have the energy to put into that drama at the moment. (other fish to fry). But someone else suggested that cultivar would be an appropriate place to discuss the landrace thing in plants, so thought I'd ask your views on the matter. I have no interest in editing in the plant area other than to assist with a merge and assorted wikignoming. this version had a good separate section on plants that might make a good base. Just running the general idea up the flagpole. Montanabw (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
On 8 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alnus glutinosa, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that wood from common alders is valued in turnery and carving, in making furniture, window frames, clogs, toys, blocks, pencils and bowls? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alnus glutinosa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
we have it up at FAC - some botanical input would be greatly welcomed...only recently ventured outside proteaceae.....cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, As you mention I haven't finished, but I would appreciate a more precise indication of the sentences you feel are verging on copyright vios. Bear in mind that some of the sources are in public domain by virtue of their age or origin.... Paul venter ( talk) 11:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I've been tagging redirects to scientific name with |plant starting at the other end of the alphabet from you. I noticed you're tracking progress on this task on your user page. So far, I'm through "Wi..." working backwards alphabetically (so everything between "Common" and "Wh..." still needs to be done). Plantdrew ( talk) 17:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems we were both working on the same species at once! (C. linosyris). Now I have my doubts! The species is not included in Clapham, Tutin and Warburg 1968. (An old print I know but then I too am retired.) However Keble Martin does give the synonym "Aster linosyris"! There could be an error as Keble Martin does give the common name "Goldilocks" to "A.linosyris" and just to confuse things "Ranunculus auricomus"!!! I was trying to use the same reference twice, but you got in first!Osborne 15:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Without doubt your changes are correct and valuable. However if I had the info I would separate giving "Description" and "Distribution". Best wishes. Osborne 16:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I came across this new article. It needs help, but I don't what to do on these types of articles. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:21, 17 October 2014 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I'll extend the olive branch | |
Trying to "win" a fight with you is not my intent, and I hope to collaborate with you more peacefully. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
[Borrowing this template-of-sorts from Chris Troutman.] I'm going to endeavor to stop arguing with you so much on this capitalization thing, as we have better things to do (both separately and collaboratively), and we tend to agree on a lot of other things, which makes this doubly frustrating.
NB: I think I have a way out of the species common name capitalization morass (for anyone who cares about why capitalization was ever used in the first place, instead of fixating on the form that emphasis has taken): User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#Proposed alternative solution. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
{{tdes}}
to the MOS:ORGANISMS draft. I wasn't sure recommending small caps in it was "right" just because ICNCP used that. The underlying idea for {{vernacular}}
could still be useful. My solution for the complexity of the situation would be to have it use separate parameters for separate name-parts, which could be independently operated upon by user-level Javascript, e.g. {{vernacular|Texas|lizard|-|hawk|t4=y}}
or something to this effect (the t4 here means "true" member of that bird family/kind or not in parameter 4, such that if you're an IOC fan, you'd capitalize after the hyphen, if a AOU fan, you wouldn't – if t4=y in that one). A max of 12 parameters ought to do it, but 20 wouldn't be too bad to code up. Might have to account for optional hyphens, though, too. (I know the cuckooshrikes are sometimes called cuckoo-shrikes). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
{{vernacular|Texas|lizard|-|hawk|t4=y}}
stuff, especially if that had to be complicated into something like {{vernacular|Texas|lizard|-|hawk|h3=o|t4=y}}
to account for optional hyphenation. In Lua, hyphens could be marked up with a character too, to indicate when they're optional. I'm pretty sure all the possible cases in various org.'s codes (and regular English) are lizardhawk (common in many cases), lizard-hawk (common in many cases), lizard hawk (probably deprecated), Lizardhawk (IOC + AOU in some cases), Lizard-hawk (IOC + AOU in some cases), Lizard-Hawk (IOC only, and only in some cases), and Lizard Hawk (maybe), but LizardHawk suppressed. I'd have to go over what HBW, etc., are doing again and re-read AOU's stuff and some other regional authorities, and see how flying-insect entomologists, the capitalizers among herpetologists, etc., do it. Anyway, such a thing could take care of English plants, and dragonflies and whatnot. It could also be used for breed names (maybe fork the template for that - I don't think it would need the same level of smarts). I think the only quarrel left would be over what the default display is, and of course I'd vote for lower-case. There's also the UK/US spelling issue to account for. Oh! It belatedly occurs to me that Lua can probably allow us to do the {{EngVar}}
template I've been envisioning for years, where we can stop writing articles in one variety of English, and write them in several at the same time (defaulting to that of first major contributor still). Hmm... Double-hmm... —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. malvacearum | |
---|---|
Cotton bacterial blight | |
Scientific classification | |
Domain: | Bacteria |
Phylum: | Pseudomonadota |
Class: | Gammaproteobacteria |
Order: | Xanthomonadales |
Family: | Xanthomonadaceae |
Genus: | Xanthomonas |
Species: |
X. axonopodis |
Pathovar: | X. a. pv. malvacearum |
Trionomial name | |
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. malvacearum |
--EMPTY--
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. malvacearum | |
---|---|
Cotton bacterial blight | |
Scientific classification | |
Domain: | Bacteria |
Phylum: | Pseudomonadota |
Class: | Gammaproteobacteria |
Order: | Xanthomonadales |
Family: | Xanthomonadaceae |
Genus: | Xanthomonas |
Species: |
X. axonopodis |
Pathovar: | X. a. pv. malvacearum |
Trionomial name | |
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. malvacearum |
--EMPTY--
{{Vernacular}}
: Definitely worth looking into further. The hyphenation and stuff need only be complicated for fields with weird capitalize-after-hyphen rules, which is probably only birds.{{EngVar}}
: Oh, I didn't mean full-scale machine trans. The idea originated as just a human-edited thing, like {{EngVar|us=cute hottie|uk=lovely bird|sc=bonnie lass|ir=fair colleen|au=pretty sheila|ca=attractive woman, eh}}, and user-level JS to pick a value based on a user setting. Maybe use a Lua trick to prevent it from being used for more than 20 or whatever characters at a time, to prevent vandal/POINT "versions" of entire paragraphs. What caught my attention about the Lua stuff is that it could actually be used to auto-trans some things put into it (-or/-our, etc.), maybe with an |auto=
parameter. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Hi Peter, I don't quite follow your "proposal" on the talk page of Dioecy. Can you point to where you think changes are needed? Thanks. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 10:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from English name. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from English name redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD ( talk) 21:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Since I can't edit protected templates, I was hoping I could persuade you to incorporate parameters into the redirect templates relevant to organisms, in order to sort the redirects into subcategories. You sounded amenable when I brought it up on the Tree of Life talk page a couple months ago (and we'll see what the Plant project people think about it now). I don't see myself going through all of the redirects already in the large categories to sort them into subcategories, but I'm continuing to add redirect templates, and it might be nice to have organism group subcategories set up going forward (I continue to work on plant related redirects, and have been doing a far amount with fish redirects the last couple of weeks). Plantdrew ( talk) 20:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
{{R from alternative scientific name|X}}
it would create the category "Redirects from alternative scientific names of Xs", regardless of what X was but this wasn't a good idea, because:
Hello - I'm inviting you to be part of a small group to help devise a comprehensive RfC on the topic of diacritics usage on WP. I'm trying to include editors with a broad range of approaches, and openness to collaboration, in order to make it as strong a proposal as possible. If you're interested, let me know, or pop over to User:Dohn joe/diacritics to participate. Thanks! Dohn joe ( talk) 17:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
So I have no idea why that worked, but it certainly did. Thank you! czar ♔ 08:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I may need taxonomic help with a little battle going on currently re: Equisetum. Editors wish to place this in Phylum Pteridophyta, and have reverted my attempts to call Phylum "Division". But Pteridophyta is not a valid taxon anyway. Are you up to speed with current views of the taxonomy of Equisetum? Ferns and other "pteridophytes" seem to be placed in Division or Phylum Pteridophyta here, which seems to me to be incorrect. Surely the status of any container group for ferns and fern allies should be declared as unranked taxon. What say you? Plantsurfer ( talk) 20:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I notice you protected page edit request. I seems quite reasonable. I'm having great difficulties adding in recent research. Could you help support me in overcoming the kabal of editor hell-bent in white-washing all views that don't support the status quo? You help would be greatly appreciated. This struggle also has extended to referred itch and myofascial meridians where I've started a Rfc to help gain more viewpoints. - Technophant ( talk) 10:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I've just noticed a copyeditor down-casing the names of cultivar groups, and have made changes at Cultivar group and at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) to emphasize that they should be capitalized. I wonder if there are other places where this needs to be stated, and also can't think of a systematic say to find them in wikipedia; they have forms like "Cynara cardunculus Scolymus Group". Would you have any suggestions on how to do better with this? (As an aside: I think that quite a lot of plant pages for economically important plants might benefit from changing to use a cultivar group name instead of something unofficial like Cardoon.) Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I just ran across the actual source of the quote. They deserve the credit. [1] ``` Buster Seven Talk 05:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter coxhead. The fruits are indeed all of the same species. The palnt has been domesticated for a long time, so, just like apples or mangoes, they have been bred/ cultivated into hundreds of varieties, with very different colours, shapes and sizes and surprisingly very different flavours. The texture is mostly the same too, though some varieties tend to be 'drier' with a mealy texture. It is quite common with informal sellers to present them grouped by colour (peeled or unpeeled) for extra effect. In South Africa they mostly grow wild and rural people sell them next to the road. Commercial farming was going well in the late 90s, but seems to have lost mometum - I guess it is impossible to compete with Israel and Spain. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 14:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 20:i
Hi PCh. I see that you are familiar with botanists databases. What would "8889" be a reference to here and here, pg 35. Correia was my father, who worked as botanist in Angola, Namibia and South Africa. Any help will be welcome. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 13:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. In List of botanists by author abbreviation, yr reversal edit : ""Moric." is the abbreviation for Stefano Moricand". True. Look here pls : http://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/botanist_search.php?id=129. The same site in this page give a "moricand?" search result with no Stefano, even though Stefano Moricand is better known (at least from me until yesterday, I don't go editing others' work without checking). Also here http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Mo%C3%AFse_%C3%89tienne_Moricand it says "Commonly cited as Stefano Moricand". Here: http://www.ansp.org/research/library/archives/0200-0299/coll0277/ says "MORICAND, STEFANO, 1780-1854... Swiss botanist and conchologist, whose full name was Moise Étienne Moricand..." The spanish wiki gives the same. So ? What you? Do you have a link to the page you say supports your reversal? (which may be exact, for all I know, just need to prove it). Basicdesign ( talk) 11:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Another Russian botanical author (of Iris Narynensis and iris albomarginata) but not listed on http://www.ipni.org/ipni/advAuthorSearch.do;jsessionid=AF48723248F887A3B1B50F78EE81B011?find_forename=Fedtschenko+&find_surname=&find_abbreviation=&find_isoCountry=&output_format=normal&back_page=authorsearch&query_type=by_query under different spellings ! But is listed on http://plants.jstor.org/person/k3153 and http://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/botanist_search.php?id=1808 ! Just wanted to know if he should go on the list ! No wiki page but seems lots of links under google about him and his wife Olga :) so another article for me to work on ! DavidAnstiss ( talk) 12:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi PC, point taken, you are right. How about "The species in the genus have attractive flowers"? Also, having looked at in more detail, how about removing "and have two distinct ranges, seeing that "recent studies suggest that" ... "the single species indigenous to England, Wales, Ireland, and the fringes of Western Europe" ... "does not belong in the genus"? Regards,
Dear Peter coxhead
Thanks for your edits on the article
Hippeastrum
Regards
Aftab Banoori (
Talk) 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter ... you effectively reverted an edit of mine on the above subject, where I corrected the attribution of the "hookeri" synonyms. Please note that the attributions I put in are according to IPNI, which is more up-to-date than WCSPF (as the latter admits it can be up to 2 years behind IPNI). Do you not agree? MisterCDE ( talk) 08:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Rich T| C| E-Mail 17:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The Blazing star barnstar | |
For stellar contributions to improving plant related articles. |
Excellent technical work, excellent arguments at talk, excellent breadth of coverage of plant related topics, and excellent responsiveness to requests by many editors. I was surprised not to see more barnstars already on your talk page. FloraWilde ( talk) 14:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter -- appreciate your having taken the time to comment on this. I made a small but important correction to the wording of the question at hand: here. It doesn't bear upon what the phrase "real acupuncture was no better than sham" refers to. But the difference between a statement being a conclusion of the paper vs. the conclusion of the paper is a difference worth noting, and may or may not impact how you choose to word your remarks at WT:MEDRS. Best regards, and a toast to scholarly pedantry, Middle 8 ( POV-pushing • COI) 00:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Peter coxhead,
as you are at least observing the
Rosa Iceberg article, I'd like to ask if you could look over my changes to
Rosa Peace - and if you have any suggestions what to do with information I can't verify (the story about Viscount Alanbrooke which seems to be incompatible with the naming by the US partner). I normally don't change more than a few sentences...
Best wishes,
Anna reg (
talk) 21:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I saw your contribution to the Violet saga, after I was considering asking your advice about it. I haven't had a chance to read all the MOS material in detail, after clearly misquoting it the first time. It's heartening that you also see what the style-enthusiasts are doing as flawed. I'm too tired right now, but am wondering if there's some awful confusion somewhere between redirecting and piping that may be leading to serious deterioration in disambiguation pages as people apply "the rules" without thinking about how to help the reader. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 22:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Peter. I thought I'd better come over and explain why your edit to
Violet was incorrect. (It wasn't me who undid it, but only because somebody beat me to it; I'd have done it if they hadn't.)
You are correct that "Redirecting may be appropriate ... when linking another disambiguation page"; however, that's irrelevant to the edit in question because it didn't involve redirecting (linking to a page that redirects to a different page), but piping (linking to a page using something other than the page's title as the link text). Piping is covered by different guidelines than redirecting, and they don't include an exception for linking to disambiguation pages.
It's also worth noting that in the specific case of List of plants known as violet, redirecting isn't possible, regardless of whether it's appropriate; there are no redirect pages that point to List of plants known as violet.
I hope this helps clarify the situation. — Paul A ( talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Peter. Thought I'd leave a note to let you know that I restored Category:Bruniales. There is a difference between small categories that have no potential for growth and small categories that at this moment contain only a few articles but could potentially contain many more ( WP:SMALLCAT). Sure, I'm usually all for getting rid of nonsense categories for extremely small genera, families, and orders, but Bruniales could have around 80 species articles some day and thus, it seems, WP:SMALLCAT suggests we keep them. I appreciate the work you're doing to upmerge other unnecessarily small categories from the hierarchy. Any thoughts or comments? Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 04:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been frustrated with the taxobox template and the accompanying articles for awhile. More of me not understand what is going on. So, instead of fixing a problem with what I think is right, I thought I'd ask you why it is being done. Hopefully I'll have a better understanding.
I was alerted to bad syntax with this edit. Can't start lines with "=" unless it is a section heading.
Bgwhite ( talk) 05:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Peter, I'm curious as to your thoughts about the general concept of adding the material in landrace that currently discusses plants into a separate section of cultivar. (putting aside for a moment the drama that would be likely to ensue) I am absolutely not a plant expert (I was raised on a wheat/cattle farm/ranch, FWIW), but it seems that the "plant landrace" and heritage seeds/crops stuff is not particularly well covered in the cultivar article, so maybe there is a place for it. I originally tried to tone down the drama on the landrace article by suggesting a split of the landrace article into plant landrace and animal landrace as I think some of the disputes on that article stem from the very different definitions and uses of the term in the plant and animal kingdoms. But that proposal just generated even more drama and I really don't have the energy to put into that drama at the moment. (other fish to fry). But someone else suggested that cultivar would be an appropriate place to discuss the landrace thing in plants, so thought I'd ask your views on the matter. I have no interest in editing in the plant area other than to assist with a merge and assorted wikignoming. this version had a good separate section on plants that might make a good base. Just running the general idea up the flagpole. Montanabw (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
On 8 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alnus glutinosa, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that wood from common alders is valued in turnery and carving, in making furniture, window frames, clogs, toys, blocks, pencils and bowls? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alnus glutinosa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
we have it up at FAC - some botanical input would be greatly welcomed...only recently ventured outside proteaceae.....cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, As you mention I haven't finished, but I would appreciate a more precise indication of the sentences you feel are verging on copyright vios. Bear in mind that some of the sources are in public domain by virtue of their age or origin.... Paul venter ( talk) 11:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I've been tagging redirects to scientific name with |plant starting at the other end of the alphabet from you. I noticed you're tracking progress on this task on your user page. So far, I'm through "Wi..." working backwards alphabetically (so everything between "Common" and "Wh..." still needs to be done). Plantdrew ( talk) 17:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems we were both working on the same species at once! (C. linosyris). Now I have my doubts! The species is not included in Clapham, Tutin and Warburg 1968. (An old print I know but then I too am retired.) However Keble Martin does give the synonym "Aster linosyris"! There could be an error as Keble Martin does give the common name "Goldilocks" to "A.linosyris" and just to confuse things "Ranunculus auricomus"!!! I was trying to use the same reference twice, but you got in first!Osborne 15:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Without doubt your changes are correct and valuable. However if I had the info I would separate giving "Description" and "Distribution". Best wishes. Osborne 16:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I came across this new article. It needs help, but I don't what to do on these types of articles. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)