Hello, Tom Hulse! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |}
I've watched these, too, and I agree with your well-explained reversions. I've done a lot of work on the Datura articles and a little on Brugmansia. I'm no particular expert on either of them, but I saw some really bad articles and set out to correct them. My interest in all this stems from my wife's having a bunch of semi-wild Datura plants in her garden. Lou Sander ( talk) 11:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello:
I think the opening sentence of this article could be more elegantly written, however, in lieu of a more thoroughgoing edit, I corrected the verb agreement with the subject. "Solanaceae is a family..." is incorrect because the subject "Solanaceae" is a plural word. It seems the trend on WP is to refer to plant families as singular, which is irksome to me. This fact is widely ignored, even in some textbooks and journal articles, but consider, for example, the explanation in Plant Systematics: An Integrated Approach by Singh, 2004.
James Gledhill, the renown author of The Names of Plants (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008) says:
adding the suffix -aceae to the stem, which is the name of an included genus."
I am happy to provide more explanation if you want. Thanks!
Michaplot (
talk) 22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
base of the angiosperm phylogenetic tree. Nature Vol 446| 15 March 2007| doi:10.1038/nature05612) "Here we show that Hydatellaceae, a small family of dwarf aquatics that were formerly interpreted as monocots, are instead a highly modified and previously unrecognized ancient lineage of angiosperms." Are--not is.
[Previous post deleted/revised by Michael & combined with his next post below]
Sorry about changing my post after the fact. I won't do that again.
OK, I believe I see the reason for your opinion on this. I have thought about this, and it seems to me that the debate has gotten rather convoluted. However, I think there are really only a few key issues here.
By way of summary and review, these are the three main issues we are trying to resolve here:
1) Is it proper to use a singular verb with a family (or other suprageneric) taxon name? (e.g. could we say, "Solanaceae is a family..."
2) Must the subject and object agree in number when the verb "to be" is used to equate them. (e.g. is, "Nightshades are a family" wrong because the plural "nightshades" are, "equated to a singular group, family"
3) Does adding the definite article "the" change the sense of a taxon name to singular, so that it now agrees with the singular object family. (e.g. is saying, "The Solanaceae are a family..." necessary to have the subject and object agree in number.
Let me know if that is not accurate. These are three distinct, though obviously related, issues. Here is what I think we have determined so far:
As for 1), you initially argued that the singular can be proper. (You said, "'Solanaceae is a family of plants' "(the singular "is" is used because it is obvious we are here, by mentioning the rank, talking about the one singular entity that makes up all the plants in this family or the single word that represents it).") So you reverted the article to "is".
I disagreed and argued the singular is never proper (unless the referent is the label (the taxon or the word) itself). To support your case you presented the Merriam-Webster usage guide, the full Singh quotation that I partially gave and the rules of English grammar. Here is my argument on this:
On issue 2), as you pointed out, examples abound both pro and con on agreement in number between subject and object, so examples alone will not resolve this issue. There is no rule, as far as I know, in English, but there is commonsense based on meaning. To use your example, it would not be proper to say, "Cattle are an animal" for obvious reasons. It would not be proper to say, "Customers buy a tomato" because this suggests the customers all buy one fruit--unless that is what you mean. And that is the key here: meaning. It is absolutely not improper to have a plural subject with a singular object if that is what you mean. My example, "Crops are a necessity" is a case in point. ("A necessity" is not an adjective as you say (it would be an adverb if anything), but it is used here as a noun). However, you also object because you say the "are" is not used to equate the "crops" with "a necessity". I don't think you can defend that theory, but I will let it lie. Instead, I will ask what about the following:
As for issue 3), this is a less definite issue. Among taxonomists, it seems to be a matter of style. My major professor in grad school advised me never to use "the" before a taxon, as it is unnecessary. Latin nouns do not take articles. Many taxonomist do, however, append a "the" in front of taxon names. The examples given in the scientific style manual I cited above both have the definite article.
I believe the reason that many people do use the definite article is because it is common in English, as you have argued. In standard English, (quoting MW), one of the uses of "the" is, "as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole <the elite>".
However, is it necessary, as you argue, or a matter of taste? I gave you several examples where taxonomists do not use an article before the family names to show it is a matter of taste and not grammatical necessity. You will not find a "the" in front of any of the family names in the APG treatment. Many of these (most in fact) are referring to taxonomic groups as entities, rather than the plants that make them up. The Doyle article I gave you is another example. Doyle, who was on my dissertation committee, I know is fluent in Latin. Cronquist, a very famous taxonomist, nearly always uses a "the" before family names. So it clearly varies.
So, while I think we could rewrite the Solanaceae treatment, but this is a bigger problem on WP and adding "the" does not seem like a general solution.
Michaplot (
talk) 03:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the note but I think you are mistaken. The WP:LINKSPAM says: "The Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." But the link I added, and you removed was not for the purpose of promoting a website or a product, it was used as a reference for the herb in question, specifically adding the information about how its also used to support the immune system though liver and lung support. 24.5.69.164 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC).
Sources I've looked at differ in what exactly they consider a "trivial name". It's true that Linnaeus wrote in Species Plantarum "Trivalia nomina in margine apposui" [1], and that what appears in the margin are single words, i.e. what we would now call specific epithets. However, it's not clear that Linnaeus meant these single words to be the trivial name itself, rather than the combination with the genus name. This latter interpretation is easily found by web searches, e.g. "Linnaeus suggested that each life-form should be labelled with a 'trivial name' or a two-word reference" (L Koerner, Cultures of natural history, 1996). I suspect your edit to Botanical nomenclature is right, but you need to to reference it I think. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Following the recent result of no consensus for the deletion of Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation, what are you thoughts on what could be added to the article? Currently, it basically duplicates the points already made at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Salvation, which seems fairly redundant. The principle JW beliefs of the matter seemed to be sufficiently explained at the Beliefs article, and the 'main' article is only about as long as the other section.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
As you can see I'm very new. I started by fixing references on soybean, then did the same on botany. Now I'm fixing other formatting and such. Thinking botany is a core topic of the plant kingdom, I'd like to make it the best I can. However, since I don't know much about improving the body of a wikipedia article yet, I was wondering if you would be interested in this too? You can answer here, I clicked the watch button on your page. 512bits ( talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Botany#Botany_article_structure_and_concerns. Thank you. Present for you on my user page too. 512bits ( talk) 23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Yucca faxoniana for another puzzle about yucca names. It seems a confused genus. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I see, that makes sense. I was wondering about that. Here's a question for you: do you think perhaps we should be linking to The Plant List instead of WCSP? They seem to include everything at WCSP, plus additional info from other databases. For instance Yucca faxoniana at WCSP, and Yucca faxoniana at TPL. TPL has everything WCSP does, plus an additional synonym from Tropicos, plus it has direct links to the WCSP page (which would presumably be automatically maintained in the future). -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 18:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Good to know. Thank you. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I responded to some of that stuff over at WT:MOS. I agree that "one-size-fits-all" won't work, but I also think that "one-size-fits-most" is pretty clear. It should set a default. In reverting that Alan fella's mass-rename of 100 or so glossaries, I got to see pretty much every possible kind of glossary name all in one day, and learned a lot from it. I'm still trying to synthesize it into something that can be written up as a clearer naming convention (in the guideline sense, not in the WP:AT policy sense). It's funny that you mentioned the equestrian example, because among horse people "equestrian" (more to the point, often capitalized as "Equestrian"), is treated as a noun! I.e., "I've been competing in Equestrian for 17 years." So from a "horse people" specialist-style perspective, Glossary of Equestrian is the proper article name! This is why I think that specialist style needs when they cause conflict or confusion have to be dropped, with prejudice. Equestrianists could easily make a "we MUST call it "glossary of Equestrian" per relaible sources!!!" fallacious argument, because they can instantly show that reliable equestrian sources tend to treat it as a noun, like "plastic" and "chiropractic", and tend to capitalize it. Every specialist style debate has the same quality and the same problems. That actually doesn't have much to do with "botany" vs. "botanical", though. The harshest thing that can be said about that use of "botanical" is that it can be construed as slightly ambiguous. No big deal. I was aiming for consistency, but am actually swayed by the COMMONNAME argument. Back to the MOS:GLOSS NC stuff: The equestrian example, if not for the coincidence of its "in-horsey-universe" noun usage, would have actually been a good example of where "term" is needed in glossary names; your instinct was right on that (and "equestrian terms" is almost certainly better than "equestrianism"). Anything that looks adjectival like "botanical" is going to need "term". If it is a noun that is unambiguously the name of field/topic and nothing else, like "botany", it won't need that, though including it isn't harmful; "glossary of botany terms" is technically redundant, I concede, but consistency might be more important. Then again, redirects work for a reason. <shrug> If it's a noun that can be a field/topic or can be a count noun, then its need "term", and this is where Alan L. caused problems. Glossary of boilers, glossary of fuel cells, glossary of Japanese swords, etc., all imply a list of entries of examples of these things and their properties defined, not a list of terms about those topics. That's a serious comprehensibility issue. There are other cases to be addressed too; like "glossary of HVAC" just sounds like gibberish. So, I am definitely thinking on it, and input is welcome. WT:MOSGLOSS is wide open. :-) PS: Sorry if I was tooth gnashy at the botany glossary page. I felt kinda ganged up on for a bit. All old news to me now. PS: I mentioned MOS:GLOSS in reference to including " terms" in the name. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 14:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Tom. I was just idly perusing various pages, and noticed your recent postings at Talk:Abutilon x hybridum; in my view, I think you may wish to change your initial addressing of "Hi Andrea" to "Hi Nadia" - it might be better received! :) PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tom! I saw your post on the talk page of Panopea generosa aka the Pacific geoduck; BYW Geoduck does have a redirect to this species. Just like you are a self proclaimed "plant nut" I am a "shell nut", hence the moniker. This article comes under the global umbrella of WikiProject Bivalves, which is patterned after WikiProject Gastropods. We are trying to use proper taxonomy throughout both projects, up to date per the World Register of Marine Species. Knowing that a lot of people use the common names for organisms we try to use redirects to get the common name search moved to the formal name article. Part of the problem we run into with marine fauna is that "common names" have not always garnered full acceptance, and sometimes there are multiple common names. With birds I know that there are generally accepted common names; maybe this is true in botany too. If you are interested, go to the main class article Bivalvia and scroll down through the taxonomy. For starters we are trying to clean up the major taxa through families, working down to species articles as we have time and interest. Shellnut ( talk)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brugmansia arborea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Sweet ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Pol430 talk to me 19:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I saw you deleted the small portion of the peony gallery I restored, with a comment. I read the text of Wikipedia policy, and am excerpting it here: « However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–1795 in fashion for an example of a good use of galleries. »
OK. If you think that one image of the peony blossom is adequately encyclopedic, you are sadly mistaken. The flower has a wide variety of forms (I won't bother listing them) and surprisingly wide range of color. The images provided on Wikipedia showed an extremely limited of number of forms as a sample: single, double, Japanese flowered, and arguably the most popular cultivar, Mons. Jules Elie (very mundane, but appropriate here nonetheless). Someone coming to this article unaware of peonies probably does not know they are available in color beyond pink, white and magenta, such as blood red, pink coral, as just two examples. -- The gallery had descriptive labels about the cultivar and form. -- The gallery was not excessive, and as far as I am concerned, and Wikipedia policy is concerned, completely appropriate. A picture is worth a thousand words. Why be such a zealot? Charvex ( talk) 05:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I have formalised your move request at Talk:Nightblooming cereus. — AjaxSmack 21:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Tom, please note that in my original "numbered" response, I carefully directed only one comment to you. In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't implying that you were one of those who always argue for English names; I know that you don't. But there are so many that do, often based on the flimsiest of cases, that it does become frustrating for plant editors, and newcomers like HalfGig can be forgiven for not discriminating between reasonable and unreasonable editors. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
See post on Zad68's talk page. HalfGig talk 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I kindly ask of you to that you do not call me a sock puppet. There has been no reason to do so, especially on the talk page. Asdisis ( talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You missed the topic about Tesla's article being biased, that's why I will answer you here. As I can see, even before I joined wikipedia, there were problems with nationalistic attitude regarding Tesla's article. I think that's why it's protected. I tried to make a simple edit. I haven't thought it would be so hard. I'm not engaged only in this article. It's just that this article is merely impossible to edit. Allegations that I used cherry picked sources are unfounded and I dismiss them. Those people were free to list sources that prove I cherry picked. They failed to do so. Anyway, I made a summary of the sources listed in the article, and they were quite clear regarding my case. I agree with you. I also think my suggestion was dismissed on ad hominem basis. However, I'm not important. I had not based by suggestion upon my reputation, but more than a few dozen sources. On the other hand, you can see in the previous discussions that editors who posted none, or just a few sources (which were pretty much in my favor) had too strong objections than arguments and sources to support that objections. That can be a sign of nationalistic agenda. I find this article biased and I will try to correct it with objective sources. That doesn't mean I have nationalistic agenda, but rather that I'm trying to remove nationalistic deeds of previous editors. Lastly, I think that we all agree that every discussion about Tesla brings nationalistic attitude. However, because of that, it's important to make an objective article. Not to have constructs with double meaning, and so on. The present construct of Tesla's birthplace is directly copied from Serbian propaganda, despite the fact that only Britannica contains that construct, and other sources that contain in, have a further clarification to eliminate double meanings. I tried to change it both way, to mention Croatia, or to completely remove Croatia, and write only "Austrian Empire". The fact that some were quite adamant to keep that construct, without any objective reason, is worrying. Asdisis ( talk) 09:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Tom, you may have noticed it already, but in case you haven't... there is some discussion going on at Talk:Datura#Effects_of_Ingestion_2. Lou Sander ( talk) 05:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Re: this edit, Would you care to point out where in the article it states Tesla had operated as a physicist? i.e. had an advanced education as a physicist, proposed theories, did scientific experiments, or made contributions to physics? The word "scientist" or "physicist" does not show up in the article (other than noting Tesla's views on the topic) and WP:BURDEN does require that claims be referenced before you re-add them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 00:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Tom Hulse! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |}
I've watched these, too, and I agree with your well-explained reversions. I've done a lot of work on the Datura articles and a little on Brugmansia. I'm no particular expert on either of them, but I saw some really bad articles and set out to correct them. My interest in all this stems from my wife's having a bunch of semi-wild Datura plants in her garden. Lou Sander ( talk) 11:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello:
I think the opening sentence of this article could be more elegantly written, however, in lieu of a more thoroughgoing edit, I corrected the verb agreement with the subject. "Solanaceae is a family..." is incorrect because the subject "Solanaceae" is a plural word. It seems the trend on WP is to refer to plant families as singular, which is irksome to me. This fact is widely ignored, even in some textbooks and journal articles, but consider, for example, the explanation in Plant Systematics: An Integrated Approach by Singh, 2004.
James Gledhill, the renown author of The Names of Plants (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008) says:
adding the suffix -aceae to the stem, which is the name of an included genus."
I am happy to provide more explanation if you want. Thanks!
Michaplot (
talk) 22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
base of the angiosperm phylogenetic tree. Nature Vol 446| 15 March 2007| doi:10.1038/nature05612) "Here we show that Hydatellaceae, a small family of dwarf aquatics that were formerly interpreted as monocots, are instead a highly modified and previously unrecognized ancient lineage of angiosperms." Are--not is.
[Previous post deleted/revised by Michael & combined with his next post below]
Sorry about changing my post after the fact. I won't do that again.
OK, I believe I see the reason for your opinion on this. I have thought about this, and it seems to me that the debate has gotten rather convoluted. However, I think there are really only a few key issues here.
By way of summary and review, these are the three main issues we are trying to resolve here:
1) Is it proper to use a singular verb with a family (or other suprageneric) taxon name? (e.g. could we say, "Solanaceae is a family..."
2) Must the subject and object agree in number when the verb "to be" is used to equate them. (e.g. is, "Nightshades are a family" wrong because the plural "nightshades" are, "equated to a singular group, family"
3) Does adding the definite article "the" change the sense of a taxon name to singular, so that it now agrees with the singular object family. (e.g. is saying, "The Solanaceae are a family..." necessary to have the subject and object agree in number.
Let me know if that is not accurate. These are three distinct, though obviously related, issues. Here is what I think we have determined so far:
As for 1), you initially argued that the singular can be proper. (You said, "'Solanaceae is a family of plants' "(the singular "is" is used because it is obvious we are here, by mentioning the rank, talking about the one singular entity that makes up all the plants in this family or the single word that represents it).") So you reverted the article to "is".
I disagreed and argued the singular is never proper (unless the referent is the label (the taxon or the word) itself). To support your case you presented the Merriam-Webster usage guide, the full Singh quotation that I partially gave and the rules of English grammar. Here is my argument on this:
On issue 2), as you pointed out, examples abound both pro and con on agreement in number between subject and object, so examples alone will not resolve this issue. There is no rule, as far as I know, in English, but there is commonsense based on meaning. To use your example, it would not be proper to say, "Cattle are an animal" for obvious reasons. It would not be proper to say, "Customers buy a tomato" because this suggests the customers all buy one fruit--unless that is what you mean. And that is the key here: meaning. It is absolutely not improper to have a plural subject with a singular object if that is what you mean. My example, "Crops are a necessity" is a case in point. ("A necessity" is not an adjective as you say (it would be an adverb if anything), but it is used here as a noun). However, you also object because you say the "are" is not used to equate the "crops" with "a necessity". I don't think you can defend that theory, but I will let it lie. Instead, I will ask what about the following:
As for issue 3), this is a less definite issue. Among taxonomists, it seems to be a matter of style. My major professor in grad school advised me never to use "the" before a taxon, as it is unnecessary. Latin nouns do not take articles. Many taxonomist do, however, append a "the" in front of taxon names. The examples given in the scientific style manual I cited above both have the definite article.
I believe the reason that many people do use the definite article is because it is common in English, as you have argued. In standard English, (quoting MW), one of the uses of "the" is, "as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole <the elite>".
However, is it necessary, as you argue, or a matter of taste? I gave you several examples where taxonomists do not use an article before the family names to show it is a matter of taste and not grammatical necessity. You will not find a "the" in front of any of the family names in the APG treatment. Many of these (most in fact) are referring to taxonomic groups as entities, rather than the plants that make them up. The Doyle article I gave you is another example. Doyle, who was on my dissertation committee, I know is fluent in Latin. Cronquist, a very famous taxonomist, nearly always uses a "the" before family names. So it clearly varies.
So, while I think we could rewrite the Solanaceae treatment, but this is a bigger problem on WP and adding "the" does not seem like a general solution.
Michaplot (
talk) 03:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the note but I think you are mistaken. The WP:LINKSPAM says: "The Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." But the link I added, and you removed was not for the purpose of promoting a website or a product, it was used as a reference for the herb in question, specifically adding the information about how its also used to support the immune system though liver and lung support. 24.5.69.164 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC).
Sources I've looked at differ in what exactly they consider a "trivial name". It's true that Linnaeus wrote in Species Plantarum "Trivalia nomina in margine apposui" [1], and that what appears in the margin are single words, i.e. what we would now call specific epithets. However, it's not clear that Linnaeus meant these single words to be the trivial name itself, rather than the combination with the genus name. This latter interpretation is easily found by web searches, e.g. "Linnaeus suggested that each life-form should be labelled with a 'trivial name' or a two-word reference" (L Koerner, Cultures of natural history, 1996). I suspect your edit to Botanical nomenclature is right, but you need to to reference it I think. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Following the recent result of no consensus for the deletion of Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation, what are you thoughts on what could be added to the article? Currently, it basically duplicates the points already made at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Salvation, which seems fairly redundant. The principle JW beliefs of the matter seemed to be sufficiently explained at the Beliefs article, and the 'main' article is only about as long as the other section.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
As you can see I'm very new. I started by fixing references on soybean, then did the same on botany. Now I'm fixing other formatting and such. Thinking botany is a core topic of the plant kingdom, I'd like to make it the best I can. However, since I don't know much about improving the body of a wikipedia article yet, I was wondering if you would be interested in this too? You can answer here, I clicked the watch button on your page. 512bits ( talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Botany#Botany_article_structure_and_concerns. Thank you. Present for you on my user page too. 512bits ( talk) 23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Yucca faxoniana for another puzzle about yucca names. It seems a confused genus. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I see, that makes sense. I was wondering about that. Here's a question for you: do you think perhaps we should be linking to The Plant List instead of WCSP? They seem to include everything at WCSP, plus additional info from other databases. For instance Yucca faxoniana at WCSP, and Yucca faxoniana at TPL. TPL has everything WCSP does, plus an additional synonym from Tropicos, plus it has direct links to the WCSP page (which would presumably be automatically maintained in the future). -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 18:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Good to know. Thank you. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I responded to some of that stuff over at WT:MOS. I agree that "one-size-fits-all" won't work, but I also think that "one-size-fits-most" is pretty clear. It should set a default. In reverting that Alan fella's mass-rename of 100 or so glossaries, I got to see pretty much every possible kind of glossary name all in one day, and learned a lot from it. I'm still trying to synthesize it into something that can be written up as a clearer naming convention (in the guideline sense, not in the WP:AT policy sense). It's funny that you mentioned the equestrian example, because among horse people "equestrian" (more to the point, often capitalized as "Equestrian"), is treated as a noun! I.e., "I've been competing in Equestrian for 17 years." So from a "horse people" specialist-style perspective, Glossary of Equestrian is the proper article name! This is why I think that specialist style needs when they cause conflict or confusion have to be dropped, with prejudice. Equestrianists could easily make a "we MUST call it "glossary of Equestrian" per relaible sources!!!" fallacious argument, because they can instantly show that reliable equestrian sources tend to treat it as a noun, like "plastic" and "chiropractic", and tend to capitalize it. Every specialist style debate has the same quality and the same problems. That actually doesn't have much to do with "botany" vs. "botanical", though. The harshest thing that can be said about that use of "botanical" is that it can be construed as slightly ambiguous. No big deal. I was aiming for consistency, but am actually swayed by the COMMONNAME argument. Back to the MOS:GLOSS NC stuff: The equestrian example, if not for the coincidence of its "in-horsey-universe" noun usage, would have actually been a good example of where "term" is needed in glossary names; your instinct was right on that (and "equestrian terms" is almost certainly better than "equestrianism"). Anything that looks adjectival like "botanical" is going to need "term". If it is a noun that is unambiguously the name of field/topic and nothing else, like "botany", it won't need that, though including it isn't harmful; "glossary of botany terms" is technically redundant, I concede, but consistency might be more important. Then again, redirects work for a reason. <shrug> If it's a noun that can be a field/topic or can be a count noun, then its need "term", and this is where Alan L. caused problems. Glossary of boilers, glossary of fuel cells, glossary of Japanese swords, etc., all imply a list of entries of examples of these things and their properties defined, not a list of terms about those topics. That's a serious comprehensibility issue. There are other cases to be addressed too; like "glossary of HVAC" just sounds like gibberish. So, I am definitely thinking on it, and input is welcome. WT:MOSGLOSS is wide open. :-) PS: Sorry if I was tooth gnashy at the botany glossary page. I felt kinda ganged up on for a bit. All old news to me now. PS: I mentioned MOS:GLOSS in reference to including " terms" in the name. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 14:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Tom. I was just idly perusing various pages, and noticed your recent postings at Talk:Abutilon x hybridum; in my view, I think you may wish to change your initial addressing of "Hi Andrea" to "Hi Nadia" - it might be better received! :) PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tom! I saw your post on the talk page of Panopea generosa aka the Pacific geoduck; BYW Geoduck does have a redirect to this species. Just like you are a self proclaimed "plant nut" I am a "shell nut", hence the moniker. This article comes under the global umbrella of WikiProject Bivalves, which is patterned after WikiProject Gastropods. We are trying to use proper taxonomy throughout both projects, up to date per the World Register of Marine Species. Knowing that a lot of people use the common names for organisms we try to use redirects to get the common name search moved to the formal name article. Part of the problem we run into with marine fauna is that "common names" have not always garnered full acceptance, and sometimes there are multiple common names. With birds I know that there are generally accepted common names; maybe this is true in botany too. If you are interested, go to the main class article Bivalvia and scroll down through the taxonomy. For starters we are trying to clean up the major taxa through families, working down to species articles as we have time and interest. Shellnut ( talk)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brugmansia arborea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Sweet ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Pol430 talk to me 19:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I saw you deleted the small portion of the peony gallery I restored, with a comment. I read the text of Wikipedia policy, and am excerpting it here: « However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–1795 in fashion for an example of a good use of galleries. »
OK. If you think that one image of the peony blossom is adequately encyclopedic, you are sadly mistaken. The flower has a wide variety of forms (I won't bother listing them) and surprisingly wide range of color. The images provided on Wikipedia showed an extremely limited of number of forms as a sample: single, double, Japanese flowered, and arguably the most popular cultivar, Mons. Jules Elie (very mundane, but appropriate here nonetheless). Someone coming to this article unaware of peonies probably does not know they are available in color beyond pink, white and magenta, such as blood red, pink coral, as just two examples. -- The gallery had descriptive labels about the cultivar and form. -- The gallery was not excessive, and as far as I am concerned, and Wikipedia policy is concerned, completely appropriate. A picture is worth a thousand words. Why be such a zealot? Charvex ( talk) 05:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I have formalised your move request at Talk:Nightblooming cereus. — AjaxSmack 21:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Tom, please note that in my original "numbered" response, I carefully directed only one comment to you. In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't implying that you were one of those who always argue for English names; I know that you don't. But there are so many that do, often based on the flimsiest of cases, that it does become frustrating for plant editors, and newcomers like HalfGig can be forgiven for not discriminating between reasonable and unreasonable editors. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
See post on Zad68's talk page. HalfGig talk 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I kindly ask of you to that you do not call me a sock puppet. There has been no reason to do so, especially on the talk page. Asdisis ( talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You missed the topic about Tesla's article being biased, that's why I will answer you here. As I can see, even before I joined wikipedia, there were problems with nationalistic attitude regarding Tesla's article. I think that's why it's protected. I tried to make a simple edit. I haven't thought it would be so hard. I'm not engaged only in this article. It's just that this article is merely impossible to edit. Allegations that I used cherry picked sources are unfounded and I dismiss them. Those people were free to list sources that prove I cherry picked. They failed to do so. Anyway, I made a summary of the sources listed in the article, and they were quite clear regarding my case. I agree with you. I also think my suggestion was dismissed on ad hominem basis. However, I'm not important. I had not based by suggestion upon my reputation, but more than a few dozen sources. On the other hand, you can see in the previous discussions that editors who posted none, or just a few sources (which were pretty much in my favor) had too strong objections than arguments and sources to support that objections. That can be a sign of nationalistic agenda. I find this article biased and I will try to correct it with objective sources. That doesn't mean I have nationalistic agenda, but rather that I'm trying to remove nationalistic deeds of previous editors. Lastly, I think that we all agree that every discussion about Tesla brings nationalistic attitude. However, because of that, it's important to make an objective article. Not to have constructs with double meaning, and so on. The present construct of Tesla's birthplace is directly copied from Serbian propaganda, despite the fact that only Britannica contains that construct, and other sources that contain in, have a further clarification to eliminate double meanings. I tried to change it both way, to mention Croatia, or to completely remove Croatia, and write only "Austrian Empire". The fact that some were quite adamant to keep that construct, without any objective reason, is worrying. Asdisis ( talk) 09:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Tom, you may have noticed it already, but in case you haven't... there is some discussion going on at Talk:Datura#Effects_of_Ingestion_2. Lou Sander ( talk) 05:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Re: this edit, Would you care to point out where in the article it states Tesla had operated as a physicist? i.e. had an advanced education as a physicist, proposed theories, did scientific experiments, or made contributions to physics? The word "scientist" or "physicist" does not show up in the article (other than noting Tesla's views on the topic) and WP:BURDEN does require that claims be referenced before you re-add them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 00:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)