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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Are " banyan" and " strangler fig" synonyms? For most of last year, there was a proposal to merge the second into the first that eventually fizzled. As a previously uninvolved party, who is obviously partial to one name, I've put forward some sources on Talk:Banyan that I think prove that they are identical. (And also that the current location of Strangler Fig should be a redirect to an article on the species Ficus citrifolia, rather than strangler fig being a redirect to Strangler Fig.) Comments appreciated. - Banyan Tree 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
When adding details from a tree book by Keeler, I often find it hard to weave the details with the existing material. The detailed plant descriptions would seem useful for tasks such as identification. So far, I've added a list of details and some other material which sometimes duplicates some existing text. I invite further editing to these articles. ( SEWilco 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
The clowns, thats good...need a good laugh today. "Corolla: Petals five, white, inserted on margin of the disk, acute, slightly inflexed at the apex, imbricate in bud."
How about "Corolla made up of five white colored petals that are inserted on the margin of the disk, the petals narrow, closing together at the ends and folded around each other while in bud, unfolding when opening" I do not know which species you are talking about so some details would need adjusting. Hardyplants 03:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I like Aralia, have two herbaceous species around here and worked at a nursery that sold this species a long time ago (loved the large compound leaves), inflexed at the apex was meant to be covered by "closing together at the ends" but did not turn out as clear as it should have been...the petals close together like a soft drink bottle mouth, being wider in the middle and narrower at the end in this case the bottom of the petals form a narrow tube and flair out to a cup shape and the ends of the cup bend inward some what.
On descriptions I like to start with large structures and work down, so "Flowers in large umbel-like panicles at the ends of stems blooming in July into August. The flowers off white in color, composed of five petals...ect. I think your doing a good job and the information can be rearranged when others have more time. Hardyplants 07:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking at the Phrymaceae article and thinking about how radically this family has been redefined in recent years (from the single genus Phryma with just a couple of species, to several genera previously included in Scrophulariaceae, now comprising over a hundred species). The two illustrations for the article are of Mimulus (formerly a scroph) but there is no illustration of Phryma itself, the genus that gives the family its name. I would suggest that plant editors push to include an illustration of the "type" genus, if only because this is the only genus that is guaranteed to be included in the family under any circumscription--for example see Scrophulariaceae, where there is an illustration of the genus Scrophularia. MrDarwin 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As gardeners are interested in when plants flower, I suggest categories for approximate date of flowering. Text on the category pages should say the dates are approximate and point to Season or Growing season for details. If there is an existing article with details on factors which affect local gardens, I haven't found it. Earlier discussion was at [1]. Using the seasonal dates from Season#Meteorological:
Meteorology | Months ( North/ South) |
Category |
---|---|---|
Winter | Jan/Jul | Category:Mid winter flowers |
Feb/Aug | Category:Late winter flowers | |
Spring | Mar/Sep | Category:Early spring flowers |
Apr/Oct | Category:Mid spring flowers | |
May/Nov | Category:Late spring flowers | |
Summer | Jun/Dec | Category:Early summer flowers |
Jul/Jan | Category:Mid summer flowers | |
Aug/Feb | Category:Late summer flowers | |
Autumn | Sep/Mar | Category:Early autumn flowers |
Oct/Apr | Category:Mid autumn flowers | |
Nov/May | Category:Late autumn flowers | |
Winter | Dec/Jun | Category:Early winter flowers |
I chose the category name to refer to "flowers" so it applies to any flowering plant; my attention was drawn to the topic while editing trees. ( SEWilco 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
Here in the mountainous parts of the US, the season is heavily dictated by elevation - Death Valley's spring *ends* in March, while March is early- to mid-spring in Las Vegas, just a few miles away but 2500 feet higher. I suppose one could explain the conceptual notion of seasons; I once heard somebody say "four consecutive days over 70 deg F" as what was needed to get Mojave annuals to come up. I'm not sure how practical the categorization will be; garden plants are often cultivars not tied to a specific species, but genera are likely to have a broad range of seasons among their members, so you'll get a "every genus in every category" problem. Stan 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
One editor, User:OMGrace, had created dozens of copyvio articles (e.g. Alepidea peduncularis) that I went through and nominated for speedy deletion for reason of copyright violation. Another editor came through and reduced the article to essentially a single sentence and a taxobox. I'm not sure what camp I belong to, deletionist, etc., but should we be creating such articles that don't even meet the stub requirement of a few sentences? I'm just wondering if such articles could potentially be deleted under {{ db-context}} because of utter lack of info? Ideally, they would be expanded. I suppose it all depends on whether or not you're an eventualist or a deletionist. Thoughts? -- Rkitko ( talk) 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Come in on this a bit late, but technically, where a page starts with copyvio stuff, it should be deleted (to remove the copyvio entirely from the page history; otherwise it is still lurking there in the history, violating the owner's copyright) and the page re-started afresh with non-copyvio material - MPF 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I've tagged/rated quite a few plant articles with project ratings. Since I got all of the terms from an intro-bio textbook, I rated them all as "high", but feel free to "demote" some of them if you think I've treated their importance level too generously. ;) If I get the time, I might go through a botany textbook for a couple more "mid" importance ratings. - tameeria 22:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This article, Trillium cuneatum, includes an image, Image:TRCU.png, that I'm not sure if copyrighted or public domain. Since the PLANTS database has a lot of overlap with plant articles here, I would imagine that this issue has come up before, but I don't know what the result was. If not, the link to the original image is here. It is listed as (c), but since this comes from a .gov, is it really? It looks like it is a dynamic image generated from the GD graphics library, and thus would probably not be covered by copyright, but I don't know for sure. -- RM 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Anybody able to dig an image for this article? A quick review before it goes up at DYK would be nice too. Circeus 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Taxonomists seem to widely accept the inclusion of Lychnis into Silene, however, so far, Wikipedia has mostly failed (except for Silene coronaria) to account it properly: Although S. chalcedonica is listed at Silene, it is still located at Lychnis chalcedonica. A merger (with a proper disambiguation page at Lychnis) is needed, but complicated (especially forme, who has relatively limited access to whatever publications are needed. Anybody willing to help? Circeus 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the bot had added hormosira banksii, a common seaweed (brown algae) to the project scope. Does the project include such life forms? Perhaps some clarification could be made on the project page? Richard001 09:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion algae are in botany, they are plants not protista. Hoek, Mann and Jahns (1995). Algae An introduction to phycology. comments: ...the third Kingdom, the Protista. The uncertainties in the classification of these organisations demonstrates that the division of all living things into two kingdoms, plant and animal, is unsatisfactory. I don't agree with Protista - it includes large and microscopic algae as well a single-celled animals. However so what, I am as naught! I am about to retire and will not see the answer to this discussion - unless you comment to me in My Talk. Osborne 16:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Category:Plant articles needing photos should be mentioned in the project page. ( SEWilco 19:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
I see the roll-out of these categories has begun. All of a sudden I've realised that the total number of flowering plants, divided by twelve, equals 12 absolutely massive and therefore utterly useless categories. Can we discuss this point before taking it any further? Hesperian 00:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It has been pointed out that Category:Flowers could use a lot of work. What subcategories might the members be migrated to? Flower families, height, colors, soil, moisture preferences? ( SEWilco 08:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
I just reembered the name I originally wanted to suggest: Category:Ornamental plants. "Flowers" should be dropped entirely. Circeus 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Guys - I'm not sure how active this wikiproject is, but I have a job that could use some work. I have three separate galleries of plant pictures I've taken at some point or another. They're all identified and uploaded. They need to be incorporated into their respective articles, most of which do not yet exist. Raul654 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
While following up on Alba (elm hybrid) listed on Category:Plant articles needing taxoboxes, I discovered Elm species, varieties, cultivars and hybrids#Hybrids and hybrid cultivars, which lists large numbers of Ulmus × hollandica cultivars with article names beginning with the cultivar name. In my opinion that is ridiculous, since a cultivar name, like a specific epithet, has no meaning out of context: An appropriate article name would be Ulmus × hollandica 'Alba', for example. But before I start moving these, I wanted to check in to make sure this isn't some sort of horticultural convention in Wikipedia.-- Curtis Clark 20:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Rosa 'Mister Lincoln or Ulmus 'Tall Green' - these cultivars are correctly named. Genus first then the cultivar name. Subspecies is different because more than one species in the same genus can have the same subspecies name. The list of Tomato cultivars is a bit short, the vast majority of "vegetable" cultivars are open pollinated and a good number are registered and many are protected under the law (both in North America and under International law) against unlawful propagation. Hardyplants 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems User:Brya intends to test Wikipedia every few months with a new sock. [2] There may be more out there. I undid category edits, feel free, anyone, to check what should be done about the recat, if anything. Apparently Brya does not intend to be a discrete sock puppeteer. KP Botany 19:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There's another one at Groosy ( talk · contribs). I reverted those changes (most of them clear cut, although I wasn't sure about the capitalization of Genera in the taxobox at Kingdoniaceae) although I haven't done anything block-related other than posting here. Kingdon 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The User:Brya sock puppet check caught 9 more sock puppets, all have been tagged and blocked. [4] Someone had been following the various socks around and changing their edits, as all were bad edits, but a number still need reverted. KP Botany 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Plant defense against herbivory - this has apparently been nominated for GA. Can do with some help. Shyamal 08:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
In the article template Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template there are two "History" sections, which causes problems for browsers trying to jump to the second History section. Maybe the Cultivation history section should be renamed. ( SEWilco 02:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
I'm going around gradually updating these articles: same for the Cruciferae and Polygonaceae families too. If you can help me, leave a message on my talk page. -- SunStar Net talk 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Circeus 06:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The article about inflorescence is very inaccurate. I think this is very important for the project (isn't it cited almost in any plant article?) and it should be improved very much. As usual the article about Blütenstand in the German wiki is wundervoll, it could be used as source (look at those schemes!). Aelwyn 08:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Denis Barthel has agreed to proofread the article and to give a hand. Thx for the advice! Aelwyn 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Anybody care to review what I have at User:Circeus/Verbascum for any obvious gaps? Circeus 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to bring forth a lot of the work I've put into my sandbox on the genus Stylidium. As of right now, I haven't been following any specific naming convention (see Repentes, Tolypangium), but I realize other genera may share these subgeneric names (e.g. Verticillatae conflicted with the higher level taxon Verticillatae, a former Brya page and now redirect). Should I continue to create these pages at their given names and disambig. with parenthetical expressions in the title when necessary or should I follow the example of WP:BANKSIA (e.g. Banksia subg. Isostylis, Banksia sect. Oncostylis, etc.)? Should we state our decision here in the flora naming convention? -- Rkitko ( talk) 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks for the input! I thought about the article titles and problems with disambiguation after I created them. I had seen WP:BANKSIA's work and liked the format, but wanted to make sure there was consensus for it. Thought I'd check here and see if we should place this bit of article naming convention in WP:NC (flora), too. While we're at it, is there any consensus we can come to about cultivar, variety, and subspecies article titles? -- Rkitko ( talk) 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
While I would like to welcome MPF back to editing in Wikipedia after a long break, I have to object strongly to the move he made by "correcting" the spelling of Stewartia to Stuartia and would like to hear the comments of other plant editors. As this affects a Linnaean name, and a well-known genus, MPF's move is fairly significant. In a nutshell, the spelling Stuartia has been rejected by all recent systematists who have worked on the family Theaceae, including those working on the genus itself. See the talk page of that article for further comments. MrDarwin 14:42, 29 May 2007 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Are " banyan" and " strangler fig" synonyms? For most of last year, there was a proposal to merge the second into the first that eventually fizzled. As a previously uninvolved party, who is obviously partial to one name, I've put forward some sources on Talk:Banyan that I think prove that they are identical. (And also that the current location of Strangler Fig should be a redirect to an article on the species Ficus citrifolia, rather than strangler fig being a redirect to Strangler Fig.) Comments appreciated. - Banyan Tree 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
When adding details from a tree book by Keeler, I often find it hard to weave the details with the existing material. The detailed plant descriptions would seem useful for tasks such as identification. So far, I've added a list of details and some other material which sometimes duplicates some existing text. I invite further editing to these articles. ( SEWilco 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
The clowns, thats good...need a good laugh today. "Corolla: Petals five, white, inserted on margin of the disk, acute, slightly inflexed at the apex, imbricate in bud."
How about "Corolla made up of five white colored petals that are inserted on the margin of the disk, the petals narrow, closing together at the ends and folded around each other while in bud, unfolding when opening" I do not know which species you are talking about so some details would need adjusting. Hardyplants 03:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I like Aralia, have two herbaceous species around here and worked at a nursery that sold this species a long time ago (loved the large compound leaves), inflexed at the apex was meant to be covered by "closing together at the ends" but did not turn out as clear as it should have been...the petals close together like a soft drink bottle mouth, being wider in the middle and narrower at the end in this case the bottom of the petals form a narrow tube and flair out to a cup shape and the ends of the cup bend inward some what.
On descriptions I like to start with large structures and work down, so "Flowers in large umbel-like panicles at the ends of stems blooming in July into August. The flowers off white in color, composed of five petals...ect. I think your doing a good job and the information can be rearranged when others have more time. Hardyplants 07:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking at the Phrymaceae article and thinking about how radically this family has been redefined in recent years (from the single genus Phryma with just a couple of species, to several genera previously included in Scrophulariaceae, now comprising over a hundred species). The two illustrations for the article are of Mimulus (formerly a scroph) but there is no illustration of Phryma itself, the genus that gives the family its name. I would suggest that plant editors push to include an illustration of the "type" genus, if only because this is the only genus that is guaranteed to be included in the family under any circumscription--for example see Scrophulariaceae, where there is an illustration of the genus Scrophularia. MrDarwin 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As gardeners are interested in when plants flower, I suggest categories for approximate date of flowering. Text on the category pages should say the dates are approximate and point to Season or Growing season for details. If there is an existing article with details on factors which affect local gardens, I haven't found it. Earlier discussion was at [1]. Using the seasonal dates from Season#Meteorological:
Meteorology | Months ( North/ South) |
Category |
---|---|---|
Winter | Jan/Jul | Category:Mid winter flowers |
Feb/Aug | Category:Late winter flowers | |
Spring | Mar/Sep | Category:Early spring flowers |
Apr/Oct | Category:Mid spring flowers | |
May/Nov | Category:Late spring flowers | |
Summer | Jun/Dec | Category:Early summer flowers |
Jul/Jan | Category:Mid summer flowers | |
Aug/Feb | Category:Late summer flowers | |
Autumn | Sep/Mar | Category:Early autumn flowers |
Oct/Apr | Category:Mid autumn flowers | |
Nov/May | Category:Late autumn flowers | |
Winter | Dec/Jun | Category:Early winter flowers |
I chose the category name to refer to "flowers" so it applies to any flowering plant; my attention was drawn to the topic while editing trees. ( SEWilco 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
Here in the mountainous parts of the US, the season is heavily dictated by elevation - Death Valley's spring *ends* in March, while March is early- to mid-spring in Las Vegas, just a few miles away but 2500 feet higher. I suppose one could explain the conceptual notion of seasons; I once heard somebody say "four consecutive days over 70 deg F" as what was needed to get Mojave annuals to come up. I'm not sure how practical the categorization will be; garden plants are often cultivars not tied to a specific species, but genera are likely to have a broad range of seasons among their members, so you'll get a "every genus in every category" problem. Stan 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
One editor, User:OMGrace, had created dozens of copyvio articles (e.g. Alepidea peduncularis) that I went through and nominated for speedy deletion for reason of copyright violation. Another editor came through and reduced the article to essentially a single sentence and a taxobox. I'm not sure what camp I belong to, deletionist, etc., but should we be creating such articles that don't even meet the stub requirement of a few sentences? I'm just wondering if such articles could potentially be deleted under {{ db-context}} because of utter lack of info? Ideally, they would be expanded. I suppose it all depends on whether or not you're an eventualist or a deletionist. Thoughts? -- Rkitko ( talk) 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Come in on this a bit late, but technically, where a page starts with copyvio stuff, it should be deleted (to remove the copyvio entirely from the page history; otherwise it is still lurking there in the history, violating the owner's copyright) and the page re-started afresh with non-copyvio material - MPF 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I've tagged/rated quite a few plant articles with project ratings. Since I got all of the terms from an intro-bio textbook, I rated them all as "high", but feel free to "demote" some of them if you think I've treated their importance level too generously. ;) If I get the time, I might go through a botany textbook for a couple more "mid" importance ratings. - tameeria 22:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This article, Trillium cuneatum, includes an image, Image:TRCU.png, that I'm not sure if copyrighted or public domain. Since the PLANTS database has a lot of overlap with plant articles here, I would imagine that this issue has come up before, but I don't know what the result was. If not, the link to the original image is here. It is listed as (c), but since this comes from a .gov, is it really? It looks like it is a dynamic image generated from the GD graphics library, and thus would probably not be covered by copyright, but I don't know for sure. -- RM 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Anybody able to dig an image for this article? A quick review before it goes up at DYK would be nice too. Circeus 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Taxonomists seem to widely accept the inclusion of Lychnis into Silene, however, so far, Wikipedia has mostly failed (except for Silene coronaria) to account it properly: Although S. chalcedonica is listed at Silene, it is still located at Lychnis chalcedonica. A merger (with a proper disambiguation page at Lychnis) is needed, but complicated (especially forme, who has relatively limited access to whatever publications are needed. Anybody willing to help? Circeus 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the bot had added hormosira banksii, a common seaweed (brown algae) to the project scope. Does the project include such life forms? Perhaps some clarification could be made on the project page? Richard001 09:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion algae are in botany, they are plants not protista. Hoek, Mann and Jahns (1995). Algae An introduction to phycology. comments: ...the third Kingdom, the Protista. The uncertainties in the classification of these organisations demonstrates that the division of all living things into two kingdoms, plant and animal, is unsatisfactory. I don't agree with Protista - it includes large and microscopic algae as well a single-celled animals. However so what, I am as naught! I am about to retire and will not see the answer to this discussion - unless you comment to me in My Talk. Osborne 16:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Category:Plant articles needing photos should be mentioned in the project page. ( SEWilco 19:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
I see the roll-out of these categories has begun. All of a sudden I've realised that the total number of flowering plants, divided by twelve, equals 12 absolutely massive and therefore utterly useless categories. Can we discuss this point before taking it any further? Hesperian 00:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It has been pointed out that Category:Flowers could use a lot of work. What subcategories might the members be migrated to? Flower families, height, colors, soil, moisture preferences? ( SEWilco 08:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
I just reembered the name I originally wanted to suggest: Category:Ornamental plants. "Flowers" should be dropped entirely. Circeus 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Guys - I'm not sure how active this wikiproject is, but I have a job that could use some work. I have three separate galleries of plant pictures I've taken at some point or another. They're all identified and uploaded. They need to be incorporated into their respective articles, most of which do not yet exist. Raul654 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
While following up on Alba (elm hybrid) listed on Category:Plant articles needing taxoboxes, I discovered Elm species, varieties, cultivars and hybrids#Hybrids and hybrid cultivars, which lists large numbers of Ulmus × hollandica cultivars with article names beginning with the cultivar name. In my opinion that is ridiculous, since a cultivar name, like a specific epithet, has no meaning out of context: An appropriate article name would be Ulmus × hollandica 'Alba', for example. But before I start moving these, I wanted to check in to make sure this isn't some sort of horticultural convention in Wikipedia.-- Curtis Clark 20:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Rosa 'Mister Lincoln or Ulmus 'Tall Green' - these cultivars are correctly named. Genus first then the cultivar name. Subspecies is different because more than one species in the same genus can have the same subspecies name. The list of Tomato cultivars is a bit short, the vast majority of "vegetable" cultivars are open pollinated and a good number are registered and many are protected under the law (both in North America and under International law) against unlawful propagation. Hardyplants 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems User:Brya intends to test Wikipedia every few months with a new sock. [2] There may be more out there. I undid category edits, feel free, anyone, to check what should be done about the recat, if anything. Apparently Brya does not intend to be a discrete sock puppeteer. KP Botany 19:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There's another one at Groosy ( talk · contribs). I reverted those changes (most of them clear cut, although I wasn't sure about the capitalization of Genera in the taxobox at Kingdoniaceae) although I haven't done anything block-related other than posting here. Kingdon 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The User:Brya sock puppet check caught 9 more sock puppets, all have been tagged and blocked. [4] Someone had been following the various socks around and changing their edits, as all were bad edits, but a number still need reverted. KP Botany 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Plant defense against herbivory - this has apparently been nominated for GA. Can do with some help. Shyamal 08:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
In the article template Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template there are two "History" sections, which causes problems for browsers trying to jump to the second History section. Maybe the Cultivation history section should be renamed. ( SEWilco 02:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
I'm going around gradually updating these articles: same for the Cruciferae and Polygonaceae families too. If you can help me, leave a message on my talk page. -- SunStar Net talk 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Circeus 06:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The article about inflorescence is very inaccurate. I think this is very important for the project (isn't it cited almost in any plant article?) and it should be improved very much. As usual the article about Blütenstand in the German wiki is wundervoll, it could be used as source (look at those schemes!). Aelwyn 08:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Denis Barthel has agreed to proofread the article and to give a hand. Thx for the advice! Aelwyn 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Anybody care to review what I have at User:Circeus/Verbascum for any obvious gaps? Circeus 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to bring forth a lot of the work I've put into my sandbox on the genus Stylidium. As of right now, I haven't been following any specific naming convention (see Repentes, Tolypangium), but I realize other genera may share these subgeneric names (e.g. Verticillatae conflicted with the higher level taxon Verticillatae, a former Brya page and now redirect). Should I continue to create these pages at their given names and disambig. with parenthetical expressions in the title when necessary or should I follow the example of WP:BANKSIA (e.g. Banksia subg. Isostylis, Banksia sect. Oncostylis, etc.)? Should we state our decision here in the flora naming convention? -- Rkitko ( talk) 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks for the input! I thought about the article titles and problems with disambiguation after I created them. I had seen WP:BANKSIA's work and liked the format, but wanted to make sure there was consensus for it. Thought I'd check here and see if we should place this bit of article naming convention in WP:NC (flora), too. While we're at it, is there any consensus we can come to about cultivar, variety, and subspecies article titles? -- Rkitko ( talk) 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
While I would like to welcome MPF back to editing in Wikipedia after a long break, I have to object strongly to the move he made by "correcting" the spelling of Stewartia to Stuartia and would like to hear the comments of other plant editors. As this affects a Linnaean name, and a well-known genus, MPF's move is fairly significant. In a nutshell, the spelling Stuartia has been rejected by all recent systematists who have worked on the family Theaceae, including those working on the genus itself. See the talk page of that article for further comments. MrDarwin 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)