![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Hey folks. Sorry to keep spamming the project, but I keep coming upon issues that I need help on. I came upon Adenium arabicum, which has several issues. I couldn't immediately detect a copyright violation even though I suspect the descriptions of each type to be copy/pasted from somewhere. The larger issue is that Adenium says it's monotypic with "arabicum" an epithet at the subspecific level. I can't seem to untangle this one. Is it a cultivar? Adenium 'Arabicum'? Any help is appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 04:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This, perhaps?-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I added Adenium multiflorum. Can't figure out if it is a subspecies either. Many of the African Apocynaceae used as Bonsai are also used as arrow poisons in their native lands and can be problematic to the grower for this reason. I once had to move a bunch of them and a helper got cut pretty badly, as did the plant, which panicked all the gardeners because of the sap. -- KP Botany ( talk) 07:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) IPNI has it, but not the Adenium obesum subsp. arabicum of the Adenium article, and none of the Google hits for the latter include an author. In my experience, a lot of succulent fanciers play fast and loose with nomenclature.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 07:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
when I followed the link this is what came up - but its not very authoritative. Hardyplants ( talk) 07:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Adenium arabicum as known in horticulture is native to a narrow strip near the coast on the western half of the southern Arabian peninsula (in Yemen and Saudi Arabia). The correct name for these plants is Adenium obesum, and the African plants we know as A. obesum must properly be called something else. In cultivation they are usually shrubs with massive caudexes. Plants grow rapidly and develop large caudexes in only a few years. Most plants flower mainly in spring before leafing out. Better clones flower sporadically throughout the year.
The article Salsola (aka the Tumbleweed, Saltwort, or Russian thistle) says: "Salsola ... is a genus of herbs, subshrubs, shrubs, and small trees ... native to Africa, Asia, and Europe". However, the article largely focuses on Salsola in North America. Can anybody add some info on Salsola in its native habitats? -- 201.53.7.16 ( talk) 14:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Now we have a new article, Tumbleweed (diaspore), about the tumbleweed habit, and Tumbleweed (disambiguation) includes a list of plant common names that include "tumbleweed". I hope now it is clear why I have requested a move of the disambiguation page to Tumbleweed. Please weigh in on Talk:Tumbleweed (disambiguation)#Requested move. -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I created this category to link all the bamboo genera onto a single page, but, now, it occurs to me this may not be the naming protocol for the category. Should it be called something else, surely not genera of bamboo? I will finish the categorizing, though, because I want them all in one place so I can start adding information. -- KP Botany ( talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Category:Hybrid Rubus lists numerous articles about Rubus (raspberry) hybrids, titled using the most commonly used common name of the plant. These page titles may be a better alternative than using the scientific identification of the hybrid. Thoughts? -- Una Smith ( talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
We Aussies seem to be way ahead of the game when it comes to templating our online sources: {{ APNI}}, {{ Flora of Australia Online}}, {{ SPRAT}}, {{ FloraBase}}, {{ NSW Flora Online}}.... Anyhow, I just created {{ GRIN}}. Use it wisely. Hesperian 13:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know what type pf plant/flower this is (Image 01) (Image 02) (Image 03)? Thanks in advance Peachey88 ( Talk Page | Contribs) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Autochthony speaks. I know very little about plants. I also know that having images in an article [not merely available elsewhere, Wikicommons, via Google, wherever] enriches the article - especially for plants.
I note the Wikipedia policy, but suggest, timidly, that having good images really helps articles on plants - especially; if only because few people know much about them. 81.157.223.75 ( talk) 20:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Tuft is an aeronautics article—not very good for linking to when writing about grasses whose growth habit is a tuft, as opposed to a tussock, hummock, herb, etc. Are there any prospects for an article called tuft (grass), or would such an article necessarily be nothing more than a dictionary definition? Are these terms even well-defined? Hesperian 11:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
To get started, I made Tuft (disambiguation). It is long, and maybe food for thought about how best to handle plant common names. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a recent deletion debate about the List of edible flowers. Apart from sourcing problems, the question of whether lists like that are workable at all was raised (yeah, it was raised by me, but that's beside the point). I just came across a few similar lists
I think that list of honey plants is important, although very difficult to maintain. Plants with edible leaves is iffy, IMO, and "trees and shrubs by taxonomic family" is almost unworkable. On the other hand, that was not seen as a problem in the deletion debate over the list of edible flowers. I'm a list maker myself, and I'm most definitely not a deletionist. I realise that problems like this aren't new. But I thought it might be interesting to solicit some opinions here... Guettarda ( talk) 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hours ago KP Botany tagged Tumbleweed (diaspore) for speedy deletion and it was deleted before I had a chance to tag it {{ hangon}}. That was a 1.7KB article that I was getting ready to submit as a Did You Know item. It is not too late though. I have put a hangon tag on the blank page, and I would appreciate help getting it restored. You can do that by commenting on Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore). Thanks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(reply to EdJohnson) The most discussion is on the AN/I page, here. -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Here, here's your move and my move, both in edit history. Just click on the history--that's where it is. -- KP Botany ( talk) 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
KP Botany, those are the edit histories of the articles now at Tumbleweed and Talk:Tumbleweed. They are not the edit histories of Tumbleweed (diaspore) and Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore) since your move. -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And, this is enough. -- KP Botany ( talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
KP Botany, how are you coming on disambiguating the 43 incoming links to Tumbleweed? You put the article there, so that little chore is yours. -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Restored, for the sole purpose of giving access to the history, for the sake of the discussion. I have no comment on the dispute, at this stage. Hesperian 03:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Euphorbia tannensis var. finlaysonii | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
(unranked): | |
(unranked): | |
(unranked): | |
Order: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | |
Subspecies: | |
Variety: | E. tannensis var. eremophila
|
Trinomial name | |
Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila var. finlaysonii |
It had to happen eventually: I've finally created an article on a variety of a subspecies. Well, two actually: Euphorbia tannensis var. eremophila and Euphorbia tannensis var. finlaysonii. As I understand it, it is permissable to refer to these by both their shorter, trinomial names, as in these titles; or by their fully ranked names, i.e. "Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila var. eremophila" and "Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila var. finlaysonii.
I am quite happy to entitle these articles with their shorter names—indeed I think it ought to be in our convention—but I believe it is in the spirit of the "Binomial name"/"Trinomial name" section of the taxobox to provide a fully ranked name there. You can see my problem: the fully ranked name is neither binomial nor trinomial.
I am happy to update the taxobox, but what should be done? Is there such a thing as a "Quadrinomial name"? Is "Full name" an acceptable alternative?
Hesperian 13:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing some research instead of just talking shit, for a change.
Firstly, the Vienna Code says
I suspect I am going to have to read this twenty times before I begin to comprehend the disputes and compromises inherent in the wording, and its implications for us.
Secondly, an "autonym", by definition, encompasses the type material of the species. A variety that encompasses the type material of its subspecies, but not of its species, is not an autonym. And this is only a Recommendation:
So there is no problem with my "interesting side-effect".
Hesperian 04:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys; I'm happy with the outcome here. [2] [3] [4] [5]. Hesperian 05:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It is now my turn to apologise for monopolising this board.
A question like my tuft question above: "polygamous" means bearing both perfect and imperfect flowers on the same plant. Our article on polygamy is about having multiple wives at the same time, so we can't link to it. Is polygamy (botany) capable of being more than a dictionary definition?
Hesperian 04:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In DV Cowen's book 'Flowering trees and shrubs in India' she gives alternative names for over 100 items in various languages used in India - Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Sinhalese, Bengali, Malay, 'Tel' (?), 'Can' (?). As a test I added some of these to the article on Butea Flame of the Forest, and a couple to the Delonix regia Flamboyant article. I am not a botanist, but it seems to me that the conventions for listing names in other languages are not consistent, at least in these two articles. This is not an area that I want to spend too much time on, but comment would be most welcome on the value of adding more names and the style in which it should be done. Colinvlr ( talk) 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Joining the discussion rather late, I have a different take on this. I believe that we should document all verifiable vernacular names for plant species. Per NPOV, we should at the very least be including all verifiable names used for a plant species in English. Given the official status of English in southern India, there's no a priori valid reason for excluding these names. Giving special preference to US/Canada/UK/Australia worsens the problems of systematic bias. And while we're at it, in the interest of completeness (you know, that whole "sum total of human knowledge" thing), we should include verifiable vernacular names in other languages. That's certainly better than drawing some sort of arbitrary threshold of "usage of English" that we make up here.
Obviously fitting in more than a couple vernacular names creates problems. But that's just the reality of working with plants. Even if we restrict ourselves to countries where English has official status, or where English is spoken as a first language by more than x% of the population, we can still get dozens of common names. In Trinidad plants commonly have at least 3 common names - one 'Creole' name (usually of Spanish, French or Amerindian origin), one Indian name (Hindi, Bhojpuri or Tamil origins) and one English name (brought by immigrants from Barbados or the Lesser Antilles). And all of these constitute usage in English - almost no one speaks anything but English as their first language. So how to solve this problem? I think something like this is a workable solution. It documents verifiable vernacular names in a manner that is consistent with NPOV, avoids OR, and minimises systematic bias. And it still leaves room to include a few of the best-known names in the lead, if you really want to go that way. Guettarda ( talk) 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Autochthony suggests that "Tel" might be Telugu, another Indian Language. A suggestion only. 81.157.223.75 ( talk) 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Need some more help with a couple of new IDs, all outdoors (but probably not native) in Tasmania, Australia:
Thanks Noodle snacks ( talk) 04:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Heck, the last one looks like an Agathis rather than like a flower. Can you describe the plant's habit or anything else? Oh, a bush, it seems. Proteaceae is weird enough, and who knows enough to argue against Lavateraguy's bracteate infructescence, anyway? Oh, there's a South African plant, that looks something like this, and it's habit is as described, it's used to make a tea--maybe it is a Proteaceae. Love the Dahlia. Anyone know the cultivar or whatever? I want one. -- KP Botany ( talk) 20:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
How many of these Cactus are there any way, did not think there were that many that grow on trees. In the future, when taking picture of a unknown flower, try to get snap shot of the back of the flower and one of the foliage. After I take the picture I want of a flower, I try to get a few quick shots of other areas of the plant - so when it is time to make an ID, I can remember what some of the other characters are, I know its not always practical because most of the time people just want a shot of the pretty flower and do not worry about what plant species it is until later. Here is a link [8] - lots of attractive flowers. Hardyplants ( talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Lily (second from left) is 'Conca D'Or', which is either a hybrid or a cv. of Lilium orientale, depending on which source you believe. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Need help developing Citrus macroptera, a new article about a rare citrus from Bangladesh (also needs taxobox). Thank you kindly, Badagnani ( talk) 06:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Might I ask as to why there is a long list of species, most of which don't have articles, that is as long as the articles themselves? Colonel Marksman ( talk) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, folks. I'm not sure if anyone cares or pays attention to the back end of the project, but I thought I'd ask before editing. Does anyone have any objections to changing our {{ WikiProject Plants}} banner over to the {{ WPBannerMeta}} format? No functionality will be lost, the appearance won't change, and all categories will remain the same. It just makes it easier for future alterations to be changed on a larger level. I also thought I'd add the link to our portal in the process. Objections/thoughts? I suppose if I hear nothing in a week, I'll just go ahead. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
" Socratea exorrhiza, the Walking Palm ... Its common name arises from the fact that the tree's stilt roots enable it to slowly shift position, up to 1 meter a year to get more sunlight."
I can "guess" the way in which this plant shifts position, but I think that the article would be much improved by making this explicit. (Please edit the article, don't just discuss here. Thanks.) -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Although I've never worked on any of Wikipedia's plant articles (I just do snakes), I am impressed by the knowledable people here. Perhaps it is therefore not a complete coincidence that you've managed to arrange such an impressive naming convention for yourselves, despite the opposition. Defending it is important to me also, because its existence means there is still some hope for WP:NC (fauna). However, during the past seven weeks of endless debate, I can't help but feel that WP:NC (flora) may have been a little less of a target if it were obvious that the people here were also taking common names more seriously. For example, I picked a random plant article, Descurainia pinnata, only to find that the one common name given for it does not even have a redirect: western tansymustard. There's really no need for that, so I'd like to help by making a few suggestions and asking people what they think. It concerns several methods that I've devised for dealing with the many common names (and taxonomic synonyms) that exist for the various species of snakes.
1.) Almost all of the articles I work on have scientific names for their titles. This sometimes makes me feel a bit like a rebel when I consider of WP:NC (fauna), but I like to think that part of the reason I've managed to get away with it for so long is that I've put so much work into the common names as well: creating redirects and disambiguation pages for them all and then categorizing them for easy access. For example, these are categories for pitvipers:
The first contains mostly articles, while the other two are only for redirects and disambiguation pages. Each article includes a "See also" section with several entries in it, including links for the last two of these three categories. Because they are categories, they are also dynamic and not as susceptible to vandalism.
2.) Until relatively recently I would add category tags to all {{ Disambig}} pages pages that included snake entries, such as Copperhead. I did this not only to include these pages in the appropriate common name categories, but it was also a way for me to keep track of them. So, when I was told that I was no longer allowed to do this I was upset. But, as soon as I realized that simply being upset wasn't going to get me anywhere, I decided to look into the only advice I was given: use set index articles. They turned out to be rather interesting. Not only did I manage to devise a workaround to keep track of pages such as "Copperhead" (see Category:Set indices on snakes), but {{ SIA}} pages can become much more than regular disambiguation pages. The best examples of this are Anaconda and Cobra: problem pages for which I previously had no good solutions.
3.) Wikipedians seem to love making lists of all kinds of names, but I've always hated the way they deal with common names in articles on biological taxa: just by mentioning them somewhere in the lead section (see WP:LEAD). If there are many names mentioned in the literature, why don't we list them all? If there are none, why don't we say so? And shouldn't they be displayed so they can be more easily found? I wanted something different that would be systematic, predictable, catch the eye, accommodate any reasonable number of names and treat them all as equally as possible.
After some experimentation, I figured the solution would be to list a few names on a single line above the lead and any others below in a section called "Common names". Here are some examples:
Despite being a little different, some of these articles, such as the last two, have GA status, so the format is already considered acceptable to some degree. Nevertheless, I've never been completely happy with the current format. I think the best thing about it is the concept; the way it looks can likely be improved.
In general, I figure that being so thorough and systematic with common names also has some advantages: 1.) it increases the chances that readers here will find their way to your articles, 2.) it helps to demonstrate just how confusing the situation with common names really is, 3.) it shows that you take the issue seriously as opposed to ignoring it because you can hide behind WP:NC (flora), and 4.) it may also help articles to get a higher Google ranking when people search for a common name only.
So, what do you think? See anything useful? -- Jwinius ( talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. Clearly WP:Plants is much bigger (over 100x as many species) than the snake project, which in many ways has felt like a one-man show for the past few years. That last part is also why I've been able to experiment. Everything I've explained above has ultimately resulted from to my refusal to follow
WP:NC (fauna), but wanting to show good faith anyway.
The hatnotes for the common names were initially a response to an early criticism I encountered: that when scientific names are used for article titles it makes "the common name" more difficult to find if it has to be looked for in the introduction. My feeling was (and still is) that the current "bolded common names in the introduction" format was really designed for articles with common-name titles.
I'm happy to see that some of you have also been working with categories for common names. When I started making these, I decided also to make ones for taxonomic synonyms, if only for administrative purposes. I consider redirects for taxonomic synonyms as perhaps an even more important way of preventing others from creating duplicate articles. I got them from a well-known checklist and did not cherry-pick (juniors, seniors and nomen nudums included). Following the current MoS guideline, all of the redirects I've created are essentially in lower case (remember that searches are not case sensitive anyway). Furthermore, I never mention or create redirects for spellings that I've not encountered in the literature first.
Regarding the
set index articles, when I started applying {{SIA|snakes}} templates, I also had to create a matching
Set indices on snakes category. Seeing as WP:Plants is such a large project and so many of the common names apply to different species, you'll probably want to create separate SIA categories for a number of higher-level taxonomic groups (instead of just for "Plants"). However, remember that even though SIAs allow you to add lots more information to a page, they are basically still disambiguation pages, hence the list of links near the top of both
Anaconda and
Cobra. --
Jwinius (
talk)
10:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, it all comes down to what the most commonly used name is. With respect to flora, there is a core group of people—i.e. botanists, horticulturists—who invariably use scientific names. These are people who are interested in plants in general, rather than a particular type of plant, so no matter what plant you are dealing with, you can assume the existence of a core group who prefer to call it by its scientific name. Thus the scientific name is the most common name so long as there is not much interest in the plant outside that core group. On the other hand, it won't be the most common name if that core group is swamped by some other group or groups who prefer some other name. For example, with respect to culinary plants, the core group is swamped by the chefs, cooks and gardeners who call these plants by their culinary names.
With respect to fauna, then, one must ask: firstly, what does the core group call it? and secondly, is it swamped? Unlike flora, it is not always the case that the core group prefers scientific names. For example, I think it has been established that ornithologists prefer official common names for birds, rather than scientific names. And I think things may be heading in that direction for all tetrapods. On top of that, I think swamping of the core group is far more extensive in the case of fauna than it is for flora. For example there is surely a core group of zoologists who refer to dogs as Canis lupus familiaris, but the extent of swamping by people who prefer "dog" vastly exceeds anything we ever see in the plant kingdom.
Hesperian 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that es-wiki is pioneering the science and proper information on wiki and have decided to use sci names to all animals and plants? Go on and look for "perro" there. You will be redirected to "Canis lupus familiaris", isn't that a dream that came true? Dalton Holland Baptista ( talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Am I seeing things or has something changed? The article titles of Protarum and Levenhookia appear to be italicized to me without the displaytitle magic word being used. Anyone else see this or know what's up? -- Rkitko ( talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The second one is the one actually used in the article, but is starkly different from all the other pictures in the Commons image gallery. Circeus ( talk) 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know much (ok, I don't know anything) about how the genera in the former Ascepli(ad)aceae are delineated, but this triggered my search image for Calotropis procera
As I said, I don't know how genera are delineated, but the (sepals?/petals?) of Asclepias in my experience are bent backwards (as they are in the true Asclepias erosa, above), while in both of these images the same structure appears to lie flat. On the other hand, I only really know Asclepias curassavica and Calotropis procera well enough, and I have very little sense of the diversity in either taxon.
On a side note, the Calotropis procera article is currently at Apple of Sodom, and the current article is mostly about the species in literary contexts (Josephus, Milton, etc.) Aside from the obvious problem of references to support a connection between the plant and the name, is this a case where there should be two articles, one at each name? (Note that Calotropis procera is also important as an invasive). Guettarda ( talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering what this bird was feeding on? The flowers seen were at the end of a long (~1.5m) stalk. Noodle snacks ( talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing serious though. While browsing through various online plant lists, I noted this regionalism:
So it might be possible to expand to the SOP as follows:
There are a few cases, it seems, where there is ambiguity. This can be fixed by intelligent use of redirects, hatnotes and in-text annotations. I have found such confusions in Wikipedia plant lists for Geranium maculatum and G. sylvaticum (Wood Geranium/Wood Cranesbill/Woodland Geranium), and Epilobium minutum and E. parviflorum (Smallflower/Small-flowered Willowherb). But it is overall not very common and thus can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 09:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey folks. Need some lumpers/splitters help. Potentilla arguta was moved today to Tall Cinquefoil and altered to the splitter interpretation under the genus Drymocallis. Since there are multiple common names for this species, I moved it to the new scientific name professed in the article, Drymocallis arguta. Most references I have or know of still refer to this as a Potentilla. The species was split off in the late 19th century and I guess (?) that placement was widely ignored or disputed until a 2003 study noted the phylogenetics support exclusion from Potentilla, but it doesn't strongly lobby for moving the species. Further confusion abounds from the continued widespread use of Potentilla arguta in databases. There's also a Slovakian article (Soják, J. (2006). Thaiszia – J. Bot. 16:47-50.) from 2006 that might have something to do with this, but I can't find the article in any of my collected journal access databases like JSTOR. Any ideas? I get the feeling that Potentilla is one of those genera you need to approach with the question "s.s. or s.l.?" in mind. -- Rkitko ( talk) 23:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Requested move: Bird of paradise (disambiguation) → Bird of paradise. Please read and contribute to survey here. -- Una Smith ( talk) 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Another editor has filed an opposing requested move: Birds of Paradise → Bird of paradise. In short, this is yet another tedious argument over which of two candidate articles is the primary topic, an argument I propose to end by putting a disambiguation page at the page name that is in contention. See it here. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, please help find last scientific data about numbers of Burbank's strains or varieties. How many from his strains are really use in the beginnings of 1900-, in the middle of XX century (1940-1970), and today?
In long discussions ( look Editing Talk:Luther Burbank for an article in ru-wiki proect branch) and on the process for nomination for Good article (look discussions for nomination, in russian) we see such comments as: (many Burbank's strains/varieties) - "urbal legends" or "activity of this doubtful (or litigions) figure" (in russian: "деятельности этой спорной фигуры"). Some doubts were expressed in operations in the article ( such as this).
Is it the correct or withstand modern point of view?
Did we really can said today some as though: "Luther Burbank - doubtful figure", and "his 800-1200 strains and varieties - only some kinds of urbal legends"?
Your comment is important for the correct estimation importance of Luther Burbank person, and quality of the Russian article ru:Бёрбанк, Лютер on the process for nomination of one for Good article.
With kind regards, Alexandrov ( talk) 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Black pepper for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. WhiteArcticWolf ( talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
In trying to track down a source for the author abbrev. for Giuseppe Acerbi (not listed in IPNI) I found this result from Harvard. There are two records - one that says "Standard name - G. Acerbi" and the other that says "B & P abbreviation - Acerbi". So I was wondering what "B&P abbreviation" was, and which for we should use in the Giuseppe Acerbi and on the List of botanists by author abbrev. Thanks. Guettarda ( talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Check out the new tool, Pages with links to disambiguation pages, which reports that List of garden plants ranks 63rd. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
An older tool lists heavily referenced dab pages, which is perhaps of more interest. It turns out that heather (disambiguation) was moved over heather (a redirect?) last November, leaving a large number of pages referring to Calluna vulgaris wikilinking to the wrong place. Lavateraguy ( talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) is being assaulted for over two months now by two editors, User:Philip Baird Shearer and User:Born2cycle whose intent now seems to be only to disrupt editing. However, their battle is largely about trying to force plant editors to use "the most commonly used name," for plant article titles. While attempting to get the two of them to source precisely where plant editors should find the most commonly used name, I have come to realize that all Wikipedia naming policies for organisms which require the use of common names are destined for failure. It simply cannot be done. All attempts to use the most commonly used name in English for article titles, for all but a few organisms, are ethnocentric, full of original research, and create problems and opportunities for disruption by editors such as PBS and B2c that would not exist at all if Wikipedia simply had a naming convention policy for organisms that required the articles be titled with the scientific name, according to the rules of scientific nomenclature, introduce the most common names in the lead, discuss them early in the article, and create redirects from the common names to the scientific name. -- KP Botany ( talk) 19:23, 31 January 2009 (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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Hey folks. Sorry to keep spamming the project, but I keep coming upon issues that I need help on. I came upon Adenium arabicum, which has several issues. I couldn't immediately detect a copyright violation even though I suspect the descriptions of each type to be copy/pasted from somewhere. The larger issue is that Adenium says it's monotypic with "arabicum" an epithet at the subspecific level. I can't seem to untangle this one. Is it a cultivar? Adenium 'Arabicum'? Any help is appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 04:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This, perhaps?-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I added Adenium multiflorum. Can't figure out if it is a subspecies either. Many of the African Apocynaceae used as Bonsai are also used as arrow poisons in their native lands and can be problematic to the grower for this reason. I once had to move a bunch of them and a helper got cut pretty badly, as did the plant, which panicked all the gardeners because of the sap. -- KP Botany ( talk) 07:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) IPNI has it, but not the Adenium obesum subsp. arabicum of the Adenium article, and none of the Google hits for the latter include an author. In my experience, a lot of succulent fanciers play fast and loose with nomenclature.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 07:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
when I followed the link this is what came up - but its not very authoritative. Hardyplants ( talk) 07:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Adenium arabicum as known in horticulture is native to a narrow strip near the coast on the western half of the southern Arabian peninsula (in Yemen and Saudi Arabia). The correct name for these plants is Adenium obesum, and the African plants we know as A. obesum must properly be called something else. In cultivation they are usually shrubs with massive caudexes. Plants grow rapidly and develop large caudexes in only a few years. Most plants flower mainly in spring before leafing out. Better clones flower sporadically throughout the year.
The article Salsola (aka the Tumbleweed, Saltwort, or Russian thistle) says: "Salsola ... is a genus of herbs, subshrubs, shrubs, and small trees ... native to Africa, Asia, and Europe". However, the article largely focuses on Salsola in North America. Can anybody add some info on Salsola in its native habitats? -- 201.53.7.16 ( talk) 14:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Now we have a new article, Tumbleweed (diaspore), about the tumbleweed habit, and Tumbleweed (disambiguation) includes a list of plant common names that include "tumbleweed". I hope now it is clear why I have requested a move of the disambiguation page to Tumbleweed. Please weigh in on Talk:Tumbleweed (disambiguation)#Requested move. -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I created this category to link all the bamboo genera onto a single page, but, now, it occurs to me this may not be the naming protocol for the category. Should it be called something else, surely not genera of bamboo? I will finish the categorizing, though, because I want them all in one place so I can start adding information. -- KP Botany ( talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Category:Hybrid Rubus lists numerous articles about Rubus (raspberry) hybrids, titled using the most commonly used common name of the plant. These page titles may be a better alternative than using the scientific identification of the hybrid. Thoughts? -- Una Smith ( talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
We Aussies seem to be way ahead of the game when it comes to templating our online sources: {{ APNI}}, {{ Flora of Australia Online}}, {{ SPRAT}}, {{ FloraBase}}, {{ NSW Flora Online}}.... Anyhow, I just created {{ GRIN}}. Use it wisely. Hesperian 13:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know what type pf plant/flower this is (Image 01) (Image 02) (Image 03)? Thanks in advance Peachey88 ( Talk Page | Contribs) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Autochthony speaks. I know very little about plants. I also know that having images in an article [not merely available elsewhere, Wikicommons, via Google, wherever] enriches the article - especially for plants.
I note the Wikipedia policy, but suggest, timidly, that having good images really helps articles on plants - especially; if only because few people know much about them. 81.157.223.75 ( talk) 20:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Tuft is an aeronautics article—not very good for linking to when writing about grasses whose growth habit is a tuft, as opposed to a tussock, hummock, herb, etc. Are there any prospects for an article called tuft (grass), or would such an article necessarily be nothing more than a dictionary definition? Are these terms even well-defined? Hesperian 11:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
To get started, I made Tuft (disambiguation). It is long, and maybe food for thought about how best to handle plant common names. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a recent deletion debate about the List of edible flowers. Apart from sourcing problems, the question of whether lists like that are workable at all was raised (yeah, it was raised by me, but that's beside the point). I just came across a few similar lists
I think that list of honey plants is important, although very difficult to maintain. Plants with edible leaves is iffy, IMO, and "trees and shrubs by taxonomic family" is almost unworkable. On the other hand, that was not seen as a problem in the deletion debate over the list of edible flowers. I'm a list maker myself, and I'm most definitely not a deletionist. I realise that problems like this aren't new. But I thought it might be interesting to solicit some opinions here... Guettarda ( talk) 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hours ago KP Botany tagged Tumbleweed (diaspore) for speedy deletion and it was deleted before I had a chance to tag it {{ hangon}}. That was a 1.7KB article that I was getting ready to submit as a Did You Know item. It is not too late though. I have put a hangon tag on the blank page, and I would appreciate help getting it restored. You can do that by commenting on Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore). Thanks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(reply to EdJohnson) The most discussion is on the AN/I page, here. -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Here, here's your move and my move, both in edit history. Just click on the history--that's where it is. -- KP Botany ( talk) 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
KP Botany, those are the edit histories of the articles now at Tumbleweed and Talk:Tumbleweed. They are not the edit histories of Tumbleweed (diaspore) and Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore) since your move. -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And, this is enough. -- KP Botany ( talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
KP Botany, how are you coming on disambiguating the 43 incoming links to Tumbleweed? You put the article there, so that little chore is yours. -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Restored, for the sole purpose of giving access to the history, for the sake of the discussion. I have no comment on the dispute, at this stage. Hesperian 03:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Euphorbia tannensis var. finlaysonii | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
(unranked): | |
(unranked): | |
(unranked): | |
Order: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | |
Subspecies: | |
Variety: | E. tannensis var. eremophila
|
Trinomial name | |
Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila var. finlaysonii |
It had to happen eventually: I've finally created an article on a variety of a subspecies. Well, two actually: Euphorbia tannensis var. eremophila and Euphorbia tannensis var. finlaysonii. As I understand it, it is permissable to refer to these by both their shorter, trinomial names, as in these titles; or by their fully ranked names, i.e. "Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila var. eremophila" and "Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila var. finlaysonii.
I am quite happy to entitle these articles with their shorter names—indeed I think it ought to be in our convention—but I believe it is in the spirit of the "Binomial name"/"Trinomial name" section of the taxobox to provide a fully ranked name there. You can see my problem: the fully ranked name is neither binomial nor trinomial.
I am happy to update the taxobox, but what should be done? Is there such a thing as a "Quadrinomial name"? Is "Full name" an acceptable alternative?
Hesperian 13:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing some research instead of just talking shit, for a change.
Firstly, the Vienna Code says
I suspect I am going to have to read this twenty times before I begin to comprehend the disputes and compromises inherent in the wording, and its implications for us.
Secondly, an "autonym", by definition, encompasses the type material of the species. A variety that encompasses the type material of its subspecies, but not of its species, is not an autonym. And this is only a Recommendation:
So there is no problem with my "interesting side-effect".
Hesperian 04:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys; I'm happy with the outcome here. [2] [3] [4] [5]. Hesperian 05:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It is now my turn to apologise for monopolising this board.
A question like my tuft question above: "polygamous" means bearing both perfect and imperfect flowers on the same plant. Our article on polygamy is about having multiple wives at the same time, so we can't link to it. Is polygamy (botany) capable of being more than a dictionary definition?
Hesperian 04:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In DV Cowen's book 'Flowering trees and shrubs in India' she gives alternative names for over 100 items in various languages used in India - Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Sinhalese, Bengali, Malay, 'Tel' (?), 'Can' (?). As a test I added some of these to the article on Butea Flame of the Forest, and a couple to the Delonix regia Flamboyant article. I am not a botanist, but it seems to me that the conventions for listing names in other languages are not consistent, at least in these two articles. This is not an area that I want to spend too much time on, but comment would be most welcome on the value of adding more names and the style in which it should be done. Colinvlr ( talk) 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Joining the discussion rather late, I have a different take on this. I believe that we should document all verifiable vernacular names for plant species. Per NPOV, we should at the very least be including all verifiable names used for a plant species in English. Given the official status of English in southern India, there's no a priori valid reason for excluding these names. Giving special preference to US/Canada/UK/Australia worsens the problems of systematic bias. And while we're at it, in the interest of completeness (you know, that whole "sum total of human knowledge" thing), we should include verifiable vernacular names in other languages. That's certainly better than drawing some sort of arbitrary threshold of "usage of English" that we make up here.
Obviously fitting in more than a couple vernacular names creates problems. But that's just the reality of working with plants. Even if we restrict ourselves to countries where English has official status, or where English is spoken as a first language by more than x% of the population, we can still get dozens of common names. In Trinidad plants commonly have at least 3 common names - one 'Creole' name (usually of Spanish, French or Amerindian origin), one Indian name (Hindi, Bhojpuri or Tamil origins) and one English name (brought by immigrants from Barbados or the Lesser Antilles). And all of these constitute usage in English - almost no one speaks anything but English as their first language. So how to solve this problem? I think something like this is a workable solution. It documents verifiable vernacular names in a manner that is consistent with NPOV, avoids OR, and minimises systematic bias. And it still leaves room to include a few of the best-known names in the lead, if you really want to go that way. Guettarda ( talk) 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Autochthony suggests that "Tel" might be Telugu, another Indian Language. A suggestion only. 81.157.223.75 ( talk) 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Need some more help with a couple of new IDs, all outdoors (but probably not native) in Tasmania, Australia:
Thanks Noodle snacks ( talk) 04:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Heck, the last one looks like an Agathis rather than like a flower. Can you describe the plant's habit or anything else? Oh, a bush, it seems. Proteaceae is weird enough, and who knows enough to argue against Lavateraguy's bracteate infructescence, anyway? Oh, there's a South African plant, that looks something like this, and it's habit is as described, it's used to make a tea--maybe it is a Proteaceae. Love the Dahlia. Anyone know the cultivar or whatever? I want one. -- KP Botany ( talk) 20:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
How many of these Cactus are there any way, did not think there were that many that grow on trees. In the future, when taking picture of a unknown flower, try to get snap shot of the back of the flower and one of the foliage. After I take the picture I want of a flower, I try to get a few quick shots of other areas of the plant - so when it is time to make an ID, I can remember what some of the other characters are, I know its not always practical because most of the time people just want a shot of the pretty flower and do not worry about what plant species it is until later. Here is a link [8] - lots of attractive flowers. Hardyplants ( talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Lily (second from left) is 'Conca D'Or', which is either a hybrid or a cv. of Lilium orientale, depending on which source you believe. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Need help developing Citrus macroptera, a new article about a rare citrus from Bangladesh (also needs taxobox). Thank you kindly, Badagnani ( talk) 06:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Might I ask as to why there is a long list of species, most of which don't have articles, that is as long as the articles themselves? Colonel Marksman ( talk) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, folks. I'm not sure if anyone cares or pays attention to the back end of the project, but I thought I'd ask before editing. Does anyone have any objections to changing our {{ WikiProject Plants}} banner over to the {{ WPBannerMeta}} format? No functionality will be lost, the appearance won't change, and all categories will remain the same. It just makes it easier for future alterations to be changed on a larger level. I also thought I'd add the link to our portal in the process. Objections/thoughts? I suppose if I hear nothing in a week, I'll just go ahead. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
" Socratea exorrhiza, the Walking Palm ... Its common name arises from the fact that the tree's stilt roots enable it to slowly shift position, up to 1 meter a year to get more sunlight."
I can "guess" the way in which this plant shifts position, but I think that the article would be much improved by making this explicit. (Please edit the article, don't just discuss here. Thanks.) -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Although I've never worked on any of Wikipedia's plant articles (I just do snakes), I am impressed by the knowledable people here. Perhaps it is therefore not a complete coincidence that you've managed to arrange such an impressive naming convention for yourselves, despite the opposition. Defending it is important to me also, because its existence means there is still some hope for WP:NC (fauna). However, during the past seven weeks of endless debate, I can't help but feel that WP:NC (flora) may have been a little less of a target if it were obvious that the people here were also taking common names more seriously. For example, I picked a random plant article, Descurainia pinnata, only to find that the one common name given for it does not even have a redirect: western tansymustard. There's really no need for that, so I'd like to help by making a few suggestions and asking people what they think. It concerns several methods that I've devised for dealing with the many common names (and taxonomic synonyms) that exist for the various species of snakes.
1.) Almost all of the articles I work on have scientific names for their titles. This sometimes makes me feel a bit like a rebel when I consider of WP:NC (fauna), but I like to think that part of the reason I've managed to get away with it for so long is that I've put so much work into the common names as well: creating redirects and disambiguation pages for them all and then categorizing them for easy access. For example, these are categories for pitvipers:
The first contains mostly articles, while the other two are only for redirects and disambiguation pages. Each article includes a "See also" section with several entries in it, including links for the last two of these three categories. Because they are categories, they are also dynamic and not as susceptible to vandalism.
2.) Until relatively recently I would add category tags to all {{ Disambig}} pages pages that included snake entries, such as Copperhead. I did this not only to include these pages in the appropriate common name categories, but it was also a way for me to keep track of them. So, when I was told that I was no longer allowed to do this I was upset. But, as soon as I realized that simply being upset wasn't going to get me anywhere, I decided to look into the only advice I was given: use set index articles. They turned out to be rather interesting. Not only did I manage to devise a workaround to keep track of pages such as "Copperhead" (see Category:Set indices on snakes), but {{ SIA}} pages can become much more than regular disambiguation pages. The best examples of this are Anaconda and Cobra: problem pages for which I previously had no good solutions.
3.) Wikipedians seem to love making lists of all kinds of names, but I've always hated the way they deal with common names in articles on biological taxa: just by mentioning them somewhere in the lead section (see WP:LEAD). If there are many names mentioned in the literature, why don't we list them all? If there are none, why don't we say so? And shouldn't they be displayed so they can be more easily found? I wanted something different that would be systematic, predictable, catch the eye, accommodate any reasonable number of names and treat them all as equally as possible.
After some experimentation, I figured the solution would be to list a few names on a single line above the lead and any others below in a section called "Common names". Here are some examples:
Despite being a little different, some of these articles, such as the last two, have GA status, so the format is already considered acceptable to some degree. Nevertheless, I've never been completely happy with the current format. I think the best thing about it is the concept; the way it looks can likely be improved.
In general, I figure that being so thorough and systematic with common names also has some advantages: 1.) it increases the chances that readers here will find their way to your articles, 2.) it helps to demonstrate just how confusing the situation with common names really is, 3.) it shows that you take the issue seriously as opposed to ignoring it because you can hide behind WP:NC (flora), and 4.) it may also help articles to get a higher Google ranking when people search for a common name only.
So, what do you think? See anything useful? -- Jwinius ( talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. Clearly WP:Plants is much bigger (over 100x as many species) than the snake project, which in many ways has felt like a one-man show for the past few years. That last part is also why I've been able to experiment. Everything I've explained above has ultimately resulted from to my refusal to follow
WP:NC (fauna), but wanting to show good faith anyway.
The hatnotes for the common names were initially a response to an early criticism I encountered: that when scientific names are used for article titles it makes "the common name" more difficult to find if it has to be looked for in the introduction. My feeling was (and still is) that the current "bolded common names in the introduction" format was really designed for articles with common-name titles.
I'm happy to see that some of you have also been working with categories for common names. When I started making these, I decided also to make ones for taxonomic synonyms, if only for administrative purposes. I consider redirects for taxonomic synonyms as perhaps an even more important way of preventing others from creating duplicate articles. I got them from a well-known checklist and did not cherry-pick (juniors, seniors and nomen nudums included). Following the current MoS guideline, all of the redirects I've created are essentially in lower case (remember that searches are not case sensitive anyway). Furthermore, I never mention or create redirects for spellings that I've not encountered in the literature first.
Regarding the
set index articles, when I started applying {{SIA|snakes}} templates, I also had to create a matching
Set indices on snakes category. Seeing as WP:Plants is such a large project and so many of the common names apply to different species, you'll probably want to create separate SIA categories for a number of higher-level taxonomic groups (instead of just for "Plants"). However, remember that even though SIAs allow you to add lots more information to a page, they are basically still disambiguation pages, hence the list of links near the top of both
Anaconda and
Cobra. --
Jwinius (
talk)
10:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, it all comes down to what the most commonly used name is. With respect to flora, there is a core group of people—i.e. botanists, horticulturists—who invariably use scientific names. These are people who are interested in plants in general, rather than a particular type of plant, so no matter what plant you are dealing with, you can assume the existence of a core group who prefer to call it by its scientific name. Thus the scientific name is the most common name so long as there is not much interest in the plant outside that core group. On the other hand, it won't be the most common name if that core group is swamped by some other group or groups who prefer some other name. For example, with respect to culinary plants, the core group is swamped by the chefs, cooks and gardeners who call these plants by their culinary names.
With respect to fauna, then, one must ask: firstly, what does the core group call it? and secondly, is it swamped? Unlike flora, it is not always the case that the core group prefers scientific names. For example, I think it has been established that ornithologists prefer official common names for birds, rather than scientific names. And I think things may be heading in that direction for all tetrapods. On top of that, I think swamping of the core group is far more extensive in the case of fauna than it is for flora. For example there is surely a core group of zoologists who refer to dogs as Canis lupus familiaris, but the extent of swamping by people who prefer "dog" vastly exceeds anything we ever see in the plant kingdom.
Hesperian 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that es-wiki is pioneering the science and proper information on wiki and have decided to use sci names to all animals and plants? Go on and look for "perro" there. You will be redirected to "Canis lupus familiaris", isn't that a dream that came true? Dalton Holland Baptista ( talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Am I seeing things or has something changed? The article titles of Protarum and Levenhookia appear to be italicized to me without the displaytitle magic word being used. Anyone else see this or know what's up? -- Rkitko ( talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The second one is the one actually used in the article, but is starkly different from all the other pictures in the Commons image gallery. Circeus ( talk) 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know much (ok, I don't know anything) about how the genera in the former Ascepli(ad)aceae are delineated, but this triggered my search image for Calotropis procera
As I said, I don't know how genera are delineated, but the (sepals?/petals?) of Asclepias in my experience are bent backwards (as they are in the true Asclepias erosa, above), while in both of these images the same structure appears to lie flat. On the other hand, I only really know Asclepias curassavica and Calotropis procera well enough, and I have very little sense of the diversity in either taxon.
On a side note, the Calotropis procera article is currently at Apple of Sodom, and the current article is mostly about the species in literary contexts (Josephus, Milton, etc.) Aside from the obvious problem of references to support a connection between the plant and the name, is this a case where there should be two articles, one at each name? (Note that Calotropis procera is also important as an invasive). Guettarda ( talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering what this bird was feeding on? The flowers seen were at the end of a long (~1.5m) stalk. Noodle snacks ( talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing serious though. While browsing through various online plant lists, I noted this regionalism:
So it might be possible to expand to the SOP as follows:
There are a few cases, it seems, where there is ambiguity. This can be fixed by intelligent use of redirects, hatnotes and in-text annotations. I have found such confusions in Wikipedia plant lists for Geranium maculatum and G. sylvaticum (Wood Geranium/Wood Cranesbill/Woodland Geranium), and Epilobium minutum and E. parviflorum (Smallflower/Small-flowered Willowherb). But it is overall not very common and thus can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 09:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey folks. Need some lumpers/splitters help. Potentilla arguta was moved today to Tall Cinquefoil and altered to the splitter interpretation under the genus Drymocallis. Since there are multiple common names for this species, I moved it to the new scientific name professed in the article, Drymocallis arguta. Most references I have or know of still refer to this as a Potentilla. The species was split off in the late 19th century and I guess (?) that placement was widely ignored or disputed until a 2003 study noted the phylogenetics support exclusion from Potentilla, but it doesn't strongly lobby for moving the species. Further confusion abounds from the continued widespread use of Potentilla arguta in databases. There's also a Slovakian article (Soják, J. (2006). Thaiszia – J. Bot. 16:47-50.) from 2006 that might have something to do with this, but I can't find the article in any of my collected journal access databases like JSTOR. Any ideas? I get the feeling that Potentilla is one of those genera you need to approach with the question "s.s. or s.l.?" in mind. -- Rkitko ( talk) 23:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Requested move: Bird of paradise (disambiguation) → Bird of paradise. Please read and contribute to survey here. -- Una Smith ( talk) 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Another editor has filed an opposing requested move: Birds of Paradise → Bird of paradise. In short, this is yet another tedious argument over which of two candidate articles is the primary topic, an argument I propose to end by putting a disambiguation page at the page name that is in contention. See it here. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, please help find last scientific data about numbers of Burbank's strains or varieties. How many from his strains are really use in the beginnings of 1900-, in the middle of XX century (1940-1970), and today?
In long discussions ( look Editing Talk:Luther Burbank for an article in ru-wiki proect branch) and on the process for nomination for Good article (look discussions for nomination, in russian) we see such comments as: (many Burbank's strains/varieties) - "urbal legends" or "activity of this doubtful (or litigions) figure" (in russian: "деятельности этой спорной фигуры"). Some doubts were expressed in operations in the article ( such as this).
Is it the correct or withstand modern point of view?
Did we really can said today some as though: "Luther Burbank - doubtful figure", and "his 800-1200 strains and varieties - only some kinds of urbal legends"?
Your comment is important for the correct estimation importance of Luther Burbank person, and quality of the Russian article ru:Бёрбанк, Лютер on the process for nomination of one for Good article.
With kind regards, Alexandrov ( talk) 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Black pepper for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. WhiteArcticWolf ( talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
In trying to track down a source for the author abbrev. for Giuseppe Acerbi (not listed in IPNI) I found this result from Harvard. There are two records - one that says "Standard name - G. Acerbi" and the other that says "B & P abbreviation - Acerbi". So I was wondering what "B&P abbreviation" was, and which for we should use in the Giuseppe Acerbi and on the List of botanists by author abbrev. Thanks. Guettarda ( talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Check out the new tool, Pages with links to disambiguation pages, which reports that List of garden plants ranks 63rd. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
An older tool lists heavily referenced dab pages, which is perhaps of more interest. It turns out that heather (disambiguation) was moved over heather (a redirect?) last November, leaving a large number of pages referring to Calluna vulgaris wikilinking to the wrong place. Lavateraguy ( talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) is being assaulted for over two months now by two editors, User:Philip Baird Shearer and User:Born2cycle whose intent now seems to be only to disrupt editing. However, their battle is largely about trying to force plant editors to use "the most commonly used name," for plant article titles. While attempting to get the two of them to source precisely where plant editors should find the most commonly used name, I have come to realize that all Wikipedia naming policies for organisms which require the use of common names are destined for failure. It simply cannot be done. All attempts to use the most commonly used name in English for article titles, for all but a few organisms, are ethnocentric, full of original research, and create problems and opportunities for disruption by editors such as PBS and B2c that would not exist at all if Wikipedia simply had a naming convention policy for organisms that required the articles be titled with the scientific name, according to the rules of scientific nomenclature, introduce the most common names in the lead, discuss them early in the article, and create redirects from the common names to the scientific name. -- KP Botany ( talk) 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)