![]() | 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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Tetracarpaea has been nominated for DYK. Quick, does anyone have an appealing photo? -- Una Smith ( talk) 03:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Given I was intending on planting one of these in my new garden, I was musing on getting Magnolia grandiflora buffed at some point, but it lacks any ecology-related material for its natural environment. I am not familiar with where to look for US plants so all help appreciated :) (they grow so well here in Sydney - HUGE) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Would it be legitimate/accurate to treat the Flora Iberica treatment as the most recent revision for the taxonomic discussion in Verbascum thapsus? It differs with the article on several minor points: dating of lectotypification, subspecies recognition, slightly different subgeneric organization (seems to be more nomenclatural than taxonomic, though), but has the advantage of being a pretty detailed revision-type work, as opposed to small mentions gathered all over the place used in the current article. In any case, it seems taxonomy of Verbascum is in somewhat of a flux/void which would deserve mentioning: [2] notes that the last major revisions are at least 20 years old and "Only 1–3 species of Verbascum have been previously considered with respect to the molecular phylogeny of Scrophulariaceae. A more detailed analysis [of molecular and micromorphological data] including more species of Verbascum should better clarify the systematic relationships within this genus." Any opinions? Circeus ( talk) 20:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, folks. There's a bit of a content dispute that I'm involved in at Rutabaga. See Talk:Rutabaga#Consumption section. An editor wants to remove the phytochemistry section (previously called "Consumption") for the reasons cited there. Am I defending it for no good reason? I'll gladly expand to include mention of other secondary metabolites. Also, I'm having trouble uncovering the provenance of the information in the history section, especially the Finland/Siberia citation needed tag. Anyone else have better luck than me? Third opinions welcome. Rkitko ( talk) 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as part of this undertaking I created a new account and wrote ten stubs about Antarctic mosses. Another editor created a taxobox for Schistidium antarctici; could someone double check it please? If it's correct I'd like to adapt it for the related articles. Best regards, Durova 362 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to create an article for azafrán de bolita (Ditaxis heterantha), which is used in Mexican cooking. Since it, as well as safflower and some other plants, are used as saffron substitutes, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion on the web about which plants are what. Could someone look at User:Scentoni/Ditaxis heterantha and provide some feedback or assistance? Thanks. Scentoni ( talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. Now that I've let folks review it for a while, I'll put it up for real at Ditaxis heterantha, at which point I imagine there will be further feedback. Scentoni ( talk) 21:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Armen Takhtajan has died. -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The correctness of the photo at Carpobrotus edulis has been challenged on the talk page. Is anyone able to handle this? Hesperian 03:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a proposal at the Village Pump [6] to add featured picture stars to featured pictures in article space (below the featured picture, in its caption box, or image caption box in the case of taxoboxes with featured pictures.
The discussion includes asking the question whether they should be added to all featured pictures in articles including in taxoboxes, added just to featured pictures in caption boxes only and not to featured pictures in taxoboxes, or not added at all. Currently to find out if an image is a featured picture the user has to click on the image and its file page indicates with a star in the upper right hand corner that it is a featured picture.
To join the discussion and express your opinion go to the Village Pump. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 08:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
How about merging silver leaf (fungal disease vernacular name) into Chondrostereum purpureum? --22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Krasanen left a request on my talk page that I opine on the current arrangement of the taxonomy at Talk:Cedar#Four species concept. EncycloPetey has already left a message, but since I'm not that familiar with these taxa, could someone else also take a look? -- Rkitko ( talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Is a bryophyte expert a pterdiologist? I created a botanist stub, Jules Cardot, and copied the basic outline from another French botanist. Are the categories correct? Thanks. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 09:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Whats the plant thing at the back of [7]. I know this probably aint the place to discuss this. But i have heaps in my yard, and really want to know. as you may be able to see, they produce white flowery things. (the ones on the ground btw) IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 09:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Poppy is an article with a split personality. It tries simultaneously to be about the family
Papaveraceae, poppies in culture (rather conflating
corn poppy with
opium poppy), and a content fork of
Opium poppy and
Poppy seed. I have been untangling content about
poppy seeds from other articles. I would like to see
Poppy moved tomerged into
Papaveraceae et al and the dab page
Poppy (disambiguation) moved to
Poppy. What do you think? --
Una Smith (
talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Poppy does not appear to be a primary topic. It gets less than half the collective hits of entries on the dab page. Wikipedia page views in 2009 (so far):
-- Una Smith ( talk) 06:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Poppy now has 444 incoming links from mainspace, compared to Opium poppy with 138 and Papaver rhoeas with 65. Respectively, these articles get 940, 1633 and 298 page views per incoming link. The thing is, in developing various of these articles I have being finding a high proportion of incoming links to Poppy that intend one of the other articles. Incoming links to Poppy are in need of disambiguation, another reason to move the disambiguation page to the ambiguous base name. -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't often agree with Una about disambiguation, but here, I definitely do. Poppy is a hodge-podge: it has information about Papaver rhoeas, Papaver somniferum, the Papaveraceae, and a scattering of other topics. What makes it especially counter-encyclopedic is that it draws contributions that would be better at Papaver rhoeas or Papaver somniferum.
I once thought it should be a dab page (and posted as much on the talk page), but now I'm thinking it would better be a setindex page, with a little bit about each of the topics and links to main articles.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Poppy used to have 444 incoming links from mainspace, but over 100 of them were due to Template:Herbs and spices, which should have linked to Poppy seed instead. After the template got fixed, Wikipedia's internal index took a week to catch up. Meanwhile, I could not help but fix a few other wrong links. Now Poppy has only 258 incoming links. Many of them should not link to Poppy and are in need of fixing. -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have now moved/merged most of the content forking to relevant other articles, leaving some content that I think belongs in Papaveraceae, but a large part of the remaining content does not belong in any other article. That content is about the symbolism of poppies (P. somniferum and/or P. rhoeas). Looking around, I found a few other articles of a similar nature:
Black rose (symbolism)
Rose (symbolism)
Serpent (symbolism)
How about moving this article to Poppy (symbolism) and moving the dab page to Poppy? -- Una Smith ( talk)
Here are two snippets of a rough index that might occupy Poppy:
Incoming links to Poppy should then qualify for routine disambiguation; I will consult "disambiguous" editors. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:31, 10 December 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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Tetracarpaea has been nominated for DYK. Quick, does anyone have an appealing photo? -- Una Smith ( talk) 03:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Given I was intending on planting one of these in my new garden, I was musing on getting Magnolia grandiflora buffed at some point, but it lacks any ecology-related material for its natural environment. I am not familiar with where to look for US plants so all help appreciated :) (they grow so well here in Sydney - HUGE) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Would it be legitimate/accurate to treat the Flora Iberica treatment as the most recent revision for the taxonomic discussion in Verbascum thapsus? It differs with the article on several minor points: dating of lectotypification, subspecies recognition, slightly different subgeneric organization (seems to be more nomenclatural than taxonomic, though), but has the advantage of being a pretty detailed revision-type work, as opposed to small mentions gathered all over the place used in the current article. In any case, it seems taxonomy of Verbascum is in somewhat of a flux/void which would deserve mentioning: [2] notes that the last major revisions are at least 20 years old and "Only 1–3 species of Verbascum have been previously considered with respect to the molecular phylogeny of Scrophulariaceae. A more detailed analysis [of molecular and micromorphological data] including more species of Verbascum should better clarify the systematic relationships within this genus." Any opinions? Circeus ( talk) 20:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, folks. There's a bit of a content dispute that I'm involved in at Rutabaga. See Talk:Rutabaga#Consumption section. An editor wants to remove the phytochemistry section (previously called "Consumption") for the reasons cited there. Am I defending it for no good reason? I'll gladly expand to include mention of other secondary metabolites. Also, I'm having trouble uncovering the provenance of the information in the history section, especially the Finland/Siberia citation needed tag. Anyone else have better luck than me? Third opinions welcome. Rkitko ( talk) 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as part of this undertaking I created a new account and wrote ten stubs about Antarctic mosses. Another editor created a taxobox for Schistidium antarctici; could someone double check it please? If it's correct I'd like to adapt it for the related articles. Best regards, Durova 362 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to create an article for azafrán de bolita (Ditaxis heterantha), which is used in Mexican cooking. Since it, as well as safflower and some other plants, are used as saffron substitutes, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion on the web about which plants are what. Could someone look at User:Scentoni/Ditaxis heterantha and provide some feedback or assistance? Thanks. Scentoni ( talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. Now that I've let folks review it for a while, I'll put it up for real at Ditaxis heterantha, at which point I imagine there will be further feedback. Scentoni ( talk) 21:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Armen Takhtajan has died. -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The correctness of the photo at Carpobrotus edulis has been challenged on the talk page. Is anyone able to handle this? Hesperian 03:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a proposal at the Village Pump [6] to add featured picture stars to featured pictures in article space (below the featured picture, in its caption box, or image caption box in the case of taxoboxes with featured pictures.
The discussion includes asking the question whether they should be added to all featured pictures in articles including in taxoboxes, added just to featured pictures in caption boxes only and not to featured pictures in taxoboxes, or not added at all. Currently to find out if an image is a featured picture the user has to click on the image and its file page indicates with a star in the upper right hand corner that it is a featured picture.
To join the discussion and express your opinion go to the Village Pump. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 08:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
How about merging silver leaf (fungal disease vernacular name) into Chondrostereum purpureum? --22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Krasanen left a request on my talk page that I opine on the current arrangement of the taxonomy at Talk:Cedar#Four species concept. EncycloPetey has already left a message, but since I'm not that familiar with these taxa, could someone else also take a look? -- Rkitko ( talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Is a bryophyte expert a pterdiologist? I created a botanist stub, Jules Cardot, and copied the basic outline from another French botanist. Are the categories correct? Thanks. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 09:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Whats the plant thing at the back of [7]. I know this probably aint the place to discuss this. But i have heaps in my yard, and really want to know. as you may be able to see, they produce white flowery things. (the ones on the ground btw) IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 09:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Poppy is an article with a split personality. It tries simultaneously to be about the family
Papaveraceae, poppies in culture (rather conflating
corn poppy with
opium poppy), and a content fork of
Opium poppy and
Poppy seed. I have been untangling content about
poppy seeds from other articles. I would like to see
Poppy moved tomerged into
Papaveraceae et al and the dab page
Poppy (disambiguation) moved to
Poppy. What do you think? --
Una Smith (
talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Poppy does not appear to be a primary topic. It gets less than half the collective hits of entries on the dab page. Wikipedia page views in 2009 (so far):
-- Una Smith ( talk) 06:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Poppy now has 444 incoming links from mainspace, compared to Opium poppy with 138 and Papaver rhoeas with 65. Respectively, these articles get 940, 1633 and 298 page views per incoming link. The thing is, in developing various of these articles I have being finding a high proportion of incoming links to Poppy that intend one of the other articles. Incoming links to Poppy are in need of disambiguation, another reason to move the disambiguation page to the ambiguous base name. -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't often agree with Una about disambiguation, but here, I definitely do. Poppy is a hodge-podge: it has information about Papaver rhoeas, Papaver somniferum, the Papaveraceae, and a scattering of other topics. What makes it especially counter-encyclopedic is that it draws contributions that would be better at Papaver rhoeas or Papaver somniferum.
I once thought it should be a dab page (and posted as much on the talk page), but now I'm thinking it would better be a setindex page, with a little bit about each of the topics and links to main articles.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Poppy used to have 444 incoming links from mainspace, but over 100 of them were due to Template:Herbs and spices, which should have linked to Poppy seed instead. After the template got fixed, Wikipedia's internal index took a week to catch up. Meanwhile, I could not help but fix a few other wrong links. Now Poppy has only 258 incoming links. Many of them should not link to Poppy and are in need of fixing. -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have now moved/merged most of the content forking to relevant other articles, leaving some content that I think belongs in Papaveraceae, but a large part of the remaining content does not belong in any other article. That content is about the symbolism of poppies (P. somniferum and/or P. rhoeas). Looking around, I found a few other articles of a similar nature:
Black rose (symbolism)
Rose (symbolism)
Serpent (symbolism)
How about moving this article to Poppy (symbolism) and moving the dab page to Poppy? -- Una Smith ( talk)
Here are two snippets of a rough index that might occupy Poppy:
Incoming links to Poppy should then qualify for routine disambiguation; I will consult "disambiguous" editors. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)