This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rkitko. 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.
User:Wiki skylace is currently hampering the FAC of this article by making large edits claiming that calling the plant a weed is an issue of non-neutrality and claiming that most of our sources aren't credible. Circeus and I have each reverted his edits once, but he continues and as such we need to build consensus on the matter. Please have a look at the talk page if you get a chance. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've gotten it now. It went into my spam box, so that's why I hadn't noticed it until now. Thanks for sending the document along. I'm preparing for an exam at the moment, so I might not have a chance to look at until later, but when I do I'll be sure to integrate it. Thanks again and good luck with your work on Stylidium. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs17:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. Your article looks very good (not to mention that the subject matter is super cool), but I really don't have much time right now to look through it thoroughly. I'm leaving for France tomorrow and when I get back I only have a few days before I have to take an exam. If I somehow get a free moment during the next couple of weeks, I'll give looking through it priority. Otherwise you can ask Casliber or Circeus, as they both seem to be very good about doing pre-FAC reviews. But superficially it looks great and I'm sure its close if not ready. Thanks again for you help with sources for Ailanthus! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs09:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I am currently creating new articles for species in the Asteraceae (Compositae) family, and I'm using genus categories instead of putting everything in the family category. I'd be interested to know what you botany-editors think of the new articles and categories. See bot contributions. – Quadell(talk) (random)14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes the coverage is only a fraction of what exists -its fascinating -think also how many species are undiscovered and maybe will never be discovered!! I'd like to see wikipedia with an article on every species known to mankind - I really think we'll get there eventually if bots can produce six articles a minute!!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦"Expecting you?"Contribs13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ulmus Bosque TM
You've got me again. I'll duly add the Ulmus to the cultivar pages, but regret I find the ruling on TM difficult to understand. Two names are often awarded to a cultivar, one being its registered / patented tradename. Irritating though this habit may be, I feel it important we identify which is which by retaining the suffix. So, yes, Ulmus UPMTF BosqueTM. Regards, Ptelea14:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Regret I've no idea what the UPMTF stands for, most unusual to see what I presume are initials adopted as a cultivar name. If I find the time, I'll contact the Angel Creek Nurseries and ask them. I only chanced on it after reading the Colorado State University's page on the national elm trials it is coordinating, and looking up the nursery to see what else they had raised. Regards. Ptelea15:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
For populating Wikipedia with "low-importance", high-value carnivorous plant articles, I award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work! -NoahElhardt23:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Elm page naming
Hello again. Thanks for your note. My changes were specifically "for ease of searching and linking", mindful that common names for a species tend to vary, particularly when they cross the Atlantic, viz. Wych Elm / Scots Elm, European White Elm / Russian Elm. Moreover, a number of the more obscure Chinese species have now been accorded common names by the Morton Arboretum in Illinois, but these have yet to be widely adopted. By adding the scientific name, I'd hoped to avoid that, but if again it conflicts with WP protocol, then I'll have to undo it. As a general point, I think it looks untidy and inconsistent to waver from common to scientific, and without parallel in other references. Regards, Ptelea12:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rkitko, I notice that you substituted the category African flora to Flora of Africa, but I am trying to do exactly the inverse, I consider that to classify the Flora in continents unnecessary, because either the plants are classified by country or by region, that is, floristic areas (Kingdom, Subkingdoms, Regions, Provinces). The name African refers to African subkingdom, and not to continent African. Thanks Berton16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Rkitko, the formula Flora by country, without a doubt should be preserved. The problem is in Flora by continents, there is not any importance in classifying by continent, the floristic regions they don't correspond to that are considered the continents, examples: African subkingdom excludes Capensic Kingdom (in South Africa), Antarctic Kingdom includes areas of Chile, Argentina and New Zealand. I uses African flora to differentiate the floristic region of the continent, for this reason there is not redundancy. These categories by region, are important to avoid overcategorization of genera or species with large distribution areas, for this reason, not at all, they should be deleted.Berton17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This reference (Brummitt) is very important, really, but he refers to "for Recording Plant Distributions" and not floristic regions, there are differences. Cheers Berton17:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the plants category because that belongs on the Citron article. Etrog (a hebrew word for the Citron) is specifically about the religious aspects of that fruit. Ariel.19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Under construction
Thanks for helping me discover a template which will really make a difference for me. I tend to focus primarily on articles having to do with pre-Meiji Japanese history, which means that I'm toggling back and forth between English and other languages; and sometimes I'll find my work disrupted by someone who doesn't know what I'm doing ... well you probably know this old story well enough.
So look: I know it's a small thing -- sure; but the fact is that I do appreciate it. In Japanese: Domo arrigato.Ooperhoofd20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
USDA tif is copyright free
This image is available.[1] Not the best, but grass images can be a long time coming. I don't know how to upload from the web to Wikipedia, though. KP Botany19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
We've hashed it out a number of times, and our MOS on article titles does link to it, I'm pretty sure. We do allow capitalization of official common names in articles--MPF generally capitalized common names of plants native to the UK and that have official common names. Most every one else doesn't. People want to make common names something they're not, and that is standardized in usage the world over. Countries, localities treat them differently, some have some sort of official status, others don't. KP Botany05:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi and question
Hi Rkitko
Thanks for the welcome. I still tring to figure out how things work here - I know rather more about plants than I do about anything computer-related. So far I'm having a play at expanding a stub for a species I know pretty well and for which I have access to much of the relevant literature (Passiflora tarminina). At the moment I'm working in my sandbox until I've got it looking a bit better.
I'd like to ask people to look at what I've got and make comments - I'm not entirely sure of the best way to do this though. It's not really peer review I'm needing as I don't think it is at that stage yet, I more need an indication about whether I'm on the right track, whether there are efficient ways to do things than I am doing them (the markup - if that is the term - looks a total mess) and at what stage I should put the article onto the main page. So I need basic beginner's help but from a plant person.
I think that's a very good idea. If there's enough of them to split out as a separate stub type, it's likely to be significantly useful, as I suspect algae specialists are a very different flavour of editor from those likely to be working on the "higher" plants. If not, an upmerged template would be a step towards such a thing later on. Alai22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey I wanted to get your opinion on a couple things. First, on the Roystonea page, I added brackets around a couple of the species, hoping to turn them into red links so I could write stubs for the species. Doing so turned them into blue links which redirect to the genus page. How is this mended? Also, with so many of these articles they have a common name and the binomial. To ensure ease of use and consistency on the site it seems we should have re-directs made for the common name to the species page. How do you do that? For example I made a stub for Phoenix reclinata but when you search Wikipedia for Senegal Date Palm it doesn't go right to the page (and isnt even first on the list of hits). Similarly, when the consensus is to list the species on the genus page, it seems redirects should be made for each species to the genus page. An example is Boswellia where the species are listed but searching for them by name does not bring up the page. I hope Ive been clear, let me know what you think. I can ask the same stuff at the Plant Project page if an obvious answer isnt available.Mmcknight423:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I occasionally find plant or animal groups which have several pictures in commons but not on the page. How do you label a page with the "Wikimedia Commons has media related to 'subject'" tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmcknight4 (talk • contribs) 02:05, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the lists. I've already found three "Liliales" (just under A-D) that belong in the Asparagales and have corrected/added the taxobox and category. There are others that do belong in the Liliales, but not in the Liliaceae as stated, such as Aletris (which is in the Melanthiaceae). I'll keep looking and making corrections. --EncycloPetey01:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Haemanthus and others
Hello there
Thanks for your note. Items 2 and 3 are no problem and I will do. Taxoboxes I find aesthetically messy and have tried to avoid them where possible. I find their position at the head of the article disruptive and have always felt that if forced into the article, they should be at the end, near the 'Category' section. My feeling about taxoboxes is that the information they convey can be done just as readily in the body of the article. The ghastly colours that are used are distinctly objectionable as is the boxy look. Otherwise, glad to hear from you! Raasgat06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, there we are. If there is a consensus that taxoboxes improve articles, then I am out of step and must be the only one to feel that they detract, are aesthetically repulsive and are ignored by the average user. I certainly don't want to get into an edit war by acting on my convictions. Have fun Raasgat18:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rkitko–thanks for this, but it is not quite there. I could not access the database of choice when I made it last night, I will try again and justify the start class. Cheers, Cygnis insignis18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
My data base let me in, it is a start now. Nothing to use as a hook for DYK, "it makes a good subject for testing new cameras' won't make it :) It was thought to be a sort of Hibiscus, and it is still sold as one, many varieties have been reassesed as species. The usual nonsense, thanks for the encouragement anyway! My pic turned up at wikispecies, I was not that confident with my id. Seems ok on checking, probably var. grossulariifolia. Cheers–Cygnis insignis20:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rkitko, Is there a version of the author citation template which isn't bounded by 2 straight lines? My feeling is that besides the clumsy wording used, the author abbreviation isn't so important that it merits special treatment and could just as easily be included in the body of the text. Just a thought..... Raasgat07:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Agrostis Tenuis
Admittedly some of that information was pulled from the invasive.org website, (http://www.invasive.org/weeds/asian/agrostistenuis.pdf) the picture which you seem to have problems with, was actually taken from under public domain license from Wikipedia. You are correct in saying however that this is a violation of Wikipedia's strict regulations as the information was plagiarised. I am sorry, and will hopefully be able to complete the stub of Agrostis Tenuis with correct information.
Apologies, Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewtss (talk • contribs) 10:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The convention will apply if there are different levels of headings - in this case they are all the same level. I think I know enough about ownership not to be guilty of it, but that doesn't mean that I will stand idly by while someone makes changes that do NOT improve the article; such as placing distribution maps in the taxobox - can you cite an MoS guideline for that? Also I note that you redirected Wood Screw Pump stating that it was not a proper noun - well, it is. I see that you have been dogging my footsteps and editing everything I do - I'm sure there must be more useful things for you to do.... Raasgat23:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As Wikipedia clearly states repeatedly, most of the manual of style is guidelines. I question that Wikipedia has as policy headings that involve dividing lines across the article - I have seen very many articles dispensing with the lines, and when necessary, depending on the size of font to establish different levels of heading. To see how out of step the lines are, please check articles written with an eye to layout by the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6970173.stm They also use different-sized fonts to differentiate between various heading levels where necessary. As for my paranoia about being stalked, you will notice that 24 out of 27 edits you carried out on 3 September were on articles that I was working on. To me that is unacceptable, and clearly constitutes being targeted. Your "valuing my contributions" comes across as being extremely patronising - perhaps choosing another word in your future exchanges with other editors, might lead to more amicable relationships. I'm sorry if this message seems confrontational - it is not intended. I would far rather that we co-operated, because it would leave time to be constructive in creating other articles and not to expend one's time and energy on futilities. Cheers, Raasgat07:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was making some changes when my edit conflicted with yourshere Please check that the current version is okay, I overwrote your edit. Cheers,Cygnis insignis14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, there is no difference in the edits. Regards, Cygnis insignis
One of my favourites, I had been meaning to drop it into the article. What a small world: I was uploading his images yesterday, and someone else was today. Good taste! –and nice improvement, but I'm not certain that the images, added today, are by Edwards. The source, that he/she (and I) was accessing, uses Edwards as a hook for a collection of drawings by various artists. I will look it up next week, I need it for something else. Cygnis insignis14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Haven't seen much evidence of the supposed consensus - but lots of evidence of lack of aesthetics and layout awareness. Some editors wouldn't recognise aesthetics if it were handed to them on a skewer. If my changes and contributions are hacked about as they have been, I shall certainly take my marbles and go home. The sequence is boringly predictable - small group of editors dictating their version of policy whilst shouting 'consensus' and reassuring each other that they are doing a good job, then accusations of incivility and finally blocking to show who holds the power. Tragic..... Raasgat16:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Pinguicula 'Hardware store'
Pinguicula 'Hardware store'
Hi there! I was wondering if you could help me identify the Pinguicula species that I had gotten from a Lowe's hardware store. It's my first effort into growing Pinguicula and I was happy to see a flower on this one. Any idea? Cheers, --Rkitko(talk)20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Go down to the external links section, and you'll see a Wikisource box that will take you straight to Lindley's original formal publication of that species.
From there, click on the footnote number, and you'll be taken to where it is mentioned in the main text.
One of the sections is entitled "Stylidiaceae", in which is published the following names: S. leptostachyum, S. scabridum, S. caricifolium, S. saxifragoides, S. striatum, S. bicolor, S. ciliatum, S. hispidum, S. compressum, S. diuroides, S. nudum, S. caulescens, S. pycnostachyum, S. canaliculatum and S. androsaceum.
It occurred to me that you might like the idea of transcribing that section and linking to it from the various Stylidium articles, as I have done for Banksia.
Hi–I noticed your query: copy of the publication. Where might I get a copy? One version is now linked at talk page here, if you want a peek at some scanned pages. There are OCR bot interpretations linked from each page there. Regards, Cygnisinsignis18:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for that error. I see you've already corrected the error, so I've tagged the species names as Latin, so I won't make that 'fix' again to the article. I'll also add an exception for 'montana' to my lists. Thanks Rjwilmsi06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
here and there
Stylidium species, on dolerite, after a high intensity blaze in, Jarrah Forest, seasonal watercourse, September, flowering.
I will drop you a note in the other place, but I thought you might be interested in this. I think the foliage is just as interesting as the 'trigger' parts. I am going back to photograph the communities of 'protocarnivores' that I found this in, I needed better light on the day. I assumed Stylidium, let me know if I'm wrong. Cygnisinsignis07:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I answered elsewhere on other matters, thanks for the ID. I'm still finding my way round the new camera, the highlights were blown out. I have some ideas from the shots I took already. I noted the occurence of Drosera with the species, and some other taxa, a 'miniature garden' would make a splendid photo. I will read up on the presence and absence of the floral spur, an intriguing aspect. I did note the flowers seem set to 'shiver', the bright white petals were certainly eye-catching. Is this the attractant to the pollinator? Nevermind, I will read your arts before coercing a lesson from you. best regards Cygnisinsignis15:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
How do you do that?
I've been chugging along creating some stub articles for various taxonomic levels of Algae, and I notice my watchlist keeps getting updated with you putting the WP:PLANTS banner on the talk pages. How are you discovering the new articles so quickly? There has to be a Wikipedia trick I haven't discovered about finding new members of a category... Neil916 (Talk) 19:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
' Stylidium fasciculatum and Stylidium calcaratum ', 1801
I'm cluttering up your talk page again, this time with a little (and low res.) glimpse into history. The artist is Ferdinand Bauer. These are two of the many sketches made in the company of Robert Brown, nine years before their first description, when the Investigator was parked off the south west coast. Regards, Cygnisinsignis09:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Conservation codes
Do you think it might be wise to create graphics for the Conservation Codes for Western Australian Flora and include them in the taxobox code as options for the "status=" parameter?
Half done. Thanks for asking. I've made the basic graphic for the Conservation Codes for Western Australian Flora already, but haven't integrated it with the taxobox template as yet (or uploaded the various other SVG files needed). Mainly I didn't do it because I wasn't sure there was a demand for it. But i'll get onto it sometime this week. —Pengo13:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
