Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Tetracarpaea

Tetracarpaea has been nominated for DYK. Quick, does anyone have an appealing photo? --Una Smith (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Only image I can find that's PD or copyright free: [1] tab CCLXIV. Flickr has a few, but they're both copyrighted. --Rkitko (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Magnolia grandiflora

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)

On a quick search, I found this pdf, which is in the public domain. It has a small bit on its ecology. There's also this, which I believe is also in the public domain. Rkitko (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, Magnolia grandiflora in the silvics manual (which is a great source for many of the trees of the United States). Kingdon (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The published volumes of the Flora of North America are on-line at e-floras, and the volume containing Magnoliaceae was one of the first to come out. Here is the FNA treatment of Magnolia grandiflora, which includes some ecological information and a distribution map, but (disappointingly) no specific references. The FNA treatment of the genus Magnolia includes a generic list of references, including a 1969 master's thesis on the genus in the US. If you can't acquire that, then the 1994 Vazuez article might be accessible, since it was published in Brittonia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Flora Iberica

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)

Butterscotch, its not in English. I would have liked to have read that. There has not been any pressing need to do a lot of molecular or anatomical work on the species, so I think it will be a few more years before we have a definitive picture from those lines of inquiry. Since we have sources that say this - this should go into the article. One problem I find with some wikipedia articles, is that some information is presented in a very definitive way, while in the "real world" the issues are less clear. Hardyplants (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, at the time I researched the article, I could hardly find any source summarizing the actual arrangement that was considered current for the genus to begin with! I'm a bit confused as to whether the current favored placement of the genus is in a tribe Verbasceae or Scrophularieae, but fortunately that's not necessary to discuss in this particular article. Circeus (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that can of worms has dried yet, one source [3]. Sorry I can't be of any help...I pay little attention any more to what is going on above the genus level. Hardyplants (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. It's not really relevant to the species article anyway, plus I already knew Scrophulariaceae itself as a whole was somewhat in flux. Circeus (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Rutabaga

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)

I've responded there. It seems hard to figure out where to put this kind of thing, because it doesn't seem to be specific to Rutabaga or even Brassica. Sort of like C4 carbon fixation in the sense of existing in many (but not all) plants, perhaps? Kingdon (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox request

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, Durova362 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:EncycloPetey is our resident moss expert; you might consider pinging him on his talk page. Hesperian 05:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. :) Durova362 05:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I've double checked, and it looks OK. Additional useful information can be found in the reply on my talk page to your question there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I spoke too soon. The reference given after the binomial ought to be the original publication of the species and/or a paper proposing the current combiniation, not merely a reference about the binomial authority. I've repositioned the reference within the article, and will add the ref for the species publication, if I can the full bibliographic information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Azafrán de bolita

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)

I edited a couple of minor things, punctuation and references, but I did not look over the article. Someone else will help with that. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I found a few more biochemistry articles ([4] and [5]) which in passing verified the basic facts about which family and where the native range is. Kingdon (talk) 01:39, 12 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

Armen Takhtajan has died. --Una Smith (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Carpobrotus edulis

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)

I've replied on that talk page. There isn't a problem with color as was supposed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Pete. Hesperian 04:22, 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)

Silver leaf

How about merging silver leaf (fungal disease vernacular name) into Chondrostereum purpureum? --22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but especially if the disease and its symptoms won't ever make much of a separate article from the one about the organism that causes the disease. However, please note that fungi aren't usually dealt with as part of the Plants WikiProject. You might do better to ask one or more of the folks who recently took the Fungus article to featured status, as they will probably have more experience on this issue, or ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Cedar

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)

Bryophytes

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)

No. A byrophyte expect is a bryologist (or muscologist). A pteridologist (or filicologist) studies ferns. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I changed it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:55, 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)

I find that photo somewhat confusing, perhaps there is an Ipomaea among the plants there? If you could upload a closeup of the plants in your yard (flowers and leaves) it would make the ID job easier. Melburnian (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're talking about the little lily-like things in the background, I think they are Agapanthus. Hesperian 12:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
If they are big and fleshy, I was thinking of Crinum pedunculatum or Crinum asiaticum.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Not an expert, but Agapanthus is my guess. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
okay i don't no how much help this will be, I don't have a proper camera - i had to bring my laptop outside to use the camera built in that - [8], [9] I'm in SE Queensland, Australia too by the way. Although these ones were bought from the shop. The flowers are on this long stemything that comes from the center of the thing (you might be able to see that in the photos.) It does however now look considerbly different from the ones in the other photo. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Agapanthus: [10]. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
In terms of the two latest photos, I would go with Crinum (possibly Crinum pedunculatum[11] as mentioned by Cas above) rather than Agapanthus, based on the filaments and anthers of the flowers. Melburnian (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd go with Agapanthus for the leaves, but I'd bet on Mulburnian for the botany. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
wow you people are good. thanks! any guess what type of fern that is in those pics? (Polypodium???, Polypodium vulgare?)IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
That looks like a Fishbone Fern (Nephrolepis cordifolia).[12] Melburnian (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Poppy

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)

"It tries simultaneously to be about the family Papaveraceae" How so? if that is the case, then that should be cleaned up, since not all Papaveraceae are poppies. The page is about poppies, not Papaveraceae genera - which include many species that are not poppies. Hardyplants (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
All species of Papaveraceae are poppies. I suppose it could be claimed the scope of Poppy is limited to all species with "poppy" in a commonly known vernacular name. But that is not an encyclopedic topic, is it? And if that were the scope, then why give a list of genera; the list then should be of species with "poppy" in their page name. --Una Smith (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
"But that is not an encyclopedic topic, is it" why not? The list of genera are those that are called poppies, while other genera within Papaveraceae are not called poppies. Hardyplants (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a concordance, not an encyclopedic topic. Or should we include the corn rose on Rose and the color poppy on Poppy? Poppy is looking more and more like a disambiguation page. Compare Bird of paradise, a disambiguation page: some genera in the family Paradisaeidae (birds of paradise) are known as birds of paradise, others are not. --Una Smith (talk) 20:26, 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)

That's a lot of hits. Nice to know wikipedia gets something right at times. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Re page views, this graph shows page views for Poppy in November 2009. There is a huge surge building up to November 11. Those are page views that should have gone to Papaver rhoeas aka corn poppy; that article also got a surge, but a much smaller one (graph). --Una Smith (talk) 16:55, 1 December 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 get it, 400,000 people to the dab want poppy seems like poppy should be poppy not a dab. Your statistics aren't otherwise supported by hard facts to simply noting that 400,000 people want poppy when going to the dab seems like a good response. Dabs that are unnecessary and that offer incovenience to 100,000s of page viewers are not helpful. Someone should be able to get it right on first try.
It seems your intent in posting this was to gain support for a dab, so I wonder why not just suggest a dab, offer supporting arguments rather than twisting everything to make it seem like it supports a dab.
One of the most annoying things on wikipedia is to enter a seemingly basic subject and get a dab, like enter "cell" and you go to a dab. What is almost everything on that page based upon? The biological concept of a cell. The dab can be reached by a hatnote on poppy, just like should be the case with cell.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory to itself. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I too would like to type a word in the search box and go directly to the article I expect, no matter what anyone else expects. Alas, we have to share Wikipedia and until the reader interface gets smarter, and learns from experience, we will have to make do with dab pages. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Those page view stats tell us not what readers want but what they get. There are tradeoffs, and I am evaluating them. --Una Smith (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've looked over the pages. There are trade-offs, and the trade-off that everyone is dissatisfied rather than a large number reach the correct article is not a beneficial one for an encyclopedia. he dab at cell is a travesty. I don't see your arguments supported by the policies. This could be because of the way you are presenting your arguments. It seems you're baiting other editors into asking questions that lead to the answers you want to give. I, as a wikipedia editor interested in the poppy article, feel you're trying to manipulate me by the way you posed this initially and how you've responded to comments.
I suggest poppy remain as is, a general article on poppies, with short areas about various usages, appropriately wikilinked to useful in-depth, appropriately titled articles through the hatnote on top. Plant articles with common names usually have the culinary uses. I agree with your removing most of the detailed parts, though. Just, imo, better leave something like a couple of sentences for the various culinary uses. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The article Poppy reads well to me, although I might be hard-pressed to give a really clear criterion about what should be there as opposed to Papaveraceae or other articles. I guess I'd summarize it as "well-known poppies" or "poppies in culture" or something. I don't support making Poppy a disambiguation. Kingdon (talk) 03:18, 1 December 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)

What about the incoming links? I think one reason Poppy attracts content that belongs elsewhere is that readers arrive at Poppy and don't know where to go next. Part of the problem is the incoming links; they need link repair; "poppy seed" should be "poppy seed", "red poppy" generally should be "red poppy", etc. A set index article would be a useful navigational aid, similar to a dab page, except that putting it at Poppy may interfere with link repair. Like regular articles and unlike dab pages, SIAs are supposed to have incoming links. How about putting the dab page at Poppy and moving the article now at Poppy to, say, Introduction to poppies? The corresponding "main" article would be Papaveraceae. Compare the articles in Category:Introductions and Category:Set indices on plants. --Una Smith (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Also compare these dab pages: Heath, Heather, Iris, Marigold, Violet. --Una Smith (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Introduction to evolution could be retitled Bad article on evolution, same with other badly written, badly referenced, silly low-level introductory articles on topics. If poppy does change to a dab, please don't invite a second string of editors to write an introduction on poppies. You've improved the poppy article to better than what it was, Una Smith.
But I hate dabs when I want to read about a subject. The cell dab is a bad choice. A cell is a cell. All other meanings are derived. The most fundamental unit of life is a dab on wikipedia because editors somehow made it one. I want to read about cells, and cell (biology) is where I want to go? Why? I don't want to read about the science of cell biology, when I want to read about a cell. Wikipedia has one of its most important articles under a title that makes it hard to get the reader there because the article page is a dab. Wikipedia does not disambiguate well. It does it poorly and unacceptably in the case of cell. Making poppy a dab and making the article about general use of poppy at introduction to poppy is a way to create, from one article, two of the types of articles wikipedia does most poorly. Poppy is not as serious as cell, though. Maybe many of those 400,000 do want something else. It could be written as a general article that led to something else, also.
I would like to see editors, and I will help, develop a good general article at poppy, and leave a hatnote to the dab. If the decision is to make poppy a dab, please don't make an article call introduction to poppy. It will attract some of the editors who wrote the other bad introduction articles. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't let this nonsense about cells stand. Biological cells (specifically phellem cells of Quercus suber) were named by Robert Hooke because they looked like small chambers. People in Chaucer's day didn't write of monks' cells because they resembled microscopic structures. Prison cells existed long before nuclei and cytoplasm were known.
If the material at Poppy that really belonged in more specific articles were all moved there, it would be a set index article, plain and simple.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not nonsense, but I've been at wikipedia long enough to have so many things I've said called nonsense that it's no longer offensive. It translates, "I disagree with you and will start by insulting your argument instead of addressing it."
Hooke named the cells he saw in cork after monk's cells. Its use for prison cells arose after its use for monks' cells and its use by Hooke. Chaucer was talking about monks' cells, not prison cells. What Hooke called a cell wasn't how biologists use the word today, though. Languages are dynamic. The primary usage of cell is the biological meaning as the fundamental unit of life.
What's nonsense is looking up a cell in wikipedia and trying to find it in the huge disambiguation page full of nonsense. This is what wikipedia dabs wind up as: collections of vaguely related nonsense.
I don't care enough about the poppy page to argue with someone so heated they have to attack another user about their disagreement. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sensitive today, aren't we. Over-invested in our examples, perhaps? Personalizing disagreements?
At any rate, I'm still waiting for an explanation of why it wasn't already bad article about poppies and for why it should contain a mish-mash of information that could reasonably go in existing articles.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that the cell of a matrix or spreadsheet may give the biological cell a run for its money. Hesperian 11:28, 2 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)

My point being, if those links were fixed, I think it is unlikely that Poppy would continue to get as many page views as it has in the past. --Una Smith (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Symbolism

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)

Your last example is a good model. The other two articles are currently crap.
I agree that there is no primary topic for "poppy" as a name referring to a plant (hence no primary topic for the term, since the plant use overshadows the other uses). But my concern is about the current dab page. Let's say I'm a reader who has just heard about the poppies of Flanders Field. There is no way I'm going to know that I want the corn poppy. I might think to go to Poppy (symbolism), but not necessarily if my interest was in knowing more about the plant.
If the dab page entry said "Corn poppy, a symbol of remembrance for fallen soldiers in World War I", I'd be on the right track, as long as Papaver rhoeas had either the information I wanted or an unambiguous link to it. But what if instead I were interested in false positive drug tests from eating poppy seeds, currently I could end up at two different articles, Papaver somniferum or poppy seed, depending on how I was looking at it. A bullet on the dab page saying "Opium poppy, the source of opiates such as morphine and codeine, of poppy seeds, a food item, and of poppyseed oil, with culinary, medicinal, and industrial uses," the reader would have all the information for an informed decision. Oops, that violates the stricture that each bulleted entry can have only one navigable link.
That's why I think it should be a set index page. My favorite example of a set index page is purple sage, it disambiguates, and at the same time provides references to address the question of which plant Zane Grey meant. I think the dab page should remain at poppy (disambiguation), and poppy should be a set index page about poppy plants. This doesn't preclude poppy (symbolism).
I'd do it myself, but I've been swamped all autumn. I'll have time in late December, though.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I think we are getting somewhere. I dislike SIAs in principle because, with the exception of ship names, they tend to be a bad mash-up of dab and article content that belongs somewhere else. For example, I think the discussion of Grey's "purple sage" probably belongs in the article about his novel. Also, there are a couple of dab-type items not handled by Purple sage. What we really need is an actual index that combines what is on the dab page and also the odds and ends now on Poppy. I'll take a stab at it. --Una Smith (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Index

Here are two snippets of a rough index that might occupy Poppy:

agricultural weed; see Argemone, Papaver rhoeas
Arctomecon
Argemone
as food; see poppy seed, poppyseed oil
as medicine; see opium, poppyseed oil
California poppy
Canbya
Celandine poppy; see Stylophorum
corn poppy
crop; see Papaver somniferum
death; see symbol
symbol; see poppy (symbolism)
of death; see also [disambiguation needed]
of peace; see also White Poppy
of sleep; see also opium poppy
of WWI fallen soldiers; see also corn 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)

I'm fine with this in principle. I think it could use an introductory paragraph (something like "Poppies are plants of the Papaveraceae (poppy family). Not all members of that family are called poppies."). Certainly the structure will encourage editors to place paragraph material in the appropriate article rather than here. Would you be willing to make a sandbox page?--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I am going to wait a little while, though, to ponder on decisions to be made about scope and style, decisions best made before an index is started. Especially since indexing is not built-in on Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Take a look: Poppy/draft. --Una Smith (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive40&oldid=1137368939"