Jump to content

User talk:MPF

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrDarwin (talk | contribs) at 19:05, 20 October 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Question, bird identification

Hello MPF,

As you have been so helpful before with my bird photos, I was wondering if you could make a little confirmation about few recent uploads.

I was photographing some migration flocks of barnacle geese (will upload those after sorting the pictures), I saw rather unusual behaviour by nearby crows. There seemed to be unusual chaos in nearby crows nest and I noticed a bird that certainly did not belong to the crow flock.

Although I am 90% sure that the "odd bird" was sparrowhawk, could you please verify that? I have not yet linked the pictures in any articles for fear of providing false information. The pictures I am wondering about are these:

  • A?
    A?
  • B?
    B?
  • C?
    C?
  • D?
    D?

Many thanks in advance Thermos 13:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting my stuff pt 2

If I remove the commercial content from the page i link to does that make it legal? The website is not biased, I wrote that page from facts, not opinion.


Why do you keep deleting my stuff

Why do you keep deleting my acai link? It has relevant content, i just dont want to put it on the page because of dup content penalties


Omigosh it's Sunday 8 June 2025 !!

Why isn't it yesterday??

My useful copy & paste notes

  • To make special characters show: add <nowiki> before and </nowiki> after
  • {{inuse}}
  • {{British-English|"colour"}}
  • {{Commonwealth-English|"colour"}}
  • {{notorphan|Page pic linked from}} - pics that are referred to but only indirectly linked
  • {{Copyvio|url=http://www.(etc)}} - copyvio note with url copied from
  • {{PD-USGov}} - US Gov copyright-free pics notice
  • {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}} - ditto, USDAFS
  • {{PD-USGov-USDA-ARS}} - ditto, USDA
  • & nbsp; - non-breaking space (rm space!!)
  • <!-- invisible text -->
  • <br clear="all"> - to make sure tables etc don't overlap
  • ;Bold :Indented next line

The standard [[Binomial nomenclature#Authorship in scientific names|botanical author abbreviation]] '''.''' is applied to plants he described.

[[Category:Botanists|, ]]

{{bio-stub}}

Some important interwiki positionings to watch for
  • et: (Eesti) comes before es: (Español)
  • es: (Español) comes before eo: (Esperanto)
  • ko: (Hangugeo)
  • he: (Ivrit) comes after it: (Italian)
  • ja: (Nihongo) comes after nl: (Nederlands)
  • fi: (Suomi) comes just before sv: (Svenska)
Taxobox for a plant species
{{Taxobox
| color = lightgreen
| name =
| status = 
| image = FILENAME.JPG
| image_width = 240px 
| image_caption =
| regnum = [[Plant]]ae
| divisio = [[ophyta]]
| classis = [[opsida]]
| ordo = [[ales]]
| familia = [[aceae]]
| genus = ''[[G]]''
| species = '''''G. s'''''
| binomial =
| binomial_authority =
}}
Taxobox for a higher plant group
{{Taxobox
| color = lightgreen
| name =
| image = FILENAME.JPG
| image_width = 240px 
| image_caption =
| regnum = [[Plant]]ae
| divisio = [[ophyta]]
| classis = [[opsida]]
| ordo = [[ales]]
| familia = [[aceae]]
| genus = ''[[G]]''
| genus_authority =
| subdivision_ranks =
| subdivsion =
taxon1 <br/>
taxon2 <br/>
taxon3
}}
Columns
{|
|- valign=top
|

|

|}
Image layouts

horizontal: 

{| 
|-
| [[Image:|center]] || [[Image:|center]] || [[Image:|center]]
|-
|}

vertical: 

{| border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="right"
| [[Image:|thumb|]]
|- 
| [[Image:|thumb|]]
|- 
| [[Image:|thumb|]]
|- 
| [[Image:|thumb|]]
|}

Archive

Old stuff up to Apr 2005 Old stuff up to June 2005 Old stuff up to Nov 2005 Old stuff up to March 2005

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Wanted to add my welcome, also. Thank you for all your effort on various pine species. You are obviously an expert. Feel free to say as much or as little about yourself as you wish at User:MPF -- hike395 22:58, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Taxonomic stalking, taxobox, ToL and Categories

I hope you don't mind my stalking you.. I'm not really doing it on purpose... One of the things I like doing is adding/correcting taxoboxes and other taxonomic references. And since I generally use Recent Changes to find my articles, and you've been doing a lot of edits.... Hope ya don't mind! - UtherSRG 17:44, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated! MPF 19:06, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

MPF - stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life - we've modified the taxobox standards. - UtherSRG 23:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please weigh in: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#MW_1.3_categories

As to the names Regnum, Divisio etc., I advise you to look at Taxobox components. The purpose of these messages is to allow easy translation of taxobox components for use in other Wikipedias. JoJan 05:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fibonacci numbers and Phyllotaxis

What I have written is available at Talk:Fibonacci_number/Phyllotaxis; please feel free to do whatever you like with it. -- Dominus 02:25, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 20:23, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

With regards to what you said on my talk page, I will put this in a simple fashion. Anyone using the GFDL can use Wikipedia's articles in their own project. But other open/free projects (WikiTravel for example) use a different, incompatible license, so we can't share with those projects and they can't share with us. What many of us feel is that the license that they use is better and that it's more important that more people be able to use our articles than it is that we keep them from always being able to be used at Wikipedia. Does that help to explain it? (Please reply at my talk page) -- Ram-Man 20:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

The commons namespace

Just thought I'd let you know: Wikimedia Commons is covered by the interwiki map. To make a link, use [[commons|(pagename)]]. Alphax τεχ 00:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Carapa

If memory serves me Carapa is not monotypic - the other species may have been synonymised (don't have any reference handy) but I remember mention of other species. Guettarda 23:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abies

Thank you for the interest to the topic. Feel free to upload the maps and any image you think appropriate for the topic. The maps you refer on, are designed after Farjon. They can be enhanced with Liu who gives more detailed maps. I've also one good image from Bulgaria and will upload it soon (a very big tree from the Pirin mountains). Best wishes Orjen 22:10, July July (CEST)

Hi, couldn't manage to reply earlier! A higher resolution image of Bild:Prastara jela Orjen.jpg is available. Additionally two more images from virgin fir forests in the Balkans are Bild:Jelka Orjen 1.jpg and Bild:Pirin fir.jpg. Thanks for putting the images on wiki commons.

Best wishes Orjen 11:00, 5 August (CEST)

  1. Maps of Abies? where can i find them?
  2. Do you by any chance have more images of abies grandis?

t.i.a., TeunSpaans 03:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

An Award
I, Saikiri, award this Barnstar to MPF for being a tireless, knowledgable and generally awesome contributor, author of many fine edits!
Indeed, yes! Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alnus spp.

Hi! I'm really less than an amateur in this field, so I defer to you on the decission. The book is a bit old and it's very possible that these are two different species, but here it says:

There is considerable confusion in the taxonomy of Alnus acuminata. Furlow (1977) reported the species as Alnus acuminata H.B.K., but in his last revision (1979) he classified it as Alnus acuminata ssp. arguta. The species also has been described as Alnus jorullensis H.B.K. by Carlson and Dawson (1985). Holdridge (1951) concluded that if subspecies populations exist they apparently intergrade into each other and because of similarities in wood and silvicultural characteristics they may be considered as a single species, at least from a forestry viewpoint.

Alnus acuminata is native to the American continent ranging from Mexico to Northern Argentina in elevations between 1,200 and 3,200 m.a.s.l. where annual rainfall is 1,000 to 3,000 mm or more.

Libro del Árbol says Alnus jorullensis H.B.K. var. spachii (Regel). I've found the same problem in the classification of other related species; in some cases they were catalogued 150 years ago and then nobody researched them further with modern tools (e. g. genetic analyses). Andean Alder and Mexican Alder should refer to each other quite profusely. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. Make sure you upload it to Commons, not to Wikipedia. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyperus rotundus

Please review Cyperus rotundus.

Do you think it justifies a "World's worst weed" redirect?

TIA, RickP 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll be looking forward to more feedback from you.
From brief look at some of the other "worst weeds" you listed it seems to me that Cyperus rotundus is significantly worse - for example, Chromolaena odorata, as a member of the Asteraceae family, is probably much more susceptible to ploughing and to herbicides; Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) does not affect any land crops. Could you advise how to start a productive discussion on this topic?
It also looks to me like the list under Plants that are often considered weeds on the Weed page is rather arbitrary. What do you think?
Regards, RickP 08:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I learned a lot from your work today on the article! Thanks, RickJP 13:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations indeed! If you ever have any questions regarding your newfound tools, please do not hesitate to ask me or another administrator. We're here to help! Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. And about time! :) Guettarda 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. It's about time! --DanielCD 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise; that was a very smooth RfA. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks all for your support! I must admit I was surprised at the level of support, I thought it would be something more like 3:2 or 2:1 in favour, not 74:1!

I just did my first admin rollback, some vandalism at Cherry

Now of course I'm worried about hitting all those 'delete' and 'block' tags by accident . . . - MPF 01:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you do, it has a confirm screen. --DanielCD 02:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. I didn't see your nomination, or I'd have been the first to sign it. I know you'll be an even greater asset to the project with your new tools. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from plant species to genus/family

Hi. I found quite a few such redirects. Here's a list: bogdan 15:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a whole bunch more of these... replace with stubs? SB Johnny 13:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lanuage sort order

THanks for the note. I am looking at ways to correct this. Rich Farmbrough 11:20 20 March 2006 (UTC).

BTW I was going to tell you about the poll (which I recently discovered), but I see you've found it via Village Pump. If and when this gets sorted definitively we can get all articles on the same standard fairly easily. Rich Farmbrough 22:00 25 March 2006 (UTC).

Barnstar award

The Barnstar of Diligence
In appreciation of MPF's extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur completely. JoJan 14:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plant article naming convention

You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#Plant article naming conventions. Alan Liefting 10:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand plant names

We have differed on plant article names in the past hence the reason for starting a discusion on plant article naming convention. I will be renaming the New Zealand plant articles into a more coherent system over the next few months (should really do it after my exams!!). Please bear with me and I hope that you will agree with the results. I am aiming to configure the articles so that they are categorised under the (most) common name AND the scientific name. Alan Liefting 10:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HQITWS is back!

With my virus gone, HQITWS is back! Spawn Man 22:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drosera rotundifolia

You wanna redraw the map? Go for it! I understand the natural inadequacies of using only one meta-source to draw a distro map. To make a proper map, one would need to amass all the botanical observations of such-and-such a species, which is a daunting task. Not to mention that the scale of the UK, in comparison to the rest of the world, is quite small.

The red/pink division was not necessary, but added to show the centres of populations. Fais que vous voudras (do as you will). --chris 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oaks

I have no emotional connection to Category:Fagaceae, Category:Oaks, or Category:Quercus -- it just seemed redundant to have an article in more than one of them. — Eoghanacht talk 13:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pando

Thanks for commenting on the Pando (Quaking Aspen) article. We are currently trying to have it achieve featured article status. Any input on its peer review would be helpful. Thank you again. Globeism 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and User:Brya

I happen to have stumbled into the long-winded edit war you two are having over at Botanical name. Now I see that this is not limited and the both of you have doing constant reverting without justifying or discussing whatsoever. I am this close to fulfilling a RFC as a third party, because I firmly believe your actions (on both sides) are not conducive to improvement of the article. While I do see that Brya's edit do contradict the MoS, you have shown littleinterest in actually discussing the edits with him. I expect to see the both of you justify (and giving the exact pages you are refering to, as the manual of style is not exactly easy to navigate) any reverts to the following pages on the respective talk pages:

Circeus 15:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about not editing the pages, but justifying your reverts. If Brya cannot properly justify his owns (and I can't see how he could), the entire thing can be solved much more easily. Circeus 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have all but given up on being a regular contributor to Wikipedia, largely because it has become evident I was fighting a losing battle against those who were not necessarily more knowledgeable, or better editors, but apparently have limitless time on their hands to edit thousands of articles. However, I have been following this "discussion" with some amusement and feel compelled to come out of retirement to comment.

Brya has (apparently unilaterally) decided to follow a typographical practice for botanical nomenclature used in printing the ICBN that does not even rise to the level of "example" (as defined within the Code): the italicization of all botanical names at all ranks. As others have discovered, this leads to stylistic inconsistency between botanical and zoological Wikipedia articles, and between those botanical articles which Brya has or has not edited. In the end this is about as inconsequential a disagreement as I have ever seen on Wikipedia, but as Brya clearly has no intention of accommodating, cooperating or compromising with, or conceding to, any other editor, and has displayed such breathtaking arrogance in all his (her?) past and present editing, I hereby award him (her?) my "Does Not Play Well With Others" award.

Now to the matter at hand: the ICBN (Saint Louis Code, published 2000), in its preface, states, "As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is being followed in an increasing number of botanical and mycological journals."

I became curious as to how "well received" this practice has been and to what extent it has been followed, so I did a quick survey of the most prominent botanical, mycological, and phycological journals in my library. I was hard pressed to find any that italicize botanical names above genus. Of 30 journals I checked, only 3--exactly 10%--have followed the example set by the ICBN. (The actual percentage is probably lower, but I did not check every minor journal.) The journals I found using italicization are Edinburgh Journal of Botany, Mycotaxon, and Kew Bulletin. In my judgment, it would appear that the non-binding practice of the ICBN is little more than a quaint typographical convention that has not been widely adopted. MrDarwin 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is regrettable that on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Brya page MPF interpreted my comments to mean that I left Wikipedia as a result of Brya's edits. I have found Brya intractable, uncooperative, arrogant and extremely frustrating but my frustration with numerous editors (not just Brya) was but one of many reasons for my absence from Wikipedia, time being the major one. MrDarwin 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's user:SB_Johnny and user:Brya

I'm trying to avoid making a third revert on Tautonym (and Tautonymy). Tried to use the dispute/contradiction tag, but I'm not sure I got it in there right (doesn't link to the contradicted article). Brya's reasons seem to have something to do with the unfair treatment of botanists by zoologists, which I'm not sure I get. What should my next step be here? (Getting pretty tired of this.) SB Johnny 08:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC opened

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Brya. This is going nowhere at the moment. SB Johnny 09:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acoelorrhaphe

User_talk:Clickie#Protologue. So Index Kewensis is wrong.--Curtis Clark 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiking issues...

Have a look at Organic_lawn_management... seems pretty much a how-to manual, that might be a good basis for a wikibook or chapter. But how is this officially done? Copy-paste is not a good option, as it loses the history. I used a referance link to a historical version of a different WP article for a WB chapter in another case, but that article was only partially how-to, while this case seems a severe example and the article may not be salvagable. SB Johnny 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reference desk? Where? SB Johnny 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job

Thanks for catching the error on the Middle Atlas translation. I'd intended to convert it to km2, but didn't properly complete the translation (too much math I guess); your attention to detail corrected a glaring error. This is what makes Wikipedia work! Thanks - Williamborg 00:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Range Maps

Hi MPF. I simply used the "snapshot" tool in Acrobat to copy the image. Then I just put it on Paint and saved as a .jpg. I can just save the file from Paint as a .png instead. However, I didn't think a high resolution would be needed for a range map, so long as the range was clearly visible, and the .jpg files were smaller. SCHZMO ✍ 01:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oaks

I'm curious, why did you decide to eliminate the cat rather than moving all the Quercus from Category:Fagaceae to Category:Oaks and renaming the latter Category:Quercus?--Curtis Clark 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Certainly the other genera aren't bit enough to warrant categories.--Curtis Clark 19:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fagus sylvatica 'Franken'

Do you like this plant? --Kalmia 05:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nordmann Fir

The Western Caucasus Reserve is in Europe but Turkey and Georgia are in Asia the latter also being in the Middle East, and the Nordmann Fir extends into both regions.

Forth Bridge

Hi. While there is nothing wrong with your urban legend, I think the inclusion of an (unverifiable) story which is basically a joke in a serious article on a subject which is fairly iconic to many people (including me; I'm trying to honestly reveal my POV here) is inappropriate. No disrespect to you or your intentions in adding the info is implied.

(There's a similar thing on the Tay Bridge article, in that an urban legend about Karl Marx occasionally surfaces there; I think it is more noteworthy than the story about the Forth though) --Guinnog 16:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plant categorisation

MPF, thanks for your note. We've arrived at a rather different way of doing this among the bird people, i.e. every family, genus etc gets it own category, so that we reflect the "Tree of Life" in the category system, even if this means categories with very small numbers of members. There was quite a bit of discussion about this but that's what was settled on. My creation of Myriophyllum was based on the same reasoning, but I guess you and the other plant people have discussed this and come to different conclusions - can you let me know the agreed categorisation approach for plants is documented so I can understand it more fully and don't go wading in and messing things up? Cheers SP-KP 17:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acer species

I personally do not think everything should be moved to its scientific names. They are only used when the common names are confusing (other species with the same name) or when there are two equally used names for the same species. In those cases, having a comon name confuses the user. I agree, there will be some inconsistency but most will be under their unconfusing comon name. And if a species has a infrequent, but used second comon name, it can be made into a redirect. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was open for an extended period to start with due to the backlog at WP:RM, which is normally 5 days. Furthermore, when deciding what to do, consensus is one thing, but the arguments can be weighted in light of guidelines and policies as well. I am quite aware of the taxonomic corner as I contribute frequently there, and the situation you do not like does occur frequently. If there is consensus in a later stage to move the page back per your arguments, I will move it back. See talk page of Acer negundo for more arguments. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acer negundo -> Acer in general

Sorry I had to vote against you there (and worse, change the poll!), but you and I just went through a horrible time dealing with someone who wanted to "change the facts on the ground and argue the theory later", and I think we should apply the same rules to ourselves. SB Johnny 19:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuchsia

Hi MPF,

I didn't remove the word "fuck" from the fuchsia article merely because of some Puritan objection to profanity. It just had absolutely nothing to do with the article, and was totally gratuitous. (See the policies on being encyclopedic and verifiable.) As a result, I'm re-removing it.

If an edit is discussed on the talk page, please discuss it before reverting said edit. Ckerr 05:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiitake

Hello MPF,

Just want to say thanks for fixing that image for me. It looks beautiful. I am still quite new at this. I really appreciate it--Merkurix 09:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format problem

Chrysanthemum has some strange formatting issues (huge white space due to the boxes). I don't know how to fix it, but have noted your skill at that. (Let me know if you fix it, so I can look at the history and see how it's done!) SB Johnny 10:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that did it. SB Johnny 10:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Mountains

The official and commonly used name of the mountain range is Nur Mountains not Amanos which is the other (and correctly spelled name) but much lesser used. The name "Amonos" is misspelled! If you don't belive look at atlases and maps.

Dear MPF

Thank you for cleanup of the Jute page. I am also interested in cleaning up the page. Because, I have contributed most of the contents and images in the articles. I have also created some related articles like: Jute cultivation, History of jute fiber, etc. to make the Jute article more attractive and clean.

But, I have used some of the contents from our sites. Since you have cleaned up our link from the page, it makes our site look like other sites that uses free contents from Wikipedia. I am not adding any of my links, unless you suggest me any alternative.

Best regards.

Asif Anwar Bangladesh


Larch

You changed the picture in the page Larch. I think Larix_griffithii.jpg is much more informative and encyclopedic than a simple photo that you put in the page. From this photo it is impossible to see the tree's features. I suggest you to return Larix_griffithii.jpg Olegivvit 10:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paeonia daurica

I look forward for the translation from the German P. daurica article and will certainly take part in the contribution to it. Orjen 19:11, 19 July 2006 (CET)

Tree of heaven

Quick question. Your last edit to this page removed the TOC. Is that a MoS rule for short(er) articles? Just confused and looking for clarity. Thanks! --Rkitko 02:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry

Is there a special reason that you want a long list with dozens of dead links? (You can reply here) Han-Kwang 18:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Han-Kwang - yes; it is a species list of cherries, much like the species lists on numerous other pages. They're not dead links, just links not born yet, but which will be sometime (when someone gets round to doing pages for each species!) - MPF 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'll start a few of those. Do you think that a list of hybrids or notable cultivars, such as Kanzan and Yoshino should be made? This should be on a separate list page IMO. I thought about making ornamental cherry and ornamental crab apple pages. --Kalmia 22:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kalmia - good idea. There's already a page on ornamental cherries at Sakura, and I guess a few of the most important cultivars deserve pages of their own (like e.g. Peace (rose) does). Not so sure about the crab apples, as there are not so many individually well-known cultivars as there are for the cherries; they might be better discussed (at least for the moment, but see how the page size progresses) under Malus. - MPF 22:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a redirect for Ornamental cherry to Sakura. --Kalmia 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you identify this?

Hello MPF,

While taking some "in flight" photos of various birds (that I uploaded to Commons), I got the attached picture of bird carrying unknown object, but unfortunately even though I have browsed through various bird pages, I am still uncertain about this.

I am almost certain that this is some kind of gull. My best bet would be to categorise it as juvenile Larus Canus, as the size would match mature Larus Canus. In the place where I took this in Helsinki the species is common. But to avoid misleading filename, I would like to have a second opinion or positive identification.

Could help with this or point to someone who could help?

--Thermos 07:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The birds in two pictures are not the same bird, just same kind of bird


Hello MPF,
Thank you very much for identifying the birds and for your kind compliments about my photos. And in fact, even more so for correcting my mistake about canadian goose. Your correction could not have came at the better time. See my user page at commons... : )
Well... In few days I have now taken about 1.000 shots of birds in flight. Let's see what I can contribute - it just takes time to sort throug the images. Many thanks for your help.


scrub jays

Please see discussion page at wikiproject birds. Thanks. -Natureguy1980 17:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions of Actinostrobus and Allocasuarina lehmanniana

Hello, why did you remove my addition of English measurements along side the metric in Actinostrobus and Allocasuarina lehmanniana. I was making the articles more accessable to those who are not knowlegable about the metric system. It violates WP:NPOV and some of the ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Thank you. Rekarb Bob 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the harm in having both? I would do the same in reverse to an article about an American topic. Rekarb Bob 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
English measurements are used outside the USA, even in your country (maybe not by you, but they are). Shame on them! As for the percentage of the world that uses them, what about the percentage of the English speaking world? I know English is becoming more of a universal language. But I'm sure there are plenty of Australians that use some English measurements. I also use SI in articles about local topics near me in Hammond, Indiana. I see no reason for English measurements to be used in non en.wikipedia, and I never use them there.--Kalmia 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite journal2}}

It should be fairly easy to integrate that option into Cite journal itself, using a yes/no parameter. Circeus 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished it. "quotes=no" will remove the quotes in {{cite journal}}. Do you mind if I put the template for deletion? Marking it as deprecated doesn't seem pertinent. Circeus 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's a a good idea. I preferred to make the change as unintrusive as possible, because the sudden "disappearance" of quote risk upsetting people. Maybe you could discuss it on the talk page while it's not used? Circeus 18:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial vs Metric

G'day MPF,

while I appreciate your efforts here (bloody Americans, eh?) I must inform you, with heavy heart and sombre frown, that you are, in fact, completely and utterly wrong about this one. Reducing systemic bias is a noble goal — and on Wikipedia, obvious bias unthinkingly introduced by our friends across the Pacific is everywhere. So, good on you for fighting the Good Fight.

However, we are not and have never been in the business of deliberately removing useful information for ideological reasons. I applaud your attempts to spell Metric units correctly, but not your flat-out removal of the Imperial units. There's nothing at all wrong with saying (for example), "On free kicks, the defending side's players must retreat 9.15 metres (ten yards)". We want to be understandable by everyone. Providing extra information is a Good Thing; removing information, while it may well force certain people to learn the Metric system faster, is a Bad Thing. Happy editing! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly pic

Hmm, interesting. I honestly don't recognize this as any European species. I'll carry on searching but do you think it may have been photographed in captivity? Richard Barlow 08:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've left a note on the photographer's talk page in Commons and asked if anyone in Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods can help. I'll let you know. Richard Barlow 09:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you'd noticed but the photographer has identified the species and amended the image name - I've added it to the gallery at Parthenos sylvia. Richard Barlow 07:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need a deletion to move a page...

See Talk:Fat Hen for details. "Fat Hen" is a regional name, in my region (where it is common and native), it's always called "lambsquarters". (The capital H in the title is also problematic, I would think.

The species is Chenopodium album. It's currently a redirect, so I can't move it myself. (Maybe I should consider an RfA, eh?) -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: It's called lambsquarters throughout New England and much of the rest of the Eastern US, and appears under that name in most weed guides as well. SB_Johnny | talk 12:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Never heard of that cut of mutton, but then lamb and mutton aren't real big around here anyway. Disambig sounds like a good idea... allowing others to also learn something new every day :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes before punctuation

Wht are you moving the footnotes to before the punctuation in juniper berry? See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Place_ref_tag_after_punctuation for MOS recommendation. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded over on my talk page, in case you don't have it watched. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spruce beer

MPF, you added a globalize template to the spruce beer article some time back. I wanted to let you know that I re-organized the article in a "universal definition->general types->regional varieties" manner to give the article a more global scope. I personally do not know anything about Russian or Siberian use of spruce to make flavored beverages (as you give as an example in the discussion page). Cheers. -- BlueCanoe 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Crested Tern

Why delete the extra pic?

In Australia this is just "Crested Tern" (see HANZAB list). It's "Lesser" for bengalensis, so "Greater" seems redundant? --Glen Fergus 12:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image

I've undeleted the image (image undeletion is possible now). It's not high-resolution, but it probably should be moved to Commons in JPEG format (considering file size). Conscious 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-deleted and marked PNG as a duplicate. Conscious 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Hi, I've made an article on a genus, Stephania -- could you take a look and fix anything that needs to be fixed? Thanks, Badagnani 22:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Two things: is the kingdom subcategory in the taxobox right (it looks funny), and are we now adding authorities for all species in the list of species? If so, I'll try to do that in future when I add new genii and am able to find the authorities. Badagnani 01:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Cat:Flora of Armenia

I figured as much, since that really makes sense. I just used Flora of Argentina (which included stuff that just grows there but not necessarily native) as an example and used some of the plants that had Armenian names I recognized from this list (http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenia's_Flora) which again is just a list of everything that grows in Armenia--Eupator 00:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Measures

FYI, metric measures are used by 192 out of 193 countries, 95% of the world's population, and over 80% of the world's English-speaking population. You shouldn't be requiring the rest of the world to follow your US-POV minority imperial usage - MPF 10:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and 192 out of 193 countries (though, oddly enough, there are over 200 countries out there, so this is strange math) are socialist, and yet that economic system is self-destructive and nonsensical. What the hordes of authority-worshipping proles tolerate is irrelevent to what's right. A binary system of measurement, with key measures arbitrarily established where it's most convenient for the common user makes more sense than a base 10 system of measures which are easy for bureaucrats to convert, but nearly useless for everyday people.
But that's all irrelevent, because there are more native English language-speaking people in the United States than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED. This means that, if you want to play a numbers dick-swinging game, the English-speaking Wikipedia should use the system which is used by the majority of natively English-speaking readers...which is the English system, not the lame Metric system.
Note that the reason most countries use the metric system is that it has been FORCED upon them by their sociopathic bureaucrats, in those socialist governments I mentioned earlier. The one country where people are FREE TO CHOOSE their system have stuck to the English. And what people choose who are free to do so reflects most accurately what is best for them, not what other people are FORCED by bureaucrats to use.
Stop vandalizing pages, violating the established Wikipedia guideline of not reversing established systems of usage in given articles. Those which are established in the English system are to be left in that system, and those in Metric left in that. You're lucky about this, since the vast majority of readers and editors prefer the English.--Kaz 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both should be used in many articles, but remember that many non-native English speaking people use the English Wikipedia. Some languages that use non-latin alphabets do not convert well to the Web. There are more English speaking people in India than in the United States. And there are more English speaking people in China than in the United States. Of course only a small minority of them use the Web.
The US does use both systems. Some beverages are sold by the liter and some things (drugs) by grams and milligrams. Bullet calibers are sometimes measured in millimeters.
Also many people in the UK, Australia etc use English measurements still despite government mandates. I'm sure MPF gets into arguments with people in his own country. --Kalmia 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What MPF has done, creating a conflict between us, is to go into pages I've created myself (like list of tomato cultivars), where I established the English system of measurement not only through usage but in the pages' documentation, and reversed all of the usage in the entire article, converting every one of MANY measurements to metric and then deleting the English. This is a violation of the basic wikipedian guideline, which says that pages stay as they are established. When I reverted his edits (there being too much for me to fix it all by hand, since I have an actual life) and suggested he add parantheticals metric, he did...in ONE case...change everything to metric and then add parantheticals in English, but not only is this not acceptable, but he even had the gall to change the instructions for the page to say additions should be in metric. What armistice there has been between the metric minority and the English-system majority is undermined by this nonsense. --Kaz 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callitris glaucophylla

Hi. Thought you might be interested in improving this stub. Snottygobble 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snottygobble - thanks for the note; bit of a tricky one, as other authorities (e.g. Blake 1959, Proc. Roy. Soc. Qld. 70: 33-46; Farjon 2005, Monograph of Cupressaceae and Sciadopitys; followed online by e.g. IUCN) treat it as a synonym of C. columellaris, so it is a very disputed taxon. The reasons Blake and Farjon give for lumping seem fairly convincing; conversely, the grounds for splitting given by Thompson & Johnson (Telopea 2 (6): 731-736) seem decidedly trivial ("An inland species; foliage usually glaucous" for C. glaucophylla, vs. "A coastal species; foliage usually green" for C. columellaris); Farjon points out that mixed green and glaucous seedlings can derive from a single parent tree (and your photo shows a very green tree, too!). My inclination would be to accept the merge and move the wiki page to C. columellaris, but include some discussion of the case from both sides; I'll wait to see what you think before doing anything - MPF 09:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise it was contentious - I just assumed that C. columellaris was an old name and Wikipedia/Wikispecies needed updating. Your response indicates that you have a much better grasp of the situation than me, so feel free to do what you think best. Apologies if I've made more work for you. Snottygobble 12:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Pleasure working with you as always. Snottygobble 11:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anisodus

Here's another new one at which your help would be appreciated! Badagnani 07:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix

Hi MPF. Thanks for the link on the cactus article. I've been around a while, but am fairly new to editing. I see its fairly easy to find the right links now. Cheers Harristweed 02:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jun com cones.jpg

Hi MPF, I had protected it when it was DYK image. It doesn't need to be protected on Commons. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 00:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - MPF 00:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the procedure goes the other way: when an from Commons is to appear on the Main Page, it is temporarily uploaded to en to be protected. Circeus 07:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pic request

Hi Walter - could you look out for a photo of Douglas Maple (Acer glabrum, a.k.a. Rocky Mountain Maple), please? There's a new article and all it's got is a grotty line drawing - thanks, MPF 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF; I'll watch for it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Vandalizing Web Pages, MPF...

I am not going to let you get away with actual vandalism of the page just because you intentionally work in a few new changes while you're at it, purely to prevent reversion. If you continue to violate wikipedia guidelines by changing the established system of measure on these pages, and altering their documentation, you will be blocked. --Kaz 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPF's edit did not violate guidelines. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement says (and has done for months):
  • Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
  • If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
  • If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose SI units as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
Applying this to MPF's edit:
  1. MPF included conversions in conformance with guidelines. These should not have been removed; removing them was a violation of the guideline.
  2. Clearly editors cannot agree about the sequence of units. But the article does not cite its sources, so it is not possible to put the source value first and the converted value second.
  3. The choice of units is therefore arbitrary, so MPF put the SI units as the main unit, in accordance with the guideline. The subject of the article is not a subject dealing with the United States, so the exception does not apply.
Snottygobble 01:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, the guidelines also say that if a page has an established standard, it remains. You don't go in and undo the entire page without better cause than "well, I like the other standard more".
Second, as I just pointed out below, the units used by the source material are obvious, all you have to do is google almost ANY cultivar of pepper along with first the word "inches", then the word "centimeters". Almost all English-language pepper (and tomato, and many other) references on the web use the English system. The ratio is generally well over 100:1 "inches" over centimeters.
Third, MPF did remove English measurements entirely, from several of the pages I created or edit, and a skim through his "contributions" will show that he does this regularly. The sole reason he switched to putting English measurements in parens, instead of simply deleting them entirely, on JUST the pepper cultivars page is that I told him to when I reverted his deletion of the English measurements. On the tomato cultivars page, on the other hand, he deleted the English measurements entirely, as he did on several other pages for specific plants at about the same time. --Kaz 05:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos of the general question, most measurements of plant parts are generated initially in SI units, since they are made by botanists, who use SI uniformly for everthing but time (they still use minutes, hours, etc.) and temperature (most use Celsius). The only systematic exception is botanists in the United States and Canada prior to the early 20th Century, who routinely used inches and lines. So in referenced material, the SI measurements will almost always be the source value.
Units for area and distance overland, and for elevation, are more likely to be in feet and acres in the US even in the latter half of the 20th Century; I have reference books that give elevations in feet and corolla length in mm. My theory (based on my experience and that of others) is that automobile odometers in the US still read in miles (requiring a conversion to km of "5 mi. east of Whoville"), topographic maps often include the old Township/Range system of 640-acre squares, and many of us purchased altimeters that read in feet so that we could adjust them against benchmarks and highway markers already in feet. So these measures in US sources are most often converted to SI units (although the original measures are almost never preserved).--Curtis Clark 04:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most vegetable cultivar measurements are done in English units. Notice what happens when, for List of chili pepper cultivars, you google "habanero" with "inches", and then with "centimeters". 53,200 to 820. How about with Jalapeno: 170,000 to 930. "Numex Big Jim", 78 to 3. "Chile negro" 405 to 1. Ancho: 116,000 to 598.
There is a titanic dominance of cultivar measurements by English. You find the same thing if you search for tomato cultivars and ounces/grammes, or carrots and inches/centimeters, or apples ounces/grammes, et cetera. The de facto standard on the 'net, from whence we get our references, is clearly English, not metric. --Kaz 06:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look more closely. You did an unintelligent search. Did you try with the spelling centimetres? Did you look with the standard abbreviation cm? Or that the measurement may be cited in millimetres / mm? When you do that, you'll see that metric is in a clear lead. Just now, habanero+inches: 53,200; habanero+cm: 82,600; habanero+mm: 50,700, so the total for metric is somewhere between 82,600 and (82,600 + 50,700) = potentially 133,300 - MPF 08:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got my doctorate at an agricultural university in the United States, and I currently work at another one, and every agricultural scientist I know measures plant parts in SI units (even though they still measure fields in acres). The issue here is that the measurements are translated into inches for the American non-scientist audience, and then, absent the original data, converted back into cm by Wikipedia editors. At that point, the original source measurements are unavailable, which would suggest falling back to the "arbitrary" guideline. The best route, of course, is to use data from the primary literature, but it's a lot more work to find.--Curtis Clark 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I personally prefer SI (easier to use), a lot of US readers (not including myself, but I'm not the only US reader of wikipedia) really have trouble visualising SI measurements. Why not just put them in parentheses? --SB_Johnny | talk 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If both measurements are present, it shouldn't matter which is in parentheses.--Curtis Clark 16:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar and Sugi

Thanks for the info. I have replaced Image:Cedar lined path to the Togakushi shrine1.jpg and Image:Cedar lined path to the Togakushi shrine2.jpg by Image:Tree lined path to the Togakushi shrine1.jpg and Image:Tree lined path to the Togakushi shrine2.jpg. Best wishes -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx

Oh, that's confusing, I read in a book it was listed as Dacrydium kirkii, but anyway, who cares! Thanks mate -- Lego@lost 21:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Healthful

I had no idea; in a high school vocabulary course this was in the textbook: when to use "healthy" and when to use "healthful." "Healthy," we were taught, refers to one's body, and "healthful" refers to some activity or food that might contribute to one's health. I'm not entirely convinced that these usages are not more widespread than you claim, and I'd like to see evidence of this, either from OED or some similar source. Badagnani 22:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for checking! I checked too and found that "healthy" is perfectly fine to speak of foods or activities, as it's been used that way for hundreds of years -- and that people who insist on using "healthful" are "swimming against the tide of history." I just took what I'd learned in school as the gospel, I suppose, as many of us do. Good to learn things like this. Badagnani 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swietenia

Hi MPF. I think you're quite correct about the original spelling, but I suspect that a formal name change has been made....see http://www.ipni.org/ipni/plantsearch?request_type=search&output_format=query&ret_defaults=on Paul venter 12:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alder

Greetings. I'm sure I've missed pertinent discussions on the capitalization debate in either WP:TOL or WP:PLANTS. If you know specifically where they are, I'd appreciate the links :-)

Second, as you may have noticed, I removed said capitals in error on the titled page above. Common names of plants are not proper names in and of themselves. I'm of the opinion that plant names should only contain capitals when a portion of their name refers to a specific place or name. I've noticed that you're of the opposite opinion. The only argument in favor of that formatting that I've seen is that it nicely demarcates what is and what is not the plant's common name in prose text. While I agree in principle that it's an easy way to signal the reader that this is the plant's name, I disagree in practice and still believe this to be a misuse of capitalization. If you could provide further thoughts on the topic, I would read it with interest.

Third, I was wondering if we could engage in this discussion on WP:PLANTS or WP:TOL so that others in the community could see it and give their opinions. Since I haven't been around as long as you, I defer to you whether or not there has been sufficient coverage of this debate in that community recently--if not, I'll move this note over to WP:PLANTS so we can discuss there (or you can, if you wish).

Thanks! Best, Rkitko 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rkitko. Let's move this to WP:PLANTS, since other groups, such as birds, have different traditions.--Curtis Clark 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed on numerous occasions in the WP:TOL talk archives; take a look through. Generally, there has been a small majority in favour of caps for various practical reasons, e.g. a wild cherry (any species of Prunus growing in its natural environment) is not necessarily the same as a Wild Cherry (the common name of the particular species Prunus avium). Also, please, whatever you want to do, it is not a good idea to subdivide species into two different groups based on the (often very obscure) etymology of the name (e.g. is Pohutukawa a proper name? Do you know the Maori etymology?? I don't!). As for what tradition it follows - you'll find that most field guides use caps for plant (and other living things) names (and have done so for a long time, e.g. Preston's (1948) North American Trees). - MPF 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see the issue as a corollary to the ever-present question of "what is a common name", and the tendency (regrettable in my view) to standardize common names as an alternative to scientific names. In ordinary English running text (at least in this hemisphere), truly vernacular names of plants are almost never capitalized; it would look strange to write "I made a meal of Potatoes, Tomatoes, and Spinach, sauteed in Olive oil and seasoned with Black Pepper," even though all those names refer to single species of plants. Likewise, walking through the Red Alders and California Bays and seeing a Northern Oriole flying toward the Coast Redwoods looks a bit strange in text, despite "Northern Oriole" being properly capitalized according to AOU usage. I could follow a consensus to capitalize all parts of a common name in an article title (although I disagree), but to capitalize all common names in an article such as the running-text list Tribulus terrestris IMO pushes the limits of typographic acceptability.--Curtis Clark 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I copied everything over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Common name capitalization (article titles and in text). --Rkitko 18:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

Hey, MPF, the article I created, Dacrydium kirkii right, you changed it to Halocarpus kirkii, is that pronounced hello-car-pus kirk-eye or hello-car-pus kirk-ee-eye? Could you tell me, cheers -- Lego@lost 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page history cleanups for a few articles

Hi Michael,

I was wondering if you'd be willing to clean up a few page histories on articles I'm copying to wikibooks for "how-to-grow forking". The problem is that a lot of the more common plants have enormous histories, in part because of vandalism, spamming, and the reversions of the vandalisms and spams. Is there any reason that can't be cleaned out? (Would save server space too, I assume).

For now I can just link to the version I forked from, but it's better to copy it over, and I'd rather have just a record of the 100 or so contributions than the record of who-knows-how-many vandalisms. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot: Basil is one, I'll be doing Rosemary, Cucumber, Beet, and Chamomile over the next week or so. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And while you're at it, Thymus vulgaris redirects to Thyme. Argh! --SB_Johnny | talk 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's been done. Not sure how though. I'll probably know soon enough :). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, you're right... no such tool. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk Maple v. Red Maple

Sounds like your invetiation yielded some substance. I plowed through pages attempting to narrow down the tree. Thanks. I'll remove the leaf if it is not already gone Noles1984 21:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Menodora

Curious, must have been an accidental exposure of internal web pages - you can see it in Google cache as [1] Downside of using web pages instead of printed works as refs... Stan 23:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki

Hi MPF. Where do I find (if any) a complete list of alphabetic sorted interwiki language-names ? With thanks. Eras-mus 20:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File Compression

MPF, you wrote: "Image compressed by 60% to save Wikipedia space" - this isn't necessary, space is not a problem, it is better to upload the full resolution. - MPF 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)"

Actually file compression is important for first time visitors, dial-up users, and those concerned about cache their size. I will always compress .jpg files as long as image quality is not lost. If I can upload a 400x400 .jpg at say 16,000 bytes vs. 350,000 bytes, I'll do it. Size does matter. :-) Noles1984 13:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cactus Monument Valley.jpg

Hello,

I uploaded this picture I took in Monument Valley. I have no idea which species of cactus it is ? Thanks in advance. Poppypetty 09:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Poppypetty 09:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

MPF, thank you for the warm welcome to Wikipedia. As everyone, I just want to contribute to what I think will become THE reference source. I'm a newbie, although an already addicted one, so if you spot any mistakes on my Wikiquette, bare with me, it was done in goodwill.

RE: the pine, on my next trip to the countryside, I'll make sure to get the specific info for you (GPS) as well as extra photographs of that and other pine species in the region.

One last thing, I wish to setup my user page, and a little guidance would be much appreciated.

Gretings from Guatemala! -- Virgilrm 14:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Files

You wrote: "On pic size - generally, people with dial-up etc will only look at the thumbnails in the page; the full-size pic can be a megabyte or five without affecting this, so large image files aren't a problem (that's one of the nice things about wikipedia!)"

How can you make a general statement that dial-up users generally only look at thumbs? Have you done a poll? There's nothing to indicate whether the thumb leads to 14,000 bytes or 5MB in size. Noles1984 18:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Cats

Hi Michael, I would like to know your opinion on the Flora categories. In Portuguese the capital letter doesn't have so much importance as in English, after having created these categories I did notice that the best would be to write them like flora and not Flora, what do you think? I would delete them now, if it is necessary, as the work is just in the beginning or would it stay how it is? Your opinion is very important. Thank you.Berton 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With relationship to the "formula" Flora by country, did you answer very well, but my main doubt would be with relationship to the "formula" Flora by region, for example: Neotropical Flora or Neotropical flora? Berton 16:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vinca minor

I can't figure out why you deleted the University of Connecticut link I added, especially when the one you substituted is far less informative. I've added another, hoping that the Department of Horticulture and Crop Science at Ohio State University is a reputable enough source! I've left your link but removed the one to Flora Europaea, as it provided virtually no information that is useful to this article. MrDarwin 01:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to insist on including the Ohio State University link as it does not have a regional bias and is quite informative; if there is any bias it is a horticultural one, and as this is a horticulturally important species, a horticultural reference is appropriate. I still strongly protest the Flora Europaea link, as it simply does not provide anything useful to the reader except a list of countries in which the species is native. MrDarwin 12:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No time right now, but I'll be coming back to this article later. In the meantime I'll be happy to look for a better horticultural reference if you would be so kind as to point out the "several errors" in OSU's Vinca minor page. I'm scratching my head and trying to figure out just what you're referring to, and thought it would be nice to provide a reference that is easily accessible to the many Wikipedia user who don't have the luxury of a botanical or horticultural library at their fingertips. Isn't the ability to link to other websites supposed to be one of the great things about Wikipedia?
BTW "creeping myrtle" may have gotten you "only" 629 hits on a Google search (is that our arbiter for including common names now?) but if you do a Google search on vinca myrtle, you will get about 57,500 hits. My mistake, I forgot that just plain "myrtle" is quite a common name for this species. MrDarwin 05:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to explain your objections in more detail. Unfortunately your objections seem to be almost entirely of interpretation and wording, not of factual content. V. major most certainly does not have "elliptic" leaves. Please check your terminology and then take another look at the leaves of V. minor. Surely you are aware of the difficulty of providing accurate and objective descriptions when the language we use is subjective (even such terms as "elliptic" are open to interpretation) and the plants themselves do not necessarily fit into neat definitions. For example, how do you measure an individual "plant" of V. minor or any other clonally propagating species that forms large colonies? (In my experience the stems extend up to perhaps half a meter, usually less, then take root and start another plant.) And "variants" is a by-product of using a particular template to produce consistent descriptions for a large number of taxa, some of which may have "variants" that are not "cultivars" (click on "Features" in that reference for an explanation, where it explains quite clearly that "variants" means cultivars, varieties, hybrids, etc.).
With regard to your complaint about measurements, I would find that objection more persuasive if you hadn't provided a link to an article that is in Spanish. If an article in Spanish on the English-language Wikipedia doesn't have a regional bias, I don't know what does. If we can expect users to translate from Spanish into English, we can expect them to translate American measurements into metric. (What I find more disturbing about your objection is the implication that you are going to systematically delete all links that aren't in metric or include metric translations, or are otherwise aimed primariy at American readers, no matter how authoritative or accurate they are otherwise.)
As far as the ephemeral nature of links, yes that is certainly a problem and will continue to be, but I see that it hasn't stopped you from providing such links anyway. So again, your own actions argue against you. Regarding the comon names, I've already commented at length elsewhere. (And perhaps I'm overly suspicious but I find it just a bit too convenient that you deleted the links I added that documented the common names that you objected to.) The bottom line is that I shouldn't have to justify the inclusion of this link, especially when your objections are simply a bunch of quibbles, and I shouldn't have to worry about another editor following me around and immediately deleting the factual additions and changes I've made to articles. MrDarwin 23:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, MPF! So we shouldn't use any European sources for potatoes, tomatoes, or peppers (which are American plants, after all)? What's the big deal? It's a European plant, but it's growing in half the front yards of every exurban development in the states! --SB_Johnny | talk 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendron canadense

This article states that R. vaseyi would have 7 stamens - strange as rhododendrons usually have 5 or 10 stamens. Do you know more about this?

t.i.a, TeunSpaans 15:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not toxicodendron

hi! thanks for advising me that it is not poison ivy.. could you advise what species it is, and where is the appropriate place to put the photo? thanks! Meutia Chaerani 00:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blueberries editing

Hi MPF, I'll change my footnotes to Harvard style, since that's what the page started with, but I'm a bit concerned that the Harvard style isn't being entirely used in this article. From what I understand (and I'm no expert), that style also includes a reference within the text [looks like this: "(Smith, 1776)" and then refers to the Smith entry for the book written in 1776, giving the full details of "The Wealth of Nations" or whatever]. The Blueberry article, as it stands, doesn't have the references within the text, so there's no way of knowing where each bit of information comes from. In the future, if someone wants to follow the information to its source, the reader won't be able to. If you know what bit of information links to what reference, could you add it? (This, incidentally, is why I prefer the numbered footnotes, because I think they're less intrusive in the text and more familiar to readers, but again, the article started out Harvard style so I should stick with it in my notes.)

As to the commercial links, these are to business associations, not individual businesses (I did note one individual business in Chile, but only because I couldn't find another source). The associations don't sell blueberries (certainly not online) and they do give information about them (recipes, health claims [claims which are regulated in the U.S.], industry information including history of the industry in their area) and anyone linking to them will understand where the information is coming from, so I don't think there's any practical harm done there, do you? It just seems to me that someone interested in more information, especially about blueberries as an industry, would find it useful to know about it in particular places.

As for section length, I guess I tend to lean toward shorter sections, but I see that the guidelines say several good sized paragraphs is pretty much ideal. My worry is when the gray paragraphs go much beyond that. It just seems to me that breaks make it easier on the reader. I'll look it over again myself, but if you think some should be taken out, go ahead. Best wishes, Noroton 18:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on reversions, deletions, and editing in general

With regard to my attempted edits to the Vinca minor article, what offended me much more than your dismissal and deletion of the links I provided was your immediate deletion of the common names I added to the article. You know me by now; you know I am not a fly-by-night anomymous vandal whose sole goal is adding nonsense to Wikipedia. I should not have to convince you that we benighted Americans really do have our own set of common names for plants that don't always correspond to the ones in use in England--this is one of the major reasons why I have stressed using botanical names for article titles with all common names redirecting to the botanical names. There is no international authority to arbitrate common names, although some Wikipedia seem to want Wikipedia to become that authority. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote one common name over another, as that is a POV; the purpose of Wikpedia is to provide factual and accurate information about the real world and an article should merely note which common names are in usage, where they are used, and perhaps which are more common than others if that can be determined. I cannot stress this enough: there is no such thing as a correct common name.

I note also that you reverted, without comment, the addition of Acer discolor to the List of Acer species article. (No, this was not my addition.) Why was this name deleted? Your dismissive reversion provides no clue to the person who added it, or to any other editors. (Perhaps because A. discolor Hort. ex Rehder--a name that persists in horticulture--is a synonym of A. oblongum? But according to the Flora of China there is indeed a valid species Acer discolor Maxim. that is endemic to China. I'm no authority on Acer so I'll have to leave it to somebody else to sort this out.) As an aside, I note that this list is completely unreferenced; where did this list (and the common names accompanying the botanical names), like so many other mysterious lists on Wikipedia, come from? I generally find such lists almost worse than useless, as they almost always have errors and there is rarely any indication as to where they came from, or whose taxonomy they are following, making them virtually impossible to proofread or correct.

This kind of reflexively dismissive editing of others' additions and edits, often with no comment or explanation, by more active editors is one of the things that will ultimately discourage many people with knowledge and expertise in one or more subjects from editing Wikipedia. I know that it has been very discouraging to me, and is one of the reasons why I have become frustrated and disillusioned with Wikipedia. I simply don't have the time to convince other editors, over and over, that I do occasionally know what I'm talking about. It would be a shame if Wikipedia came to represent, not necessarily the knowledge of those with the most expertise in a particular field, but of those with too much time on their hands to endlessly patrol and jealously guard hundreds of pet articles. I have encountered this tendency with Brya, and I have seen the same tendency in you; my interactions with both of you were among the reasons why I left Wikipedia for a time, and will probably leave it again. There are far better things to do with my time and expertise. MrDarwin 13:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Tern migration

On February 4, 2004, you Added something along the lines of this to Arctic Tern: "a chick banded at the Farne Islands, Northumberland in summer 1982, which reached Melbourne, Australia in October 1982, a sea journey of over 22,000 km (14,000 miles) in just three months from fledging."

Please help me, at a time convenient for you, by adding a source for that to the article or telling me where you got that information from so I can add it myself. You help is much appreciated. Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But are those two Cramp references to the same page(s) in the same work? Or are they the same work but different pages? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strelitzia reginae

Thanks for the plant identifications. Some questions about the Strelitzia reginae Image:DirkvdM bananaflower.jpg, though. Is the leaf in the background part of it? It loks like a bananaleaf to me and they're both of the order Zingiberales, but that is a bit vague. If not, do you know what it is? Also, you say the flower is cultivated. Is that because it cannot grow in the wild in Costa Rica? I found it at the edge of a field, but for that region that doesn't disprove that assumption (the field edges are often kept very nice and people there love flowers). Thanks. DirkvdM 19:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up page histories

I figured it out now. Here's the steps:

  1. Delete the page (radical, but if done quickly shouldn't be a problem)
  2. Reload the page, and use "view/restore edits"
  3. Select the boxes next those edits that are to be kept.
  4. Click on Restore

That's all! :) --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls:

Hi. I'm just sending out a message for a new study I will be undertaking soon. It will involve surveys & polls to gather information & trends of editors on Wikipedia & other subjects. The data gathering will involve yourself recieving a questionaire on your talk page for you to fill out. I will then collect your questionaire & combine it with data from other editors. If you would like to be a part of this experiment, or know of someone who does, place a "Yes" or "No" below this message. Remember, it's only for fun & you can choose not to fill out all or parts of your questionaire once they arrive. Have a nice day... -- Spawn Man 05:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes" - sounds interesting! MPF 09:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great! As soon as I get enough people, I'll send out a questionaire. Thanks! Spawn Man 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st poll:

Hi everyone! This is the 1st ever poll to be sent out. Please read the Disclaimer below & enjoy! -- Spawn Man 05:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships

  • Question 1: Do you feel that other Wikipedians are as nice (or as horrible!) as when you started editing Wikipedia as a registered user?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Roughly about the same. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 2: If you answered "No" above, how have other Wikipedian's attitudes changed?
    • A)They have grown nicer. B)They have grown meaner. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
  • Question 3: Are admins as nice as you think they should be? If you're an admin, try to be truthful...
    • A)Yes. B)No, they are nicer. C)No, they are meaner/grumpier. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 4: Have you ever been in a serious dispute on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No, I've never been in a dispute. C)No, I've only been in minor disputes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 5: Have you ever been blocked from editing Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. (You can find out by checking "My contributions" & selecting "block log"). D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
  • Question 6: Have you ever met another editor on Wikipedia in real life?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
  • Question 7: Do you enjoy communicating or working with other editors on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 8: Have you ever taken a "Wikibreak" due to stress from other editors?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)No, I've only taken a "Wikibreak" due to un-editor related stress. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 9: Have you ever collaborated on an article with another editor on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Several times. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 10: Do you envy other editors on Wikipedia for their achievements or good fortune? Be honest...
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
Disclaimer

Hi everyone. If this is your first time filling out a survey, read this. To fill out a questionaire sheet, simply send me a post to my talk page, clearly stating your choice for each answer. For example: For Question 1, you might choose to place on the message, "Q1: A)" or "Question 1: Choice A." etc etc. It's up to you, as long as I get the general jist of what your choices are. You have around 1 week to return a survey sheet, but late entrie's will be accepted.

Remember however, your personal choices may be read whilst they are on my talk page. I will understand if you don't wish to answer some or all of the survey due to this. For this reason I have also placed an "Abstain" choice for each question. Try & answer truthfully, or don't answer at all if you can't.

However, your personal choices will not be expressed on the survey's outcome, instead it will be part of a larger finding, such as "60% of people eat chocolate, 25% never eat chocolate & 5% of people chose to abstain from answering..." I will never say, "90% of people eat chocolate, while only Fruityman said he didn't..." This would be an invasion of privacy. However, if a question has (Please explain) or (Please elaborate) as a choice, your specific answer may be used in the survey outcome, although your name will not be. If a question does not have (Please explain) as a question choice, but your intended choice is not represented on the choice list, then feel free to provide another choice which fits your description.

You're probably getting bored reading all of this so I'll wrap up. To see outcomes of the results, see my Polls subpage. Feel free to comment on anything! Feedback is always welcome. Most importantly, have fun. Topics will vary greatly & surveys may be resent out at later times to re-assess a consensus if survey numbers have grown significantly. If you know anyone who would be interested in these surveys, send them to my talk page or if you see this survey sheet, send your own answers in! Thanks. -- Spawn Man.

Brazil Nut

Hi Michael, Sadly, I would like to inform you that the picture Bertholletia excelsa.jpg is a copyvio from the brazilian book Árvores Brasileiras' Lorenzi, H., Vol. 1, page 133, Editora Plantarum, 1992 Thank you. Berton 23:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael: Did you or Berton mean to tag commons:Image:Bertholletia_excelsa.jpg as a copyvio pursuant to the above comment? Perhaps I'm deficient in the higher thought processes this morning, but I don't see where this was done. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pruning.png

Hi MPF,

Mind if I move this to commons? I'm writing a chapter pruning in a wikibook. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 16:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Poll:

Hi everyone! This is the 2nd poll ever to be sent out. Please read the Disclaimer below & enjoy! -- Spawn Man 09:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 2 - Writing subjects

  • Question 1: When you edit or write articles on Wikipedia, do you specialise, or tend to write about a single or select topic range? For example, only frogs or only movies.
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)I have a few topics I write about. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 2: If you have more than only one topic range, what are the top 3 topics or subjects you write about on Wikipedia? For example, frogs, movies & cars.
    • A)My top 3 are... B)I have less than 3 topic ranges. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
  • Question 3: Have you ever written or edited an article about your home town or the city you live in?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Briefly. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 4: Have you ever edited what was, or turned out to be, a controversial subject or article in current news or on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 5: Have you ever reverted vandalism?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
  • Question 6: Have you ever helped get an article to Featured Article status?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)I helped partly. D)I've edited a Featured Article after it was promoted, but never helped to get one featured. E)Not sure. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.
  • Question 7: Do you find it difficult to think of things to write about on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 8: On Wikipedia, do you edit articles to do with Wikipedia policies & voting etc more frequently than you edit actual encyclopedic articles?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)I have an equal mix of the two. D)Occasionally. E)Not sure. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.
  • Question 9: Do you wish there was a Wikipedia article about your life?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 10: Would you like to expand the range of topics you write about on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 11: Do you usually write about topics that are to do with your job, school or hobbies?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't work, I've never been to school & I don't have hobbies. :(. E)I don't know. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.
Disclaimer

Hi everyone. If this is your first time filling out a survey, read this. To fill out a questionaire sheet, simply send me a post to my talk page, clearly stating your choice for each answer. For example: For Question 1, you might choose to place on the message, "Q1: A)" or "Question 1: Choice A." etc etc. It's up to you, as long as I get the general jist of what your choices are. You have around 1 week to return a survey sheet, but late entrie's will be accepted.

Remember however, your personal choices may be read whilst they are on my talk page. I will understand if you don't wish to answer some or all of the survey due to this. For this reason I have also placed an "Abstain" choice for each question. Try & answer truthfully, or don't answer at all if you can't.

However, your personal choices will not be expressed on the survey's outcome, instead it will be part of a larger finding, such as "60% of people eat chocolate, 25% never eat chocolate & 5% of people chose to abstain from answering..." I will never say, "90% of people eat chocolate, while only Fruityman said he didn't..." This would be an invasion of privacy. However, if a question has (Please explain) or (Please elaborate) as a choice, your specific answer may be used in the survey outcome, although your name will not be. If a question does not have (Please explain) as a question choice, but your intended choice is not represented on the choice list, then feel free to provide another choice which fits your description.

You're probably getting bored reading all of this so I'll wrap up. To see outcomes of the results, see my Polls subpage. Feel free to comment on anything! Feedback is always welcome. Most importantly, have fun. Topics will vary greatly & surveys may be resent out at later times to re-assess a consensus if survey numbers have grown significantly. If you know anyone who would be interested in these surveys, send them to my talk page or if you see this survey sheet, send your own answers in! Thanks. -- Spawn Man.

Verbenaceae

I'm not going to touch it at the moment as I don't have time, but this article needs some major editing. Vitex and several other of the listed genera have been transferred to Lamiaceae, which article will have to be edited in tandem. Both articles should address the s.l. and s.s. (or sensu Cronquist & sensu APG II) concepts of the families. MrDarwin 13:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thuja sutchuenensis.jpg

We can't claim "fair use" on images that don't meet Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. In short, there needs to be some justification for why this image cannot be replaced (and it isn't clear to me that it couldn't), and {{Promotional}} should never be used on a picture of a plant -- plants don't release photos of themselves for wide distribution to promote their work. If there is some reason why this image cannot be replaced, use {{fairusein}} with a full fair use rationale. Frankly, the best thing would be to just get a freely licensed image of this plant. Jkelly 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well that changes things significantly. Please do make sure that this is made crystal clear on the image description page. Thanks. Jkelly 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you've made it clear why we would want to claim Wikipedia:Fair use for the image. Thanks for clarifying. Jkelly 23:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyathea

I am slightly confused by this. Why do plant author citations not have dates? Surely this is excluding useful information? Mgiganteus1 19:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an effort to include every published name (or close enough) associated with the genus Cyathea. Considering the sheer number of synonyms, I think dates are very useful, especially since many taxa have been placed in several genera. I find your removal of these dates quite frustrating and counterproductive. To be honest, if you do remove all the dates I will lose interest in creating further Cyathea species pages, since I feel valuable information is being lost; the date is the second most basic piece of information associated with a binomial name.
Regarding Cyathea amintae, I am generally following Tree Ferns by Mark F. Large and John E. Braggins, and they seem to consider it a distinct species. Mgiganteus1 19:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding. :-) Mgiganteus1 20:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, when I use a mdash in the author citation, it is not because I do not know the author, but because the species has never been placed in the genus Cyathea in a published source AFAIK (it's been placed in one of its syonyms). Is there a different way I could indicate this? Mgiganteus1 20:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest it be moved to Alsophila amintae then? At least at present it is somewhat consistent... Mgiganteus1 20:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Braggins and Large list it in their book under the section "Tree Ferns That Require Further Study". They write: "The following species are listed here because of the nomenclatural problems that would ensue if they were formally included in the genus Cyathea", although the nature of these problems is not stated. This applies to 11 species in total. They write "Cyathea x dryopteroides is known to be a hybrid between Alsophila amintae and A. bryophila". Mgiganteus1 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the reasons this image and text have been removed... for the second time! I am not however the website owner of either the TopiaryArtDesigns.com website nor the charity website for the protection of endangered Asian elephants: elephantfamily.org - I do however know for a fact as a member of the European Boxwood and Topiary Society that the gentleman I refer to: Steve Manning is the ONLY professional topiary artist and sculpture in the UK and renowned in the art by all in the pertinent societies and organisations. He has also won 3 Gold medals at Chelsea as well as numerous other awards and featured on many TV programmes including Blue Peter! If the subject is Topiary and sub headings: Topiary in the 20th Century and Topiary in Europe... How can Steve Manning NOT be included. Another note of interest may be that it is now the 21st Century and topiary has become increasingly popular and also metamorphosised from the traditional concept of it being grown as solely Box! Steve Manning's website may offer services but it also contains a large gallery of images... all of Topiary! ElephantFamily.org is NOT a commercial website.... It is a charity and the famous Elephant Family as featured on the front cover of LIFE magazine was created by Steve Manning for them. I fail to see why my entries have repeatedly been removed and until this evening, without notification! The copyright tag may appear easy to use for some others... but I only figured out where to put it and how it should read today and then only by example from another image placed there by another person!

Thanks

Neil J BradfordNeilbradford 19:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neilbradford"Neilbradford 19:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas-fir

Thanks for catching my mis-categorization of that! Keep up the good work and happy editing! Katr67 22:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I see what's going on with the subcat. I moved the project tag. I wouldn't have caught that either, doh! I'm an amateur naturalist, but I had better stick to Oregon communities here on Wikipedia and leave the taxonomy alone :) Katr67 23:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships RESULTS

Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships
  • Question 1: Do you feel that other Wikipedians are as nice (or as horrible!) as when you started editing Wikipedia as a registered user?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Roughly about the same. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 2: If you answered "No" above, how have other Wikipedian's attitudes changed?
    • A)They have grown nicer. B)They have grown meaner. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
  • Question 3: Are admins as nice as you think they should be? If you're an admin, try to be truthful...
    • A)Yes. B)No, they are nicer. C)No, they are meaner/grumpier. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 4: Have you ever been in a serious dispute on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No, I've never been in a dispute. C)No, I've only been in minor disputes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 5: Have you ever been blocked from editing Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. (You can find out by checking "My contributions" & selecting "block log"). D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
  • Question 6: Have you ever met another editor on Wikipedia in real life?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
  • Question 7: Do you enjoy communicating or working with other editors on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 8: Have you ever taken a "Wikibreak" due to stress from other editors?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)No, I've only taken a "Wikibreak" due to un-editor related stress. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 9: Have you ever collaborated on an article with another editor on Wikipedia?
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Several times. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
  • Question 10: Do you envy other editors on Wikipedia for their achievements or good fortune? Be honest...
    • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships - RESULTS

These are the results for Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships. For the actual questions see above. Other (please explain) answers may have their text placed into these results for clarity. However, only a selection of Other (please explain) samples may be included if full selection is too big. Options not expressed means that nobody picked them. Any thoughts are appreciated.

  • Question 1: Of the 14 editors to answer Q1; 3 editors (21%) chose option A), 6 editors (43%) chose option B), 2 editors (14%) chose option C), 1 editor (7%) chose option D) & 2 editors (14%) chose option E), saying "People need to be nicer to one another. The other site I tend to inhabit is much more civil, and always has been" & "It really depends on the individual; some are as nice as ever while others have acquired noticeably dourer dispositions."
  • Question 2: Of the 7 editors to answer Q2; 3 editors (43%) chose option A), 2 editors (29%) chose option B) & 2 editors (29%) chose option D), saying "The focus needs to be more on building the encyclopedia, and less on internal politics, in my opinion" & "Passive aggressiveness is more prominent than before."
  • Question 3: Of the 14 editors to answer Q3; 4 editors (29%) chose option A), 2 editors (14%) chose option C), 3 editors (21%) chose option D) & 5 editors (36%) chose option E), saying "Admins need to realize their behaviors reflect on the entire Wikipedia community" & "Again, it depends on the individual" & "Administrators are not as professional as they should be."
  • Question 4: Of the 14 editors to answer Q4; 8 editors (57%) chose option A), 5 editors (36%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "It depends on the definition of "serious". I've been involved in some that got fairly acrimonious, but mostly over things that might be considered relatively trivial in some quarters."
  • Question 5: Of the 14 editors to answer Q5; 1 editor (7%) chose option A), 11 editors (79%) chose option B) & 2 editors (14%) chose option D), saying "Yes but it was overturned" & "I was blocked by accident when someone hacked my email."
  • Question 6: Of the 14 editors to answer Q6; 5 editors (36%) chose option A), 7 editors (50%) chose option B) & 2 editors (14%) chose option C).
  • Question 7: Of the 14 editors to answer Q7; 8 editors (57%) chose option A), 4 editors (29%) chose option C) & 2 editors (14%) chose option E), saying "For the most part, yes" & "Yes, but not always (but more than 'Sometimes')."
  • Question 8: Of the 14 editors to answer Q8; 5 editors (36%) chose option A), 6 editors (43%) chose option B), 2 editors (14%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "Only to deal with real life time consuming things."
  • Question 9: Of the 14 editors to answer Q9; 9 editors (64%) chose option A), 1 editor (7%) chose option B), 3 editors (21%) chose option C), & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "I suppose I have, but not directly. I haven't spoken to someone directly and said, okay let's work on this together."
  • Question 10: Of the 14 editors to answer Q10; 2 editors (14%) chose option A), 7 editors (50%) chose option B), 4 editors (29%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option D).

Hope you enjoy the results which you, the editors of Wikipedia, changed in every way. Have a ncie day! -- Spawn Man 10:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Hi MPF. What do you think of the WP:FN style footnotes[2]? I've been using them on non-plant articles, but found myself adding one to Garry Oak this morning. The recommendation is to place them after punctuation, so it does not address that concern of yours. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walter - must admit, I've never cared for them because they're so difficult to work out how to make for anyone who doesn't have a postdoc degree in computing; I've still not worked them out after two years, so I can only wonder how daunting they must be to a new editor - they must put off a lot of potential contributors from joining wikipedia. Not sure if that's what you're asking about, though! - MPF 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes have been improved and are easier to use now, I think. Mostly, I didn't want you to think that I was going to start adding footnotes to tree articles without discussion. BTW, Commons has Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life that I just joined (separate from WP:TOL). Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trees of the Caribbean Basin

Hi. How're things? Ever since I found that article, I have been wondering what to do with it. Maybe in 10 years I could make a comprehensive, well-referenced list, but there will be a few thousand species. One major issue is the "Caribbean Basin" - I have interpreted it narrowly, as "Insular Caribbean" (plus Bahamas, etc.) because including everything with a distribution that touches on the Caribbean would be insanely difficult. But if so, what to name it? Anyway, I'm glad you showed up on what is likely to be the most difficult article in WP, as far as I am concerned. Guettarda 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Trees of the Caribbean" might be best, and mention in the intro that it includes the Bahamas. Wouldn't hurt to include the Florida Keys (I'd be surprised if there were more than a couple species found in the Keys which were not found further south). It would be most useful if we could add distributions eventually as well. Guettarda 23:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Pine nut oil

Howdy! Good to meet you, even if regarding a matter on which we might have a minor disagreement... I've reverted your merger of pine nut oil into pine nut, and popped a {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tag onto the respective articles, to follow normal procedure when merging articles. Personally, I disagree with the merger, but let's see what consensus says.

On less contentious matters, I'm very much interesting in plants that can, but are usually not, used as food sources. I wonder if there might be some overlap in our interests, and room for a bit of collaboration somehow? Waitak 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot better now, thanks! One small point, it looks decidedly odd, being mainly about Russian (European/Asian) uses, yet written in American spellings - it would read better with 'flavour', etc., as per the manual of style area relevance guidelines - MPF 19:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If it were about a region where they speak English and use British spelling, I could see the point, but I guess I don't see any reason to prefer either American or British spelling given a focus on Russia, where they don't speak English at all! It's not the case, after all, that American spellings are used in the US, and British spellings everywhere else... I'd see the "use the dialect of the first significant contributor" rule as being the operative one in a case like this.
In any case, it's been nice interacting with you folks. Hope to bump into you again sometime! One of the things I love about WP is discovering these little communities tucked into all sorts of interesting nooks and crannies. Waitak 02:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elms

Thanks for picking me up on that mate - adnd going the extra mile (kilometer) to fix it. Perhaps I will take a picture of the blossoms when they appear. See you around, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 05:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen dieback

Thanks for moving that to Populus tremuloides. I wasn't personally certain it was species-specific (maybe they aren't) and planned to do more reading and get more sources. As for the NYT, sometimes you get an interstitial ad these days and sometimes you don't. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asclepiadaceae

Thanks for the heads up re: changes to Asclepiadaceae. I've fixed it and removed the vandalism by Hummerh2 MidgleyDJ 06:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycas revoluta

Still going down that road, MPF? :o) So let's let the other shoe drop: "sago palm" gets about 33,000 hits vs. the ca. 1000 for "sago cycad". I still say it's not Wikipedia's place to impose a "correct" common name, especially when deciding who or what determines what is "correct" opens such a messy can of worms. MrDarwin 14:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Buckeye and pictures

Hi MPF: I have a question why you deleted the pictures from the Ohio Buckeye page. Although I do not want to take it personal but I am considering this action is very rude. It is because:

  • You deleted them without explaining to people who put a lot affords and energy to create them know what was going on. As a result, you may left some articles which link to these pictures incomplete. I am wondering if this action of yours is allowed in wiki, who would care to work and help wikipedia. For god's sake, send a note or a message to creators or posters of those articles or pictures and let them know what was going on. Therefore, they can have a chance to explain their work. Next time, please do not delete things without letting them know. Thank you very much.
  • Just in case if you have a problem with copyright. I provided the link to the original web site, which was created for educational purposes. I even copy the quote about the copyright from that web site to the pictures that I posted there. In case, you did not get it. Here is the link [3].

I also would like to copy words by words here:


Terms of use:'

Legalese: All images and graphics files (the "Images") on the Bioimages web site are copyrighted and are made available for noncommercial, educational and personal use only, or for fair use as defined in the United States copyright laws ("Permitted Use"). Copying, modification or redistribution of the Images in any manner for commercial use or for personal gain (including, but not limited to, web sites of a for-profit corporation, commercial text books, commercial broadcast or commercial news web sites) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright owner(s). Permission for commercial use is granted on a case-by-case basis at the sole discretion of the copyright owner. By downloading, printing or otherwise using the Images from this web page, users agree that they will limit their use of the Images to such Permitted Uses and will not violate the copyright owner's or any other party's proprietary rights. Neither Vanderbilt University nor Steve Baskauf warrants that use of the Images will not infringe the rights of third parties.

Permitted Use of the Images is limited to noncommercial or educational purposes, such as multimedia presentations for a course, a web page for a course, a web page of a non-profit organization or a personal, noncommercial web site. Unless otherwise noted, users who wish to download, print, enlarge, crop, annotate or use the Images as a part of a composite in connection with a Permitted Use are welcome to do so without express permission. Any Permitted Use must, however, cite the author and source of the Images as they would material from any printed work. The citation must retain all copyright and other proprietary notices (e.g., © 2002 Steve Baskauf) and, if such Permitted Use is on the Internet, a link to "http://bioimages.cas.vanderbilt.edu/". This is a license and not a transfer of title.

What this means in everyday terms: 1. You can use these images for most educational and personal purposes. 2. If you want to use the images commercially, contact the copyright owner. 3. If you use these images on the web, credit the copyright owner and link to the Bioimages site (http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/).


  • If I understand the above term correctly, it means that they allow pictures posted on that web site to be used for fair use, or in wikipedia.
  • The reason that I posted the Image:Ohio buckeye leaves.jpg there because I think that people should also know what Ohio buckeye leaves look like. You cannot see leaves from the existing pictures. The same also can be explained to buckeye nuts and fruits. From the existing pictures, I am wondering how much people can learn about buckeye trees. I think if they find a buckeye tree on their way home, they cannot even tell what it is from the current pictures that were put on the web.
  • Also, the leaves and nuts (not the whole trees) are often used as the symbols of Ohio State University anyway. I do not see any reason why not to put these pictures in the Ohio Buckeye tree wiki webpage.
  • I am sorry, if the pictures that I posted there are not the same Ohio buckeye species that is mentioned on the page.
  • If you have any problem or question besides the above explanation, please feel free to contact me we can discuss the issue.

Thank you very much. --Ohho 06:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi MPF: Cool! If it is the case, I am fine with it. I now understand. Thank you for your explanation. You may delete them. However, the Image:Aesculus glabra seeds.jpg is different story. Thanks. --17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I appreciate your help & work. You, Rock! 8-) --Ohho 06:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common names...

... such as English Walnut can't be inaccurate, because they're "common names", as opposed to scientific names. Americans aren't incorrectly using the term: "English Walnut" simply means Juglans regia when spoken by American speakers (it's even in the dictionary, so definitely not "incorrect", just "common to this region.

Your continual insistence that Americans speak "improper English" or use words "improperly" is getting a bit tired. "The Queen's English" is not qualitatively superior to any other dialect, it's just one of many, actually spoken by a minority. Reverting now.

Wikipedia's plant articles are marked everywhere by your peculiar insistence on common names as having taxonomic importance (to be honest I giggle every time I read articles like Poison Ivy or Boston Ivy). While I heartily agree with you that common names should as a rule not be used as article titles because of the confusion caused by the various local names, it really isn't that one thing is correct and the other isn't, which is part of why the scientific names are so important. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting that the use of an English word in one region is proper, while any alternate use in another improper is POV (NPOV is not "National Point Of View"). Noting that something is called by another name in this region or that is NOPV (in the wikipedian sense), but claiming that it is "incorrectly" called that is definitely POV. Persistently pointing out that American English is some sort of ignorant bastardization is not only POV but un-WP:CIVIL as well, if you stop to think for a moment. You've been edit warring along these lines for months now, and I just really don't get it.
Just a note of interest: the reason it's called English Walnut is probably because it was brought from England with the settlers, who had previously just called it "Walnut", and now had to differentiate it from the native species (which, in my POV, is an awful weed). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that you're doing this to cause offence (I'd like to think I know you well enough to say confidently that you'd never edit in bad faith), but a lot of the articles you edit have phrases like:
  • ...confusingly called X in Y region...
  • ...incorrectly called X in Y region...
  • ...incorrectly called X when it's not even closely related to Z (with Z being a similar name or a name that's part of X)...
E.g.: Why is "Boxelder" confusing? Because it contains the word "elder"? Should "barnacle" be renamed because it has nothing to do with barns? Do we need to point out that maples have nothing to do with maps
The big throw-down you had with MrDarwin over Vinca minor was along the same lines: from what I gather, you kept removing some of the common names (which are commonly used) because they weren't the "proper European(=English English) name", and it's a European plant, so the Americans shouldn't be allowed to call it what they feel like calling it.
While there may be some movements afoot to "taxonomize" common names, pushing for this on wikipedia is just a really bad idea: in practice, they're just local names (I think I mentioned to you once that some flora use the term "country name" instead, which has a nice ring to it IMO). It's kind of like the Brya-putting-italics-on-the-higher-taxa thing... he might be right as far as the XYZ code goes, but common (as in dominant) practice generally fits better with NPOV than does any "correcting body", if you see what I mean. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't mean this to become some sort of flame war... I wasn't aware that our friend was watching my page. Again, I know you don't mean it that way, but that's how it makes the pages look when every common name is pointed to as "misleading" or "improper". I wasn't trying to cause you to have unneccessary wikistress :).--SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to both of you, I shouldn't have meddled and should have let MPF and SB Johnny work this one out for themselves. It's no secret that I strongly disagree with MPF on the subject of common names and how they should be treated within Wikipedia articles, and when such discussion come up I tend to fly off the handle. MrDarwin 15:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No biggie... I know you were just trying to be helpful, but flying off the handle isn't always very helpful ;-)--SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(reset tabs) Well, here's the thing: when you say "now read as though we are being instructed to use American names for our own species" (emphasis mine), it sort of points right at the problem. They're not your plants, they're just plants (although in both those examples, I do happen to own a Persian/English walnut (BTW, see b:Cookbook:Walnuts!), as well as some vinca minor (we call it "periwinkle" in Pennsylvania).
I think it would be fine and appropriate for articles to read:
  • Common name (Genus species, also known as Other common name in Region)
But not:
  • Common name (Genus species, improperly referred to as Other common name in Region)
You see where I'm going? The first version is definitely NPOV, the second isn't. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identifycation

File:NamadgiTree.jpg
What is it?

Hi, MPF I was wondering, as you did such a good job at identifying my immature Elm seeds - could you identify this, it looks like a gum tree but I'm not sure. Thanks, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MPF! I'd be lost without you. And sorry for he late reply. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More template questions

Since you're good at this, I was wondering if you could have a look at A_Wikimanual_of_Gardening/Juglans_nigra (wikibooks), and figure out why the templates there make whitespaces? There's actually 2 templates making trouble on that particular page (b:Template:Treebox and b:Template:Weedbox), both of which use a less complicated language in comparison with the taxoboxes here... though perhaps the lack of complication is the problem? (There is a third as well, (b:Template:Weedcontrol), but this one doesn't seem to cause formatting problems). The pages there came about because, if you'll remember, I tend to be a how-to oriented person, so I've been developing that sort of material on the wb side.

One other template I'm wondering about is {{Wmog}}, which is an interwiki linking template here on wikipedia. Have a look at Ailanthus altissima under the "control" section... I had transwikied the article and made the chapter A_Wikimanual_of_Gardening/Ailanthus altissima, and tried to leave the link where the how-to information was formerly found (just enough there to violate the MOS, but not nearly enough there to be actually useful). Can you think of a way to make that template appear next to the text, rather than below it (and making the whitespace)? I suppose I could just put it at the bottom with the commons link, but the idea was to leave a link for whomever had written the how-to in the first place, so they won't assume it was a case of simple how-to-deletionism. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redwoods in Benmore Botanic Garden

Hi MPF, it seems that you added the sentence Growth in Britain is very fast, with the tallest tree, at Benmore in southwest Scotland, reaching 54m at age 150 years (Tree register of the British Isles), and several others from 50-53m tall in the Sequoiadendron article. I am the webmaster of a Dutch site about Sequoiadendron in Belgium and the Netherlands ([4], [5]) and received comments on the height 54m you mentioned and I took over (as I have no access to the British tree register myself). It seems that the register still mentions 51m as the record height. Could you check if the heighest redwood in Benmore is 51 or 54 m? Thanks, Tbc2 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicodendron question

You edited the Toxicodendron article to state that the genus Rhus is paraphyletic. Do you have a reference for this? I have one abstract that indicates Rhus is paraphyletic with respect to Lobadium, but nothing that indicating it is paraphyletic with respect to Toxicodendron. Please let me know your source--I realize this also may be something that has changed since you added the edit, but I would like to clean up that particular article a bit. Thanks, KP Botany 15:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juglans and Toxicodendron

I could not find the question of Rhus being paraphyletic in the absence of Toxicodendron, so I removed this, because in addition, I think until someone can find a specific verifiable reference on this case, it should be left without questioning its validity as a clade, in particular because there is at least one credible source that lists the question as whether or not Rhus is monophyletic in the absence of Lobadium, but does not question Rhus in the absence of Toxicodendron. I will post a link to this abstract tomorrow or Monday, although I believe the lead author is Quinn, so it is searchable with the genera and the author. I also believe that I have read that Toxicodendron is monophyletic. This was what I was hoping to find before editing the article, as this comment concerned me, questioning the monophyly of Rhus in the absence of Toxicodendron. However, because of the commentary on Rhus's monophyly being in question only in light of the absence of Lobadium, I felt it important to make this one point in the article as it stands now, until I can find a reliable source on Toxicodendron and elaborate on the issue.

I agree with keeping the Toxicodendron refernces under Rhus, as I collect old florals and tend to look under Rhus first. If you find your original reference, let me know what it is, whether or not someone finds something more current. I'm simply trying to make the content more robust for the time being, under a dynamic science whose rate of change is impossible for books.

On the Juglans, I think it best to go with the beaked hickory (?) subsumed in the Carya, as it is in the Kew and the IPNI lists because the only scientists currently questioning this placement are Chinese scientists, while English-speaking resources list it the other way. I suspect the Chinese research would fall under the NOR criteria for Wikipedia. I personally think that when the molecular phylogenetics are done on the species it may show the Chinese scientists to be correct, because of its evolutionary isolation and the length of this isolation, however, the best and most robust verifiable sources in English for this species, list it as part of Carya. This is one of those issues that does not lend itself, in its detail, and the reasons behind it, to an encyclopediac treatment, without international agreement, or at least some primary or secondary sources outside of China in agreement with the original research of the Chinese authors on this tree.

KP Botany 01:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

feet and meters

Hi... that's a bit better, but what would you think of putting the american measures in parentheses instead? The ref usage (at least on my browser) makes it look like footnotes (which I suppose they are footnotes :).)

Like you, I much prefer the metric system, but believe it or not a lot of american readers really can't visualise it. Having them in parenthesis next to the metrics (and I heartily agree that it's the American measurements that should be parenthesized, not the other way around) might have the added benefit of educating american readers (i.e., so they could get a feel for "30 cm" ~ "(1 foot)").

Sound good? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be condescending towards Americans. The American system can be put in parantheses because it's in the minority, but used by a large population of English speakers. We've figured out how to use parentheses already--American textbooks and many sources put the metric measurements in parentheses. Scientific sources generally use the metric system and sometimes put the foot/pound/second in parentheses. KP Botany 18:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments welcomed

I don't know if the matter would interest you, but thought comments regarding an article split going on at Red Deer may be interesting and any feedback would be appreciated there. I was working on getting Red Deer to featured level, but am now inclined to split the article into Red Deer and "Elk (animal)" or something along those lines. The latest discussion on the matter is here and any thoughts you have would be good to hear. Thanks.--MONGO 05:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the contribution to the Red Deer discussion. Not sure what to do with the article at this point. I wanted to show you this DNA study about Red Deer subspecies issues, looking also at the conclusion of the researchers. It sure would be nice if the biologists would come forward and reach some consensus on the number of subspecies and as to whether there are actually two speices or just one, but as User:Wsiegmund has pointed out to me, the DNA research may be too new for others to have rendered an opinion publically yet. Anyway, here's the link if you're interested. Thanks again. [6]. --MONGO 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Wikispecies

Hello, I have a question for you. I've just discovered Wikispecies and found that in some cases it has much greater detail than we have here. Is there a way that we can interlink species/genus/etc. articles to Wikispecies the way Wiktionary has a box template that directs back to the comparable article at Wikipedia? Badagnani 03:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogeny diagram

Did you produce the phylogenetic diagram that is reproduced in the Plant article? First, if this is your own diagram, I suspect it borders on "original research"; second, if presented in an article, it needs to be labeled more explicitly within the article as to the source. A glance at the diagram shows that it by no means presents a consensus view of plant phylogeny, so it needs to be made clear that this phylogeny represents the results of one particular publication. MrDarwin 14:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the diagram from the Plant article because, as Curtis Clark points out in Talk:Spermatophyte, the diagram does not represent the results of the reference it purports to represent. Can't we reproduce an actual diagram from a published reference as "fair use" as long as we properly label & attribute it? MrDarwin 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drat, I thought I'd got it to match the deep green tree. The diagram is easily edited though, if you can let me know what to change (and/or make duplicates for different phylogenies from other sources). I fear using actual published diagrams would be outside of the fair use criteria, which are very strict (see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria) - MPF 14:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Especially with such a contentious topic, where different analyses using different types of data have come up with very different phylogenies, I would suggest showing two or more such phylogenies, each linked to a specific reference and specific citation (preferably published literature, which I'm assuming the Deep Green website is derived from in the first place). This would help visualize the different phylogenies that are discussed in the text, and difficult for users (especially8 those without a background in botany or cladistics) to visualize in the abstract. MrDarwin 17:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please MrDarwin, will be in peace, me no longer I bear so much conflict! Berton 14:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Berton, I think (I hope!) that MPF knows that my critical comments are constructive, and not destructive. MrDarwin 17:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope too.Berton 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actinomorphous/Actinomorphic flower

I've moved the article, again, to start an entirely new article titled Floral symmetry. The old article was little more than a dictionary definition and I think discussion under a somewhat broader heading is more appropriate for an encyclopedia, and there are now several articles linking and redirecting to it (including several that used to redirect to Petal). I'd like to see this article expanded a bit, so feel free if you're so inclined. MrDarwin 19:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MPF&oldid=82674613"