User talk:Josh Grosse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Josh,-- I've just started work here, and I am limiting myself to things I already know something about , primarily biology and libraries (yes, I am a biology librarian). I've been working tonight on the "Kingdom" page, and I've put some talk there, but without changing the article. It seems that I need to understand first at the overall organization of the biology pages, because they are of course all interrelated. There's a point to dividing up the work,, but not to working at cross purposes--and it does seem to me as a relative outsider that the WP method is extremely susceptible to cross purposes. The practical way of handling multiple points of view or multiple levels of knowledge seems to be multiple groups of pages with different titles.
I'd like to talk further with you--you can email me from my page DGG 06:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Taxobox question
Hello Josh- I saw the help you provided on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/taxobox_usage. I noticed a problem with the positioning of the taxobox on Boletus_edulis. Something about the taxobox is pushing the edit links for the neighboring sections down the page (at the moment, into the Distribution and habitat section). I tried some tricks to fix it and poked around in Help, but can't see the solution. Do you know how to fix that, or can you point me to a help source? Sorry if I'm bugging you with this. Thanks. -Eric (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Josh- I see now--the page looks okay in IE, but not in Firefox, which I use. I tried moving the second box around, but it didn't help. There must be something that could be changed in the code of those box templates(?) that would make them behave properly in any browser, but I don't know where templates live or how to mess with them. Thanks. -Eric (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Update: You were right that it involved moving it down, but I didn't move it to the right spot. Someone who saw my plea on the taxobox user page fixed the page. -Eric (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Whitespaces and infoboxes...
Hi Josh. I was looking through histories about the taxobox, and it seems you had been able to fix some whitespace problems about a year ago or so. I was wondering if you could take a look at Template:Hortibox (a wikibooks template) and see if there's an easy fix for the whitespace there?
I was looking at the changes you made on Nov 5, 2005, and it uses a structure I'm not quite familiar with ("if defined" seems to have something to do with it... how does that work?) I'm kind of hoping to keep the hortibox (and several similar templates) as simple as possible, but if the choice is between simple with whitespaces vs. complex without whitespaces, I guess I'll have to go with complex :(. Any assistance you could give me would be greatly appreciated. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 10:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Protists Project
I would like to gain some consensus on what to use in taxoboxes for the protists and/or plants such as Rhodophyta, Glaucophyta, and the like. I see you've discussed this to some extent before. Things have changed even more since then. Still, can we simply stack taxoboxes of two currently accepted by different systems, or what? KP Botany 17:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should use the latest calssification scheme that treats them as Plantae. --Kupirijo 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also I think Excavata and Rhizaria should be added as categories. Recent papers acknowledge that they are monophyletic and probably would become Kingdoms in the future. We should still classify them as Protista but I do not think it is good to delete the category. To be honest I never liked the concept of the Kingdom Protista. Now with all the DNA sequence resources that we have it is good to promote that. Josh what is your oppinion? --Kupirijo 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Didinium
That even sounds right... thank you. The article itself looks not only unwikified but if I had to guess, a copyvio from somewhere, however much the claim in the history that it's a new article; but perhaps it is newly written (and merely compiled, I mean). One hopes so. As to the information itself, it sounds like what I remember from the book I read back in 1985? or so: if there are no paramecia available, it encysts itself, etc. So yes- this seems to be the Thing Itself. Thank you!! Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peer review of bacteria
Hi there. I'd value your input on this article. Thank you. TimVickers 01:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- This article is now a Featured Article candidate, the nomination page is (here). Thank you. TimVickers 04:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
An editor has made some major changes to this article, could you please return to the FAC and provide some feedback on whether or not these are an improvement? TimVickers 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism?
Well, gee, I'm a vandal now. Thanks. KP Botany 18:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Taxobox
Hi Josh. Thanks for improving {{taxobox}}. If possible, though, try to make as few edits as possible, as each edit to such a widely-used template is a HUGE drain on the servers. Happy wikiing! —Mets501 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revert taxobox color changes, not Josh Grosse's taxonomy additions
Not you Josh, the user who changed the taxoboxes from khaki to lavender. I don't actually disagree with any of the changes you've made thus far, in fact, I can't, partly because the area is in such great flux, and partly because I haven't finished reading my 5" stack of protist articles (and I'm not reading anything outside of plants and marine protists), and partly because some of your changes are simply a matter of opinion, and largely because you've attached them directly to references. So, don't revert, don't stop, but do let's hash the whole thing out thoroughly on the Protist and Prokaryote Project page and come up with a policy. KP Botany 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
