User talk:Ptelea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ptelea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  MPF 12:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Elm

Welcome back to Wikipedia. I found your contributions on Ulmaceae very good, continue so. Berton 19:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also

It's not considered good etiquette to remove comments from your talk page. Again, this is just so you know. DS 22:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HMS G9

Hi, I'm a new user to Wikipedia, so I hope I'm doing this right..... are you the same user who has written the very interesting set of articles on the G-class of submarines? I was especially interested in the one on G9 as one of my relatives lost their life in this incident. I was wondering whether you knew any more of the names on the photo as I'm guessing he was one of these men but don't know who. Any more information you have would be great. Many thanks.Nikicb 10:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nikicb. Thanks for your interest. Yes, I also wrote the article on the G-class. I'm not a naval historian, but the grandson of G9's sole survivor, William Drake. I regret I can't be of much help with identifying your relative. I have a list of the crew lost in the incident, from which it is evident that three of those who died would not be in the photo, namely John Dinnis, Victor Bareham and Henry Lesley, who had only just joined the boat for training or [Lesley] to conduct W/T trials. One can also speculate that the sailor given the honour of holding the model of the ship would have been the youngest member, almost certainly the Boy Telegraphist, James Nicoll. My grandfather died aged 80 in 1974, but typically never spoke of the incident. The information I have was generously supplied by Researcher Mr Brian Head, at the RN sub. museum*, Gosport, and I'm aware the museum also held a photo of my grandfather, so perhaps they could help you too. *RN Sub. Museum, Haslar Jetty Road, Gosport PO12 2AS. Tel. 023 92 52 92 17. Best wishes, Ptelea 08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for this - it's such a fascinating story. My gt gt uncle was Albert Rees Williams who I guess must be on your list. I will follow up with the museum. Best wishes, Nikicb 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nikicb, Albert Rees Williams was listed as Stoker 1st Class, service number K.9680. The wreck of the sub. has yet to be located, but if discovered would be protected as a War Grave. I've been unable to find a photo of the G9, should you be successful please let me know. Best wishes, Ptelea 07:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elm

Your contributions to Elm are quite detailed, and I congratulate you for finding all that info, but much of it is too specific for the genus page. It also overwhelms the reader and diverts attention from the general information below the list of species. I'd prefer reverting to the version before your addition (a list of all species with links), and then you can start the articles on the different species and put the specific info there rather than on the genus page. Thank you, SCHZMO ✍ 15:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment, but that's an awful lot of articles... Regards, Ptelea 14:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guernsey Elm

Hi Ptelea - this one needs a bit of copyediting/checking; if it is a subspecies, the subspecific name needs lower-casing and putting in italics. However, I'm far from convinced it is; Bean (Trees & Shrubs Hardy in the British Isles) treats it as a cultivar, and it is certainly always propagated as one, by cuttings, not by seed. Do you have any evidence that it is more than just one clone? (that's what is needed to make a botanical taxon of it) - thanks, MPF 00:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear MPF - Thanks for your comment. I changed its status to put in line in line with Stace's "New Flora...", and Colin Howes's paper, but concede I have no direct evidence to offer. RBG Edinburgh won't commit themselves, leaving 'var. Sarn'. as "unchecked name". Have now corrected my typo and italicized the subsp. name. Taxonomy of British elms a nightmare, but it is evident Stokes's 'lumping' now very much out of fashion, and have accordingly also restored English Elm and canescens to the status of species in line with Flora Europaea.Ptelea 10:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elm

Hi Ptelea Thanks for your note. I agree that the list of species, cultivars and hybrids, although useful and informative, is starting to get a bit unwieldy in terms of its length in proportion to the the article. I wonder if a separate linked article with a "complete" listing might be in order for those who come to the page looking for names names like Exoniensis, Lutescens, Vegeta, hollandica, Camperdownii etc and not knowing their respective species associations. Anyway, feel free to prune and trim as you feel is necessary and thanks for your great contributions on elms --Melburnian 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elm sorting

Hi Ptelea - just to let you know, I've got (as far as I'm aware) all of the elm species categorised into Category:Ulmaceae, and all of the cultivars into Category:Elm cultivars. Also cleared all the duplicates (e.g. [Columella (plant)] duplicated [Columella (elm cultivar)], it is now just a redirect). If I've missed any, let me know. - MPF 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Have a nice trip - MPF 13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elm cultivar article renaming

Hi Ptelea, I've noticed that you have created duplicate elm cultivar articles by cutting and pasting the words from the old article to the new article, which I presume that you are doing to 'move' the articles to new names.

Moves are best (and most easily) carried out from the move tab at the top of an article page to preserve the pages history and associated talk pages. This is particularly important in articles such as Camperdown Elm which have a page history dating back to 2003 with over 30 edits by a variety of editors.

I agree with your idea of renaming the elm cultivar articles which are currently listed by common name to standardise the formats, I think the naming style that you have set i.e. Cultivarname (elm cultivar) is a good one to stick with. I will move the original articles to their cultivar names using that naming style and then delete the duplicate pages if you have no objections--Melburnian 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'm still on a learning curve as well, a Merry Christmas to you too --Melburnian 02:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

Hi Ptelea

That's a bit of a tricky because, like you, I can't move it as only an admin can move an article to a page name with a multi-edit page history (which that title has) and also the article title has been "challenged".

The procedure therefore is to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and follow:

3. Steps for requesting a (possibly) controversial page move

which includes giving a (well-stated) reason for the move. If you need assistance, let me know.

It would be a good idea for you to have a look at these two links beforehand:

--Melburnian 02:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Just a heads-up that I'm removing the external links to www.lakecountynursery.com that you placed in several articles to comply with external link and spam guidelines. Thanks, and happy editing. RJASE1 Talk 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] uurg(?)

I'm think Rauwolfia has some problems. Um.... I think the "precautions" section might be a joke. You seem to know way, way more about plants than me, so I thought I would randomly ask you if you had a spare second to look at it. Thanks :D -Haikon 01:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elm cultivar article naming

Greetings! I recently ran across several of your articles and brought a discussion about a naming convention for the use of TM in article titles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Use of ™ in article titles?. I thought you'd like to participate since you are the principle contributor on those articles. For other information on flora naming conventions, see WP:NC (flora). Cheers! --Rkitko (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Following on from this:
I do beg your pardon for what may seem an offensive question, but I don't know your background, and confusion between cultivars, PBR varieties and mere trademarked plant names is very common. Are you able to confirm that you understand the distinction, and the plants in Category:Elm cultivars really are cultivars in the strict sense of the word? — i.e. they have a registered name under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants? If so, then these articles should be located at their cultivar names, for example Ulmus 'Zettler', and the trademark under which they are sold should get a mention in the article text. Hesperian 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
A cultivar "in the strict sense of the word", dear sir or madam, is a plant produced by human selection and vegetatively propagated to perpetuate its characteristics. Niceties such as registration with the ICNCP are not germane to the fundamental meaning of the word. Cultivars of elm have been recognized for almost three centuries, long before the inception of ICNCP I suspect, and that should not be allowed to devalue the horticultural distinction. As for my inclusion of tradenames on the index page, this was done primarily for the convenience of the reader / researcher. It is a fact of life that most plants become generally known by their tradenames, not cv. name, and I therefore think it important to retain the style adopted. Ptelea 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid time has passed you by on this point my friend. "Cultivar" may have once meant what you say it means, but a cultivar is now "a cultivated plant that has received a name under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants". You are of course free to continue to use the term in its broader sense in your day-to-day conversation, but Wikipedia has long since accepted and adopted the formal definition of the term.
Should I understand from your response that the category contains a mix of registered cultivars and unregistered breed?
Hesperian 10:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It would seem I'm not alone here. I have four references, all published this century, that make no mention of the ICNCP in their definitions either. My classification is based simply on that given in the references I have to hand, notably the accession lists of major arboreta such as the Arnold (available via the multi-site search engine [1]). I am not in possession of the ICNCP listings, but if such an esteemed establishment as the Arnold Arb. is prepared to classify an elm, eg Bea Schwarz, as a cultivar, then that's good enough for me. Adopt the Wiki definition without question if you will, but I think this will only create unnecessary complexity and confusion, and there's surely enough of that in the sphere of elm taxonomy already. As for trademarks, I note Wiki gudelines permit their usage to discriminate between names used in the pharmaceutical industry, and I would contend that horticulture is analogous here. ::::Ptelea 11:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not "the Wiki definition". It is the definition used all over the place. Try googling for a definition of "cultivar". You'll find your loose definition in online dictionaries and Burke's Backyard-quality web-pages, but every respectable botanical institution and journal will define a cultivar in terms of the ICNCP.
I'm quite prepared to believe that Bea Scharz is a cultivar, and I'm happy to accept the fact that Arnold refers to it as such as confirmation. I'm quite prepared to believe that they are all cultivars; I just want confirmation before we decide what their names should be. ICNCP doesn't make a list; it registers International Cultivar Registration Authorities (ICRAs), which themselves keep lists. The ICRA for Ulmus is the American Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta (AABGA). They would be responsible for maintaining a list of registered Ulmus cultivars, but I can't find such a list on their website. Perhaps an email is in order; I will email the registrar.
I have no objection to the use of trademarks in articles or as redirects; in fact I should say this is required information. I have no objection to the use of trademarks in titles where disambiguation is necessary. I do object to entitling a plant article by its trademark when there is a perfectly serviceable cultivar name available.
Hesperian 11:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This list appears to be a list of all cultivars registered by the AABGA. There are no Ulmus cultivars listed. My take on this is there are no Ulmus cultivars. I have sent an email to the AABGA cultivar registrar, Dr Mark Tebbitt, to confirm. Hesperian 12:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
One last thing: I just want to say that you've done some great work here, and it is very much appreciated. I hope you don't think I'm crapping all over your efforts by pushing the cultivar issue. All I'm trying to do is bring the article titles into line with Wikipedia convention and best practice. Hesperian 12:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I hear you. Hesperian 12:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
<-
Time for me to eat humble pie. Tebbitt responded as follows:
"Yes they are cultivars. The international registration of new cultivars is voluntary so the vast majority are never registered."
Clearly he takes the view that a cultivar is a cultivar even if it is not registered... and who am I to argue the definition of "cultivar" with the official cultivar registrar of the genus? Apologies for my error.
Given that these are cultivars, both the category name and the current titles are legitimate. However, Wikipedia articles on cultivars usually follow the Ulmus 'Bea Schwarz' convention, and I do think it is best to follow it in this case. But the issue is no longer pressing, so rather than move them now, I will open a discussion at WT:PLANTS on formalising our conventions. Feel free to put your point of view.
Hesperian 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WP:PLANTS, proposing we adopt the Ulmus 'Bea Schwarz' naming convention. With respect to elms, this approach is consistent with Green (1964); e.g. on page 41:

"e.g. Ulmus 'Acutifolia' (or elm 'Acutifolia'), to take the first name in the list below. In this way, therefore, the few examples of conflicting identities cited in the text that follows may be referred to as Ulmus 'Argenteomarginata', U. 'Christine Buisman', U. 'Klemmer' and U. 'Lombartsii', or, where the species is uncertain because of juvenile or other atypical foliage, as Ulmus 'Myrtifolia' and U. 'Nana'."

Hesperian 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J. F. Hance

I believe this person is actually Henry Fletcher Hance (ipni, fr). I couldn't find any trace of one whose first name started with "J", anyway.Circeus 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elms

Hi! I have noticed that you often abbreviate Ulmus to U. in titles. Could you please write it in full? Genus shouldn't be abbreviated if it is not mentioned before in that very article. Otherwise it is not clear whether it deals with Ulmus or Urtica or Uvularia or anything else. Also please don't use bare variety names as titles. There are many other plants of variety coreana that have nothing to do with elms. Please follow WP:NC(flora) and Binomial nomenclature. Colchicum 11:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/t/e/User_talk%7EPtelea_d05f.html"