Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives for WP:PLANTS		edit
1	2004-10 – 2005-07	Ericales; example article; Orders; food/poison; plant stubs; monotypic genus redirects; cacti; Carex
2	2005-07 – 2005-11	Acer; peer review requests; common names; headers; WikiProject Fungi proposal; stub proposals
3	2005-11 – 2006-01	Hyphenated species names; common names; article titles; tropical fruits
4	2006-01 – 2006-03	silver leaf tree; flower resource; article content/taxonomy; Poa; Wikipedia 1.0 Project
5	2006-03 – 2006-05	APGII; template botanist; flora article; article titles; common names; synonyms
6	2006-05	Plant article naming conventions; common names; categories; NPOV
7	2006-05 – 2006-06	lists/categories; Cornus; tomatoes; Horticulture and Gardening WikiProject; FA candidates; hortibox; range maps; Trifolium
8	2006-06-28	userbox; project banner; plant infobox; naming conventions
9	2006-06-28 – 2006-06-29	Taxoboxes for flowering plants; APGII
10	2006-06 – 2006-07	Original research; taxoboxes; APGII; italics
11	2006-07	interwiki cleanup for moss; illustrations of plant articles
12	2006-07 – 2006-11	Maples; citrus; photos; flora common name convention; capitalization; Vinca minor
13	2006-11 – 2007-01	Biographies needed; common names; APG and taxoboxes; species templates; image quality; microformat

Contents 1 Fresh eyes needed for Head (botany) 1.1 (resetting tabs) 2 Stablepedia 3 Leaf shedding 4 Magnoliophytina 5 40 000+ free images 6 Doublecheck for Verbascum thapsus image attribution 7 Alternation of generations 8 Is this botanist notable? 8.1 ISI 9 Biographies needed 9.1 reset headers 10 Peer review for Verbascum thapsus 10.1 Peer reviews for botanical articles 10.2 Other WikiProject peer reviews 11 Soil seed bank 12 Common names, yet again 12.1 Common names, yet again: tabs reset 13 Plants barnstar 14 APG and taxoboxes 15 Topic:Paleontology 16 Maple 17 Templates for species 18 Chinese herbalism 19 Fern classification 20 Wikipedia Day Awards 21 Image quality project on commons? 22 Article title problem 23 Peer reviews requested 24 The articles should include (not in any particular order) 25 Lepidoptera mentions in articles 26 Sycamine tree 27 suggestion 28 Rosopsida 29 Plant ID help needed 30 Galium monograph? 31 Desperately seeking edit to Fabaceae 32 Template 33 New York Botanical Garden 34 Microformat

[edit] Fresh eyes needed for Head (botany)

I almost completely rewrote Head (botany) (and capitulum, but that's another thing) and would appreciate opinions, thanks. Finding references proved to be a bitch, but I think I did fine. Circeus 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading up on it. Will see if I can add anything. KP Botany 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* I just noticed Pseudanthium and Cyathium. What do you think, is a merger in order? Circeus 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It also turns out the topic itself is HUGE, and that I've never really studied it as such and don't know WHERE to start--I got a few papers, though. I think for now that a merge is in order, and, posting a merge proposal may result in more input from knowledgable and interested parties. And what about the Proteaceae? And Araceae? Should all of this just go in the article on inflorescence, and that be greatly expanded? I need to spend some time on background research and then consider it, to see if I can get a better handle on the situation, until then, your suggestion of a merger seems like a good idea, with a lead paragraph tying these groups together. Good catch on the original need to up the quality on these, though. KP Botany 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a merger into inflorescence is best indeed (and similar to how a handful articles on parts redirect to leaf and flower). It seems to me as if quite a few articles in category:plant morphology could use merging (I merged peduncle (botany) to inflorescence and phyllode into a newly created petiole (botany), to which merging stipule might be a goot idea).

BTW, ow does a split of category:plant morphology for flower, leaf, fruit, stem and root sounds like? (see category:architectural elements for a similar split) Circeus 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't catch if you put a merge sign up or not, but I think for now just expanding the inflorescence article would be the simplest and most useful. Gee, peduncle had its own page? I'm not sure petiole deserves its own, much less phyllode. How about all 3 (plus stipule) into leaf? Leaf should really be a better article.

I'd like to get at least Curtis's imput on the morphology recategorizing, probably a couple of other folks. Shoot into stem, leaf, flower and fruit, is handy, and root looks good, but a more trained eye into reading the logistics would be good. I appreciate the organizational time and effort you put into making sense of these plant articles. KP Botany 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Peduncle is a disambiguation page (as is Pedicel). A definition should still be available somewhere whatever we do with the links themselves. I created petiole (botany) because of many links that were redirected there. I'm seriously wondering about the separation of content between leaf and leaf shape right now, though.... Circeus 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (resetting tabs)

The head article needs a bit more tweaking... could also use some more photos for descoid heads and "ray flower only" heads (I forget the name for those). If someone in a non-frozen area has a razor and a digital camera, a cross section would be a major improvement (I'll fish around on commons, but I don't think there are any photos like that).

The leaf shape article might need renaming as some sort of glossary, and have terms describing margins, pubescence, glossiness/glaucousness, etc. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put any more images because that would have lengthened the article needlessly, although I did provide links to article with images.

Terms need harmonizing with leaf itself. Maybe a text-form paragraph in Leaf with a link to the list will make the thing easier to maintain? Circeus 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, a gallery along the bottom would be nice, and wouldn't be excessive. More pix the better, IMO, especially when describing a complicated organ like flower heads.

Not sure what to do about leaf and the terminology. I've seen snippets here and there which make me think glossaries are now considered WP:NOT, but they are permitted on both wiktionary and wikibooks, so perhaps that page should just be transwikied? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Leaf shedding

What are currently the accepted theories over this topic? Color change in leaves and deciduous appear to disagree, and I'm not sure what to think of Ford's paper, for which I can't find more recent review off-hand. It's also 20 years old, and I can't believe there hasn't been anything pertinent written since. Circeus 17:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it isn't a matter of "why" trees drop leaves, but rather why they do it when they do. Most of what I know about leaf-lifespan has been discussed in terms of energy budgets - species with short leaf-lifespans are more likely to be found on more fertile soils (where the replacement cost is low relative to the increased efficiency (photosynthetic and transpirational) and lower maintenance of younger leaves. On poorer soils the cost of replacement is higher (relative to the available resources), so it's better to have longer-lived leaves. If you are going to keep your leaves less than a year and you live in a seasonal environment, it makes sense to synchronise your flush and leaf drop. If you keep them more than a year, it doesn't. This is especially apparent in brevi-deciduous species, which drop their leaves at the start of the dry season, and then replace them, either immediately or a short while later.

The whole flowering/fruiting while leafless things is probably a matter of making the most of leaflessness (when your flowers are either most accessible to the wind or to pollinators), rather than a motivation for being leafless. Guettarda 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Abscission would be the best place to discuss the whys of it... that article needs serious expansion. Last I read, the red and yellow pigments are antioxidants used to prevent genetic damage, but that was in an article I read several years ago. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnoliophytina

I have been recently editing taxoboxes on plants in Slovenian Wikipedia. What causes me some trouble is the choice of the classification system. For example, it is common in Slovenian taxoboxes to include the subdivision Magnoliophytina. Why is this not common here as well? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hereby I want to bring to attention a comment that I have found at Talk:Malvaceae

"User:Brya brings up the point that the taxoboxes are excessively rigid. Take a look at how they dealt with it in the French Wikipedia: Article on Tilia which presents both the "classical" and the "phylogenetic" classifications for the families in the taxobox. A possible way to go for disputed families until there is a clear consensus among botanists and thereby reducing the confusion of us poor laymen. This is just a suggestion which you might want to talk over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. I got here and checked out the discussion as a result of a comparision I made at Talk:Tamarack Larch. (Where some chiming in on my proposed move/rename would be appreciated). Luigizanasi 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)" --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 40 000+ free images

Plants of Hawaii is the index to pictures by a pair of USGS photographers (that's {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}}). I just uploaded a bunch at commons:Verbascum thapsus, and I'm sure there will be much to be used. Circeus 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, I feel some doubt about the identification of commons:verbascum thapsus.jpg. It looks entirely different from what I know. ;-)

[edit] Doublecheck for Verbascum thapsus image attribution

Can somebody has a closer look at the attribution for commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg, commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg and commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus bgiu.jpg? The V. thapsus I know (I have never been faced with other Verbacum species) have leaves that are not cuneate, and way less large than these. The second image's flowers seems way too large for V. thapsus. Could they be V. densiflorum (=V. thapsiforme)? And the third is obviously something else: not only would you be unlikely to find so many flowers at once on a V. thapsus, but the stamen are far too prominent. Circeus 14:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

None of these are V. thapsus as I understand the plant from its introduced range in North America, but neither do they appear to be the other two introductions in California, V. blattaria or V. virgatum.--Curtis Clark 05:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg does not look like verbascum thapsu. commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg is some wild visitor in our garden. By incident, I was wondering about its identification last night. An error is very well possible, its from the first year when I idnetified plants. I'll try to have a second look somewhere next week. Perhaps someone can ask Bogdan about his image? TeunSpaans 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg, I had a closeup of its flower, one of the sysops on commons was kind enough to restore it. Its commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus bloem.jpg. TeunSpaans 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a beautiful image (alas, definitely not V. thapsus). I'm not so sure anymore that it's not V. thapsus. Why did you have it deleted? Circeus 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It had been deleted because I had forgotten to add the license. My fault ;-) TeunSpaans 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I suspect that Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg might be Verbascum nigra. TeunSpaans 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be surprised in the slightest. Compare: Circeus 23:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

V. nigrum

V. thapsus (??)

[edit] Alternation of generations

The article starts with

Alternation of generations is a reproductive cycle of certain vascular plants, fungi, and protists.

is it certain vascular plants or most vascular plants or all vascular plants ? The topic appears to have been discussed in the talk page, but it seems to have been gone astray with arguments over what constitute a generation. Would be more comfortable to see cited definitions at the introduction since I have been told that all plants show AoG, but I am not confident enough of my botany to do anything more about this... Hope someone can make the introduction more unquestionable with citations. thanks Shyamal 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll look the article over. I'm a bit limited on time, but you've made valid points. Thanks for the catch. KP Botany 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this botanist notable?

Can someone look at the Dan James Pantone article and make an assessment of Dr. Pantone's notability? He's published papers in:

• HortTechnology
• Biological Conservation
• Weed Science
• Crop Science
• Weed Science
• California Agriculture

Thanks, --A. B. 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have more pubs than that (even selecting the important ones) and I'm certainly not notable in the Wikipedia sense.--Curtis Clark 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty average to me; the only reason to keep him would be if he had named species and therefore could appear in taxoboxes; but IPIN has nothing on him. --Peta 04:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've named species, and I'm not notable.--Curtis Clark 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Curtis, I wonder if you are not overly modest ;-) When I do a scholar.google.com on "Curtis Clark", it gives 131 results. TeunSpaans 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are altogether too modest. Your work is notable by the usual standards, and your web site provides a source of other information, meeting the standards of WP:BLP. It apparently is perfectly in order for me to edit such an article, but I have my own standards of privacy, and will not do so if you object. DGG 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISI

(heading added DGG 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)) Here's the full report from ISI 21 pubs, 12 first authored (not counting one correction) - first authored pubs marked with *. These are in reverse chronological order. The number of citations (in other ISI indexed pubs) is listed first. IF is the impact factor of the journal

2* (Journal of Nematology IF 0.810) - 1987 0* (Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science IF 0.759) 9* (Weed Science IF 1.536) 11* (Weed Science IF 1.536) 12* (Weed Science IF 1.536) 0* (Correction:Weed Science IF 1.536) 16* (Crop Science IF 0.925) 11* (Weed Science IF 1.536) 32* (Journal of Environmental Quality IF 2.121) 3* (Weed Technology IF 0.749) 41 (Agronomy Journal IF 1.473) 0 (Agronomy Journal IF 1.473) 7 (Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science IF 1.147) 11* (Biological Conservation IF 2.581) 1* (Fundamental and Applied Nematology) 7* (Journal of Environmental Quality IF 2.121) 8 (Transactions of the ASAE IF 0.664) 4 (Weed Technology IF 0.749) 1 (Biocontrol Science and Technology IF 0.857) 0 (Biocontrol Science and Technology IF 0.857) 0 (Pest Management Science)- 2005

Based on this I'd say he passes WP:PROF, since 21 pubs puts him above the "average" professor (since the guideline uses the American definition of Assistant Prof or better). Guettarda 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The concern with ISI citations is that they are proportional to the number of publishing scientists in a discipline, something that an individual investigator has little control over.

I'm not supporting the deletion of this particular article. I am concerned, however, that the coverage of living scientists is rather hit-or-miss. It's difficult to find independent biographical information other than from the subject of the article, which strongly favors self-creation. And I know that I'm reticent to create articles for botanists I believe to be notable, and then have them deleted because others disagree. Perhaps this project should address the criteria for living botanists to be notable.--Curtis Clark 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

His sole apparent reason to be in WP is MATSES, which suggests merging the small bit of info about him into that article. But if paper-counting is a WP-wide consensus, I'm not going to get into that debate. And so we're clearly overdue for Curtis Clark, whether he likes it or not. :-) Stan 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, merge, and link his name in the list of botanical authors to that article, imo. And, actually, Curtis is more notable than he lets on, although I'd have to go look to remember what for (gee, how notable can he be, then ;) KP Botany 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that MATSES has been nominated for deletion. Guettarda 14:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Criteria for Speedy Deletion, the Author can elect to delete the page by blanking it. I have elected to delete the MATSES page. Debate over! Matses 17:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies needed

Here are lists of likely notable botanists; every red link is a possible article. Please add more lists to this.--Curtis Clark 19:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How ever am I going to get caught up on pic uploads when you make me do bios!? :-) The list would be good to add to Botanical Society of America... Stan 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, there are plenty of much more notable botanists who don't have so much as a blurb. There's also the list of botanical authors. If you pick foreign botanists and write stubs you may get additional help. I started an article on Hipolito Ruiz and someone with an interest in Spanish explorers of the Americas came by, translated from the Spanish Wikipedia and added pictures and a list. Some of these botanists it's a bit inexcusable there is no information on Wikipedia about them. What about living botanists? I often wonder how they would feel about having a biography on Wikipedia because of the ability to readily vandalize it? KP Botany 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The truly famous botanists are presumably so busy being famous they don't have time to worry about their WP articles. :-) In any case, vandalism is easily controlled by having articles on people's watchlists, just announce article creation here so we'll know they exist. Stan 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are also somer relevant categories, including Category:American botanists and Category:Botanists--Curtis Clark 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I never saw the categories, thanks--any objection to changing the list of botanists with articles to a list of botanists and including the red links, of course I'll ask over there first? It would be handy to have all the redlinks in one place. I could probably write up credible biographies on all the systematists, in the short list, and there are some on the BSA list, except for Dressler. How important do people consider biographies of scientists versus plant articles? KP Botany 22:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding the redlinks makes the article less useful (although a category is better than a list, IMO, since it requires less maintenance). Can project pages have sub-pages? It would seem more appropriate to have the redlink list in a place like that, since adding a botanist without an article is implicitly less noteworthy than adding a botanist with an article (a real catch-22). I think plant articles are generally more important than biographies, but there are some major botanists without articles. I got an email from a Wikipedian who is working on Dressler.--Curtis Clark 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Turns out a number of the names below have articles already, just under different variants of the name. But here's a puzzler - was the president of BSA in 1900 named Byron Halstead or Byron Halsted? Google shows plenty of reputable-looking hits for each spelling... Stan 06:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reset headers

Of course we can have subpages! Some projects have *dozens* of them! Circeus 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, even the talk page can have subpages, which is how the archives work. Speaking of, I should do that again since the page is getting quite large. Rkitko 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, can someone add a list of botanists subpage, then? We can include redlinks, stubs in a separate list, and a link to the bluelink page. Good to hear someone is writingon Dressler, he's rather important and current. I am alphebatizing the list below and adding it to some of the redlinks from the botanists with author abbreviation pages. I like writing the biographies, and will continue adding some, simply stunned by the botany that Hipolito Ruiz did, for instance, but want to start adding California plant pages, and am working on a special big article that needs to be added. KP Botany 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Verbascum thapsus

I completed a total rewrite of the article, and I think it's pretty good. I left a request for Peer Review, as I think it has the potential to go to featured status. My main lacks are:

• Good sources for the species' range in Canada and North Africa (My university library is especially lacking in the latter)
• Something to fill a section on related and similar species. I couldn't locate any sources on the web about the taxonomy of Verbascum.
• Something about the recognized subspecies of V. thapsus, I only found a small account about new proposed subspecies.

Circeus 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice!!!.

• US range: http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch?keywordquery=Verbascum+thapsus&mode=sciname&submit.x=0&submit.y=0 (Public domain site, except the photos).

Other than that, the control section is how-to... I'll transwiki it before the how-to police find it :). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I already use the site for the US range...

As for the "control"section, The first paragraph explains the relevance of control of the pant regarding agriculture. The second documents recommended techniques for control, as far as I'm concerned. It's definitely pertinent for a species considered a weed.

I fail to see how the entire section can be construed as how-to... Just look at Cotton thistle, Diffuse knapweed and Purple loosestrife. Compared to these, calling a single paragraph (because the first? no way this is "How") part of a broader discussion is a wee bit overreacting, in my opinion. WP:NOT goes: "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." This section contains neither instructions nor suggestions (unless documenting that X is useless or not for control of V. thapsus is a suggestion?), so the policy fails to apply in this case. Circeus 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I agree completely... I've just run afoul of the how-to people enough times that I make it a policy transwiki just in case :). I've been working on a lot of weed articles on wikibooks lately, and was going to do that one a couple weeks ago but I couldn't remember the specific epithet. The how-to fork is almost done: A Wikimanual of Gardening/Verbascum thapsus. Caught some grammar stuff while doing that. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I get you better now. And BTW, it was at Common Mullein until quite recently. Hey! Wikibooks' implementation of the Cites.php is pretty cool! Circeus 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we have to steal those templates one of these days... in general, we just use < ref >, but with things being imported now, we should probably have copies the wp cites as well. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You can probably do without half of them. I'm just a sucker for using {{cite encyclopedia}}. Makes quoting dictionary-type, multi-volume works easier. Circeus 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good article. I dont feel capable of a complete review, but I did add some remarks. TeunSpaans 16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer reviews for botanical articles

I would like to set up a page where botanical articles for peer review can be posted. I think that some of the botany articles I read that are good articles or nominated for good articles, really needed to be peer reviewed by someone with a background in botany or anything somewhat related. Is this possible? I see scientific peer review bit the dust--too bad. KP Botany 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea to me... maybe Wikipedia:Wikiproject Plants/Peer Reviews? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 11:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm at it, KP Botany noticed it slightly, but we should keep on the lookout for User:Anlace's California rare plants article that appear on a regular basis on WP:DYK. While Anlace is a good article writer, they/he/she have problem condensing these articles without jargon and determining appropriate material (for example, they almost never include proper taxonomical information). The fact these articles are a bit out of their main fields of specialization (physics, art history and environmental science) doesn't help. Circeus 14:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these are the articles of concern for me, their botanical descriptions are also very poorly written, often internally inconsistent, and use botanical jargon incorrectly, although also excessively. However, because this editor has put a serious amount of effort into starting these articles, finding noteworthy species, and finding images and references, and into categorizing and locating California articles, I would like to offer him/her a specific place where the artciles can go for peer-review before going to DYN and GA nomination. However, these are not the only problem articles, someone mentioned the life histories article, which needs a thorough going over, and something should be done about the various parts of a plant articles as a whole as SB_Johnny has pointed out. I would very much like Wikipedia:Wikiproject Plants/Peer Reviews. Can someone start it and add a link to it from the main page and from this page? Starting articles is the only thing I do worse than spelling correctly. --KP Botany 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Easy enough... --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone object to setting it up with transincluded subpages and a formal set of archives, like Peer Review or FAC? Maybe even a little template to stick on the page (like Peer review does), so that other editors can see what was said about an article in the past, etc.? Guettarda 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We could list the article in both locations and use a single subpage? With added headers to separate comments from the project? Easier maintenance and greater response potential. Circeus 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I was thinking of this as an alternative to conventional peer review, but there's no reason not to cross-post - that would allow people here to keep an eye on plant articles without having to be overwhelmed by trying to keep up with Peer Review. Separate headers is a good idea too. Guettarda 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've requested a peer review for the Pinguicula moranensis article I wrote last week. I've gotten some helpful replies already, but would of course appreciate if some other botanically inclined folks would take a look at it. Thanks! --NoahElhardt 05:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other WikiProject peer reviews

from Wikipedia:Peer Review

Topic-specific peer reviews:

• Architecture peer review deals with architecture-related topics
• Biography peer review deals with biography articles
• CVG Peer review deals with computer and video games-related topics
• Film peer review deals with film-related articles
• Military history peer review deals with military-related topics
• Paranormal peer review deals with topics relating to the paranormal.
• Rail transport peer review deals with rail transport-related topics

The peer review pages are transincluded at both the main peer review and topic peer review articles. Guettarda 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soil seed bank

Stumbled on this and tried to give it categories. I am not very happy with the result. Can somebody look for more appropriate ones? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Common names, yet again

This much-belabored subject is coming up again due to recent edit wars and discussions at a couple of articles, namely Cytisus scoparius and Juniperus bermudiana. (The latter case especially bothered me because User:MPF was trying to promote "Bermuda Juniper" as the "correct" common name of a plant that is widely known as as "Bermuda Cedar", and almost exclusively so on its native island of Bermuda.) I have already posted lengthy comments on the talk pages of those articles so will make only brief comments here. In a nutshell, I don't believe it's proper for a Wikipedia article to be promoting or discouraging the use of any particular common name for any particular species, as doing so will always be a matter of very subjective opinion and will vary from editor to editor. To retain a neutral POV, articles should simply reflect real-world usage, at most commenting on which common names are used in which regions, and perhaps which are the most prevalent. In my opinion any attempt to identify or promote a single "correct" name for any plant is doomed anyway, as there are too many English-speaking countries, all with their own sets of common names, and there is simply no worldwide consensus or authority on the standardization of common names. MrDarwin 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - genetic evidence may be relevant for bird common names, but not for plants. Our mission is to document the world as it is, not as we might like it to be. Stan 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't even understand the issue, people have been using these common names for hundreds of years, and they tell something about the plant--but in lieu of seeking this knowledge, the etymology of the common name, what the common name tells about the plant and the people, Wikipedia has opted for a pattern of disparaging people's cultures as inferior to the cultural knowledge of one of our editor's. Acer negundo, for example, is called Box Elder because its wood resembles that of the Box, but Wikipedia users don't learn that, they simply learned the biased POV that one editor knows this common name is wrong because the plant is an Acer and not a Buxus or a Sambucus. Box isn't, by the way, a Box, but rather a plant, so, see, even the British sometimes, although rarely, slip up in a common name. Sigh. Why hide that information in preference for the POV that an editor doesn't like common names, and often appears to think that people who came up with them didn't know anything, when it turns out (Persian Walnut) they were using the common names to convey information about the plant? This is irritating, MPF. You do good work on articles and seem to really care about the quality of Wikipedia, yet you're so willing to trash other cultures with your viewpoint that you know more about plants than they did, which is what your POV comments come off as, as you opt for pointing out what is wrong about the name instead of researching how the plant got that common name in the first place, and you made assumptions in a number of articles about how the plant got its common name that proved false. Is this really necessary to be having this conversation at all? It's hard to have understanding for this anymore, it's a wasted effort discussing it, because nothing gets through, then extensive time is repeatedly wasted in edit wars over the same thing, over and over, yet thousands of articles are unwritten. Common names exist. If you don't want them in Wikipedia, make a formal policy case for banning all common names because only scientific names are correct (although this assumption just shows that maybe you don't realize how inapproprriate many scientific names are, or maybe you don't care, as only the common man should be disparaged).

Stan said it, "Our mission is to document the world as it is." And human beings are as much a part of that world as scientists. KP Botany 17:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that, rather than pile onto MPF, we can get some positive comments out of this discussion. My own suggestion is that, when there are several different common names for a plant, the the article should indicate where the various names are used (and when worded carefully this seems to be an acceptable compromise to MPF). Like KP Botany I find common names interesting and informative in their own right, so I do hope that editors will follow his suggestion to add more information on their history, meanings, and origins, rather than a simple statement that certain names are "incorrect" or "misleading". MrDarwin 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't "pile on" as I did, but, this is frustrating. There seems to be no way of getting through. I assume I have irritating areas like this, where I just refuse to find common ground with others, and simply can't be reasoned with, but at some point, I would just like the discussion to be settled, and never come up again. MrDarwin displays far more patience than I do in all areas. KP Botany 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you don't want to be like that KP Botany guy on commons who's been flaming Franz Xaver over which categories images should be in... :-) I think part of the way to improving handling of common names is to be more precise about the sourcing of common names, so it's not just an opinionated "some people call it X", but "reference Y mentions X, X-Z, and Z-X as local names". FishBase is very organized about this, documenting language, country, and reference for each local name of a fish - some species can have a hundred local names, important to know when you're on the docks talking to fisherfolk. Stan 22:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, common names are also important, they facilitate communication about native plants and weeds in ways that scientific names don't. KP Botany 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common names, yet again: tabs reset

Much as I hate to say it (MPF was one of the first to "welcome" me to wikipedia... not with a template, but with personal encouragement), it really is pretty much just him doing this, and everyone else reverting it. Unfortunately, something along the lines of a user-conduct RfC might be inevitable, because repeated discussions (both here and on various talk pages) seem not to get through to him.

The lack of a "set-in-stone policy" about this can't be used as an excuse, because consensus has been reached repeatedly (though of course he has not conceded the point). This is just causing silly edit warring, along the lines of the "italicization" problems involving User:Brya some months ago, and while it's certainly never escalated into flame wars as that did, it's been going on for a very long time. The fact that it's continued after being brought up here on several occaisions is even more troubling. If we really need to write a policy about it, then we should just get on with writing it... but it seems overkill to write policies addressing a single editor. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Four Americans ganging up to hound out the one Briton who dares to use a concept of common name that is different to the American concept . . .

Granted that's not entirely fair; some people in Britain follow the American POV, and vice versa, but there is a large degree of truth in it, probably more than you would like to think. Over here, there is a long history dating back over 150 years of changing common names to improve their match with botanical classification; it goes back to at least the Victorian education movement, people like John Lindley, John Claudius Loudon, George Bentham, Joseph Dalton Hooker and others. It was done for educational reasons, reasoning that (J. D. Hooker, 1892):

...for the use of school-children, who were not as a rule supposed to recognise the Latin names

Thus for example, of Pinus sylvestris, Bentham & Hooker's 1886 British Flora (italics and quote marks are theirs):

... The so-called "Scotch Fir" is no Fir, but a Pine proper.

Their education on not calling it a fir worked; by giving priority to the then-rarer name, overall usage soon changed. Yes, it used to be 'Scotch' here too, back in the days when Scotland was still under heavy English domination, Scottish feelings counted for nothing, and African people were still called niggers to their faces . . . fortunately, things have changed now.

They reasoned, correctly, that most people can't (or won't) learn scientific names, and that if two plants share the same group name (e.g. Lebanon Cedar, Bermuda Cedar), people assume that the plants do so because they genuinely are the same or closely related. That is the natural human instinct. It is very easy to find errors arising because this instinct is so deep-rooted; two examples from a quick search show Cedrus deodara placed in Cupressaceae, and that something called a cedar in a shop would be Cedrus (it turned out to be Cupressus macrocarpa).

The idea that common names should be revised to meet botanical needs and native cultural preferences is far from only British; South Africa agrees, as does New Zealand with its ditching all the old confusing English settlers' names based on unrelated genera, in favour of the indigenous Maori names. At least some Americans are willing to promote change in common names in response to taxonomic change; in older texts, Huperzia (then often included in Lycopodium) are all listed as 'Clubmoss'; I first came across the name 'Firmoss' being used by US wiki contributors. Despite its not being a familiar name to me and not being used in Britain, it struck me as an eminently sensible new name to assist disambiguating them from Lycopodium, and am very happy to adopt this name myself.

"even the British sometimes, although rarely, slip up in a common name" . . . I've never said that we don't! Yes, it does happen (and more than just rarely!); all that needs is more education and thought.

"really is pretty much just him doing this, and everyone else reverting it" . . . how many other non-US botanists are doing so? Most people (including several US editors) seem pretty happy with the idea that common names can be better botanically informative.

"Our mission is to document the world as it is" . . . the world is full of errors, should errors be recorded as cited fact, too? Should I add that some botanists treat Cedrus in Cupressaceae? (it is citable, from a well-respected botanical source . . .).

"And human beings are as much a part of that world" . . . that is to a very large extent, exactly my point. Native plants generally have a very high degree of emotional significance to people; introduced plants much less so, and often with negative rather than positive connotation. But the fact of life is that communication is now global, and that brings with it very strong pressure for uniformity of treatment. I don't want Britons to feel pressurised into using American 'Hedge Maple' for their native Field Maple, neither do I want Americans to feel pressurised into using the UK parochial name 'Wellingtonia' for Giant Sequoia my edit last June (why should you have to put up with a bunch of jerks renaming California's state tree after a British warlord?!?). Or for people in India and Pakistan to feel pressurised to call their native Juglans "English", with its implications of foreign ownership (which I can see is likely to cause considerable offence, even if nothing is documented on the internet). The evidence I could find for usage in India was Persian Walnut, which is why I chose that name for the page (not because it is particularly used in England, which it isn't a lot; it is mostly 'Common Walnut' here, but we don't have any rightful claim to provide the global name for the species).

My worry is that the inevitable uniformity of common names will not be decided by any informative botanical value, nor by sensitivity to the wishes of the natives, but by overbearing railroading by the most powerful, which inevitably means the US (well, until China becomes a significant wealthy global superpower). Because of economics etc, US botany-related non-commercial websites outnumber UK ones by about 100:1 (UK universities are not well funded, so don't generally have good botanical sources online; India is in an even worse position, and even greater sensitivity to their naming of their natives is required here) - which results in very heavy pressure on non-US culture, much of which is in danger of being lost. MrDarwin's selection of claimed UK-use of 'scotch broom' is merely proof of the pressure:

• The British Society for Plant Pathology - http://www.bspp.org.uk/ndr/jan2003/2002-42.asp
  • Italian, not British.
• Nature - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7100/edsumm/e060720-01.html
  • Nature.com Copyright Statement: "Nature Publishing Group is a trading name of Macmillan Publishers Ltd, and Nature America Inc., a wholly-owned US subsidiary of Macmillan Publishers" (my emphasis)
• Dr M Rees, Reader in Plant Population Biology - http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/research/mrees/rees.htm
  • Likely an American working in Britain (not unusual, and obvious from his publications list, mostly in US journals).
• Department of Chemistry, University of York & GlaxoSmithKline, New Frontiers Science Park (North), Third Avenue, Harlow, Essex, UK, "Evaluation of a sparteine-like diamine for asymmetric synthesis" - http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=b103220h&JournalCode=CC
  • Chemists, not plantspeople - likely heavily influenced by US literature
• UK Food Standards Agency - http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/asksam/healthydiet/fruitandvegq/
  • A Q&A page; the received Q may not be British; the answer uses 'broom'.
• Dr Jane Memmott, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol - http://www.bio.bris.ac.uk/people/staff.cfm?key=82
  • One of 11 contributors; the paper is in an American journal. No reason to suggest she personally was using the name.

"and when worded carefully this seems to be an acceptable compromise to MPF" - it has been in some cases (I'm happy with the wordings at Cytisus scoparius of 16:51, 17 December 2006 and Rkitko's edit of 17:50, 17 December 2006 at Scots Pine), but some others I feel very much bullied out of; those pages I doubt I'll ever want to edit again, the common names having such a dreadful anti-educational POV. KP's explanations of derivations are certainly very helpful, but it still doesn't entirely deal with the problem. - MPF 12:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Granted that's not entirely fair... No, MPF, that's not the least bit fair, especially when, after you requested help from Scottish editors, one more or less agreed with the editors who were "ganging up" on you, and another couldn't quite figure out what the problem was in the first place. You certainly have your own ideas about how articles should be written and edited, and may not like the American "POV" but Wikipedia is not a UK publication. Numerous editors (not all of them American, I might note) have resisted your attempts to stamp your own strong POV on numerous articles. I challenge any outside observer to find that the Cytisus scoparius article, as now rewritten, is anything other than neutral with respect to both UK and American POV's, yet you fought every change tooth and nail and are still complaining about them. The problem is that you view Wikipedia as a tool to promote cultural change--for example, to discourage the use of a widely used common name like "Scotch Broom", based on your own rather peculiar bias--which it most certainly is not. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such reports the facts, it does not try to influence them. How difficult is it to understand that different English-speaking cultures and countries use different common names for plants? How difficult is it to simply report that, in a clear and neutral way? And doing so is not an American POV, it is an international POV that takes other countries and other cultures into account without elevating one above another. And if you think this is such a problem, or that anybody is "ganging up" on you, by all means follow the official policies that are available, like opening a request for comment or for arbitration. MrDarwin 14:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thus for example, of Pinus sylvestris, Bentham & Hooker's 1886 British Flora... Do I really need to remind you that we are not writing a regional flora or field guide, and we most certainly are not writing a botanical monograph or revision of any plant group? We are writing an international encyclopedia. Big difference. MrDarwin 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to all for belaboring the point, but after re-reading MPF's diatribe, I feel even more strongly that his complaints are completely unfounded. Most of all I can't understand why he seems to think the mere neutral mention of one common name among several is any kind of "promotion" of it, much less a pressure for anybody to use it. Moreover, I think MPF's blatant attempts to impose a single common name for every species, chosen by him, to be used in every English-speaking country worldwide, is an even more pointed and presumptuous POV than the one he is accusing the rest of us of having.

On some specifics: I really don't care what they call Sequoiadendron in the UK, but if they commonly use a different name than we do, that information should be included in the article and it's certainly a good idea to say why: Wellingtonia was the original name for this tree, and would be the name we all use today except that it turned out to be an illegitimate generic name (a later homonym). (In other words Sequoiadendron is a renaming of Wellingtonia, not vice-versa.) It's a fact that common names are conservative and very often don't follow taxonomic names, in part because taxonomy is relatively unstable and subject to change (for example, "gloxinia" has been the almost universal common name for almost 200 years for the plant originally described as Gloxinia speciosa, which then became Ligeria speciosa, and finally Sinningia speciosa In fact many people are quite willing to learn botanical names; what they're reluctant to do is keep changing the names every time botanists change the classification). Regarding cedar, quite aside from the fact that this name is used widely in many English-speaking regions for species of Juniperus, I have already found and cited evidence that this name, and its classical precursors cedrus and kedros, has been applied to both Juniperus and Cedrus for thousands of years, because the ancient Greeks apparently used this term for coniferous trees producing a kind of aromatic wood, not trees classified in a particular genus or having particular phylogenetic relationships (concepts that did not arise until a couple thousand years later). It's preposterous to suggest that anybody is trying to "change the meaning of cedar" when they acknowledge the reality that this word has had a relatively broad usage for a very long time. "Persian walnut" is almost as bad a misnomer as "English walnut", as this species is native to many areas besides Persia, but letting people know that it is known as "English walnut" in the USA is not "pressurising" anybody in the UK, or India, or anybody else, that they should also be calling it by this name. And regarding "Scotch broom", MPF has been unable to enlist the support of a single Scottish person to uphold his entirely undocumented claim that this common name is offensive, and we simply have to take his word for it that the whole world must stop using the name "Scotch broom" in order to avoid offending the Scottish. (BTW MPF is confusing me with another editor with regard to supposed UK usage of this name. However, I have verified the use of this name in Canada and New Zealand, as well as the USA, and added this information to the article. So much for my USA-centric POV.)

The bottom line is this: who decides? There are many editors on Wikipedia from many different countries. MPF has taken it upon himself to unilaterally decide what common name should be used for each and every plant on earth, whether in the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. The rest of us are trying to point out that that is not only a POV, but a kind of cultural activism that is diametrically opposed to the international and NPOV ideals of Wikipedia. In fact this problem with agreement on common names is an excellent reason why article titles should reflect the botanical name, rather than a common name--and such a policy has found wide support among botanical editors.

Finally, to MPF I will say it again: if you feel "pressured", "bullied", "ganged up" on or "hounded" (your words, not mine), stop getting into edit wars over it and stop complaining, and start taking some official action. MrDarwin 16:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the offending text from the article Persian walnut which MPF seems to think is likely to cause "people in India and Pakistan to feel pressurised to call their native Juglans "English", with its implications of foreign ownership":

The Persian Walnut (Juglans regia), also known as Common Walnut or English Walnut, is a species of walnut that is native from the Balkans, in southeast Europe, east through southwest and central Asia and the Himalayas to southwest China.

Regarding MPF's claims I don't know what else I can possible say here except, why should anybody in India or Pakistan be told to call their native Juglans species Persian walnut?? MrDarwin 17:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going on what referenced evidence I could find from Indian websites. Persian Walnut (or just 'Walnut') came out top. I am prepared to respect that. On "Wellingtonia", I was referring to the use as a common name, not a scientific name. And the info you refer to on the history of its sci name is in the article, I put it there ages ago. - MPF 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry MPF, you are way out in the ozone here. Are you seriously suggesting that we base content decisions on the ownership of publications? Does that mean we have to change content and move articles every time a publication changes ownership from UK to US? (And what about Australian ownership?) One of the arguments for using scientific names more often is that it is a neutral ground - although common names are more accessible, if they are region-specific and mutually inconsistent, in those cases we really need to drop back to sci names. Also, if a common name is phylogenically misleading, we don't pretend that it doesn't exist; we document it along with a note as to the mistaken aspect. That sort of error-busting is in fact one of WP's best-liked features among readers; please don't deprive them of this service by deleting material on misleading common names. Likewise, it's not your place to decide for our readers what is an offending name; if you have documentation that a particular name is offensive to readers from a country, note that in the article and list the reference. Stan 21:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Also, if a common name is phylogenically misleading, we don't pretend that it doesn't exist; we document it along with a note as to the mistaken aspect. That sort of error-busting is in fact one of WP's best-liked features among readers" – I agree 100%, and that's exactly what I'd been trying to do, with placing more helpful (i.e., not phylogenetically misleading) names first (like Bermuda Juniper), but then along come others and revert it, saying it is POV to say anything is misleading. "if you have documentation that a particular name is offensive to readers from a country" – I did exactly that, with a reference stating that 'scotch' is disliked in Scotland, but someone keeps on removing it (on the basis that one or two Scots don't object - I'm sure it would also be easy to find an African American or three who don't object to 'nigger' (I remember reading somewhere that some even use the term with pride, but that doesn't make the term any less offensive for many others). If the term was so loved in Britain as Davodd and MrDarwin want to suggest, why is the name 'scotch broom' almost never used in Britain? They have yet to demonstrate any hint of widespread popular acceptance of the name in Britain. - MPF 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"I did exactly that, with a reference stating that 'scotch' is disliked in Scotland, but someone keeps on removing it (on the basis that one or two Scots don't object..." Your reference (which you left to others to look up and quote) had nothing to do with "Scotch broom", which is the name in question. While it noted that the terms "Scottish" and "Scots" are generally preferred over "Scotch", it also made clear that this word is considered acceptable usage in certain cases, and most certainly didn't suggest that the word "Scotch" should be discouraged or discontinued in any way. You have yet to provide any kind of documentation that the name "Scotch broom" itself is considered offensive by anybody other than you, and now you are insulting the Scots themselves because they haven't agreed with you that the term is offensive.

"If the term was so loved in Britain as Davodd and MrDarwin want to suggest, why is the name 'scotch broom' almost never used in Britain? They have yet to demonstrate any hint of widespread popular acceptance of the name in Britain." First, please get your facts straight: I (and I don't believe Davodd either) have not suggested that the name "Scotch broom" is "loved" in Britain. You are making a false accusation, and I don't like it. Second, we do not have to document or even imply any widespread use of it in the UK in order to discuss the usage of the term elsewhere. Most importantly, nobody is suggesting that this name must, or should, be used in the UK or in any other country for that matter (unlike another editor who keeps telling people in other countries what common names they should be using). MrDarwin 04:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I just moved "Persian walnut" (are there real people somewhere that actually call it Persian walnut?) to Juglans regia in the interests of diluting the POV pushing a bit... I fixed the worst of the redirects, but there's still problems. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are! See that Indian ref I cited above. Fine on the move, don't forget to move the rest of the Juglandaceae, so they're not a hotch-potch in the category! - MPF 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Four Americans ganging up to hound out the one Briton who dares to use a concept of common name that is different to the American concept" ← Get a grip Michael. "Common" name as in "commonly used". If a hundred million or so "ignorant Americans" (or their neighbors) call it by that name, then it's a "common name", and when irgnorant Americans try to look up a plant their neighbors mentioned, it's not necessarily a good thing to have have the name couched with "mistakenly referred to as" or "misleadingly called"... their neighbors aren't calling the plant by a name you disapprove of because they're ignorant, they're just calling it what it's called because that's the common name of the plant. You have no right to correct speakers of regional dialects that differ from your own, and there is no "official, international standard" of common names.

You and I once spoke about our common preference for the metric system. That's an internationally accepted system. But even in that case, you shouldn't remove US measurements and replace them with metric... just put them in parentheses and respect your fellow contributors' efforts. You're completely out of line, and you should know that, but somehow you seem to think going against consensus is perfectly OK if it's in the name of "fighting American Imperialism". As you and I once watched Brya, now I'm watching you . Cut it out, please...this is getting silly. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying Americans are ignorant at all - just hoping to encourage Americans to use UK names for plants that have special relevance to the UK, instead of continuing to push their different names on us through their weight of domination of the internet. Exactly the same as I prefer to use American names for American native plants, to help encourage my countrymen to follow suit (e.g. I use Giant Sequoia and Black Locust, not Wellingtonia or False Acacia). But it seems certain people don't like that. Of measures, if I find a wiki page that says a tree grows to 30-40 feet tall, and I have a reference that cites it as growing 15-20 m tall, then I should leave that as 15-20 m (30-40 feet)?? If the imperial matches the metric data I have, then I usually do leave it in, but more often than not it doesn't.

Anyway, if everything I add to wikipedia is going to get reverted as POV, I'll be giving up editing. - MPF 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand this self-censorship any more than MPF's common name POV pushing. I was amazed to find that the Black Locust article included no reference to the name "False Acacia" whatsoever, even thought this name can be found in American as well as UK literature and is a literal translation of the specific epithet (and thus arguably a more appropriate common name than "black locust"). I don't care if they call it this in the UK; it's no skin off my nose or that of any other American, but to leave this information out diminishes the educational value of the article. Regarding "special relevance," as others have already noted, Cytisus scoparius has enormous special relevance outside the UK as an economically important invasive plant. If it grieves MPF so much that "everything" is being edited--in reality a very small percentage of the thousands of articles he has edited (and it is virtually impossible to find any plant article that MPF has not contributed to or heavily edited)--by other editors in an to attempt to add factual information with a NPOV, then that's just too bad. All I can say is, welcome to Wikipedia and please review Wikipedia policies. MrDarwin 18:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir, what Wikipedia naming conventions (for article titles, before the flora naming convention was created) or Manual of Style guidelines are you following that lead you to this conclusion about common names of plants? You once told me that, "the name used should be that used in the area to which the topic is relevant." I asked how you, or rather Wikipedia, defines relevance. Obviously, you take it to mean "where the species is native." That presents problems, as noted above, when a native range of a species crosses political and language borders. In response to your above point on relevance, I asked how we knew a species was more relevant in its native range or its invasive range. You seem to want to defer to the special preference of a species' native range, though it could be argued, especially in the case of Cytisus scoparius, that economically and ecologically, this species is as relevant if not moreso in its invasive range. You never responded to that comment. I'd like to hear your thought process on how you reached these conclusions concerning this particular preference in style. Many thanks, --Rkitko 02:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English: "Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia" ... "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. For example:

• American Civil War: American English usage and spelling
• Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings: British English usage and spelling
• Uluru (Ayers Rock): Australian English usage and spelling
• European Union institutions: British, Irish and Maltese English usage and spelling
• The city of Montreal: Canadian English usage and spelling
• Taj Mahal: Indian English usage and spelling

Yes, I consider that acts as a pointer that the area a species is native to is what should be taken into consideration. For comparision, consider the Tolkein example; even if the book were more popular in the USA than in England, it is still the native origin of the author that determines this. People very often have strong emotional attachment to their native plants, which is only very rarely found with introduced species (Rosa laevigata is perhaps one exception to this). Where a species crosses linguistic boundaries (e.g. the many that occur in both Canada and the US), the MOS offers the advice "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article" - MPF 19:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I see where you and I differ. I see an illogical leap from the statement, "focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country" to what you've come to understand it to mean. A plant article that's native to a particular area can focus on an area other than it's native range. Indeed, most articles for invasive plants focus on the invasive range. Where you see topic specific to meaning native to, I see an attempt to stretch guidelines meant for grammar and spelling, not usage of commons names. I can completely see where you're coming from though, especially with that MoS guideline. However, I still contend that trying to place more emphasis on any common name over another is not one of this encyclopedia's goals. Our job is descriptive: describe all common names, where they came from, and who uses them. You seem to have taken it upon yourself to take a prescriptive role in these articles. Don't tell people which name should or should not be used, even if you think one should receive special preference because of its link to the native range of a species. We are to write from a worldwide view. Well, now I'm just repeating what everyone else has already said. Regardless, I don't see how that MoS guideline fits these situations. I maintain that common names in text are not a particular style but rather content. Content is to be neutral. Perhaps you see common names as more of a style than content?

If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article. I again must point out that often, the differences in these common names are not a spelling style (as is the case in things like color and colour) but rather content issues. Thoughts? --Rkitko 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"hoping to encourage" - that's a danger sign for POV pushing. Sure, it's only common names, and this debate has generated *way* more heat than it deserves, but it's still on the path to letting personal desires leak into the content, and opens the door to worse, like people with political agendas who will want to twist around plant information to try to disprove global warming or some such. Strict neutrality is our best defense. Personally, I think that documenting the variety of names is all that's really necessary; for instance, in the US some natural features are effectively regaining their Native American names - once people hear of the native names, they like them and start using them. Stan 02:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Stan, I disagree. I think this issue deserves quite a bit of discussion, in part because it is a symptom of a broader problem. MPF has not only inserted his POV into thousands of articles, but has strongly discouraged numerous other editors, particularly editors who are new to Wikipedia, from editing these articles by reverting any new edits, often within minutes. On top of this, MPF has gotten into numerous edit wars with more experienced editors. I think MPF is coming dangerously close to asserting ownership over articles.

BTW Stan raises an excellent issue regarding politics, cultural differences, and POV. I'd like to step outside botany to give an example: same-sex marriage. Should an article about same-sex marriage in Belgium comment that many Americans don't like this term being applied to same-sex unions, and find such usage offensive? Even worse, should the article advise that Belgians should not use the word "marriage" to describe such unions, simply because Americans don't like it? How about an article about cigarettes telling people in the UK that they should stop using the word "fag" because this word has taken on an offensive connotation in the USA? These examples aren't so far off from what MPF has tried to do with the Cytisus scoparius article. We are all supposedly speaking the same language but the same word can have very different histories, meanings, or connotations in different English-speaking countries. In an international enclyclopedia, when such differences arise who is qualified to say that one such meaning or connotation is the "correct" one? In my opinion, none of us are. MrDarwin 18:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"I prefer to use American names for American native plants" ← But that's just not true... you've done the same with Eastern Red Cedar, Bermuda Cedar, Poison Ivy, and Boxelder to name a few. Of course it's good to use the British common names for plants native to Britain, but that doesn't mean that other common names are invalid, deceptive, misleading, or insulting to Britons. Noting that Britons refer to giant sequioia and black locust by other names is likewise not insulting to Americans, and should of course be listed if Britons want to look up the plant (or perhaps an American is wondering what a Briton is talking about). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As per Stan's point "Also, if a common name is phylogenically misleading, ... That sort of error-busting is in fact one of WP's best-liked features among readers" above; Cedrus virginiana, Cedrus bermudiana, Hedera radicans, Sambucus negundo. Those all conflict with well-established earlier usages of the group names. Using names that include 'juniper', 'maple' etc., helps people understand what they are and are related to (like HouseOfScandal's very good suggestion "Boxelder Maple"), particularly helpful for the large number of people who find scientific names difficult. Same applies to UK names with similar problems. "Noting that Britons refer to giant sequoia and black locust by other names is likewise not insulting to Americans" - have to disagree; many Americans (presumably particularly Californians) do feel very strongly about the UK alternative name of Giant Sequoia at least:

"unleashed American cross fire that was to consume hundreds of pages for decades to come" (Joseph Ewan 1973, U. Calif. Publ. Botany 67: 1-36; quoted in Robert Ornduff 1994, Proc. Symp. Giant Sequoias, PSW-GTR-151: 11

Personally, I'm not in the least bit surprised at that reaction, either, and think it very reasonable; it comes over as an attack on national / state identity even if it wasn't intended as such by those doing the naming. I'm not saying the other common names like these should not be included, just that they be given a lower position with less emphasis than botanically meaningful, native names - MPF 19:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say it again, pushing common names as "correct" (in contrast to pushing them as official in certain venues, with references) is cultural imperialism. And although the US is the current "imperialist bad guy", England's was the empire over which the sun once never set. The statement "botanically meaningful, native names" refers to an agreement that often doesn't exist; the Tongva, for example, refer to all the Salvias as kásili, save for Salvia columbariae, which is pashí. Had they a Wikipedia, would they be asked to change the names to fit the phylogeny of the genus? And what of ryegrass, which is really a fescue, and goatgrass, which is really a wheat? Or perhaps wheat is a goatgrass?--Curtis Clark 07:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was born and raised in California, in a family that was science-savvy, in the time period you're referring to, and this is the first I've heard of any fuss over the big tree's name. Maybe an inside-botany thing? USians are used to Brits having different words for everything, sometimes we even deliberately use British words when we want to sound more intelligent (or more pretentious :-) ). Stan 01:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

UNINDENT
Motivations I think that, MPF, your motivations behind your comments are partially what lead to this issue taking up so much time and space: "I'm not saying Americans are ignorant at all - just hoping to encourage Americans to use UK names for plants that have special relevance to the UK, instead of continuing to push their different names on us through their weight of domination of the internet" MPF
The result is, to Americans, your comments come across as insulting us for our ignorance--you're trying to encourage Americans, no one else in the world who speaks English about plants native to the UK, to use UK names for plants that you, as a Brit, think have special relevance to others in the UK. None of this is likely to lead to a neutral statement on your part, and in particular, is likely to lead to comments that sound exactly what they are: POV comments guided by your viewpoint that Americans are ignorant about plant names, and need to be taught correct usage because they are set on foisting their common names for UK plants on the English-speaking world. First of all, I've seen your comments as being particularly offensive to Americans in particular, all along, you don't seem to have the same issue with other English speakers, just with Americans. That you went to India to find a common name for Juglans regia, when the nut is a major American crop (I run every day past miles of walnut groves), and the article doesn't say a thing about walnuts in India (Indians do eat walnuts, though), is the result of this bias against American common names, imo. That your comments are offending Americans enough that they continue to bring this up, is the result of this bias and its easy perception to Americans in your articles.
New Zealand is a bilingual country. In California we use Spanish and American Indian common names for plants. We also use some Maori names, and others. However, America is not a strictly bilingual country, so there is no precedent set by NZ for America to follow. American Indians speak 100s of different languages.
"I agree 100%, and that's exactly what I'd been trying to do, with placing more helpful (i.e., not phylogenetically misleading) names first (like Bermuda Juniper), but then along come others and revert it, saying it is POV to say anything is misleading." Helpful? That's your POV, that it's phylogenetically misleading, and an encyclopedia isn't the place to help with cultural change, it's simply a gathering of information. In fact, many people know that "pine" is used for any type of conifer, not just for members of the pine family as a common name--you haven't provided any evidence that anyone is mislead into thinking that a Bermuda Cedar is a Cedar, and MrDarwin has provided historical evidence that these names are not all they seem to be (Cedar and Juniper). Sometimes plants are named because they or their wood looks like another plant. It's not out of ignorance, it's out of being human, acknowledging the familiar. And it's not done to mislead anyone, if it was chosen to acknowledge a similarity. That's my biggest problem with many of the comments, this assumption that a name chosen to acknolwedge some similarity with another plant, is misleading. The similarity between box wood and Acer negundo wood exists--it's not an attempt to mislead the hearer of the name into thinking the plant is a Buxus. So, now, after hashing out the naming policy for hours on end, for plants, where it was decided, with much convincing arguments, that common and familiar crop plants would be titled after their common names, we have walnut, an international crop, of world importance, named after its scientific name, to avoid having to denigrate certain cultures, or a specific culture, for their ignorance in naming plants, against the sought and fought for policy. It's just too much work to keep this up, these discussions about common names. I'm offended, often, by the comments about Americans and their poor choices of common names. I don't see that discussing it any more with MPF is going to get us anywhere. MPF admits his motivations are other than creating neutral informative articles, they are based on his desire to teach Americans, no one else, the proper use of Brittish, none other, common names for plants. It is impacting other policy decisions, also, for example the choice of article title for the common choice of edible walnut. "Misleading" is pejorative, it implies there was some attempt to misinform. So, if it is used in the context of discussing a common name, it should be used with a reference that indicates that this was the purpose of the common name, an attempt to misinform others about the true nature of the plant. It the common name, however, was chosen because those who use it saw a superficial similarity, then the name is not misleading. If the name was chosen because some were mistaken about its botanical relationships, then it was a mistake, not an attempt to mislead, and this information, referenced to its source can be provided in the article.
But if it is solely for the purpose of educating ignorant Americans about proper Brittish common name usage, the results are going to be what we have: offended Americans and biased articles. Why don't we just educate all users about all common names, their relationships to the botanical classification of the plant, the degree of their usage, the timing of their usage, and their etymology, instead? KP Botany 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Imho an article which is headed by its botanica name, followed by a section on usual common names, relationships, the degree of their usage, the timing of their usage, and their etymology, including the names given in major languages in its native area (such as Spanish names for plants native in Mexico), sounds like a neutral idea. TeunSpaans 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plants barnstar

There has recently been created a barnstar or wikipedia award for fauna. There is as of yet no such similar barnstar for flora. I'd make one myself if my own graphic abilities extended beyond stick figures. If any members of this project would have an interest in helping to create such an award, it should be listed at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals. I hope to be seeing a proposal there shortly. Badbilltucker 16:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] APG and taxoboxes

I think the current situation with using APG labels in a Linnaean hierarchial taxobox is neither tolerable nor accurate. I suggest we just add rows to the bottom, as many as necessary, for Angiosperms, giving them strict Linaean hierarchial classifications from Cronquist or whomever, clearly labelling whose systems is used, then add the APG to the bottom:

As an example, the current taxobox on the right and the suggested changes on the left, I don't know how to make it look like a taxobox, without making it one:

Trochodendron aralioides
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae Division: Magnoliophyta Class: Mangnoliopsida Order: Trochodendrales Family: Trochodendraceae Prantl Genus: Trochodendron Siebold & Zucc. Species: T. aralioides
Binomial name
Trochodendron aralioides Siebold & Zucc.

| color = lightgreen
| name = Trochodendron aralioides
| image = Trochodendron-aralioides-flowers.JPG
| image_width = 240px | Scientific Classification (Cronquist)
| regnum = Plantae
| divisio = Magnoliophyta
| classis = Mangnoliopsida
| ordo = Trochodendrales
| familia = Trochodendraceae Prantl
| genus = Trochodendron Siebold & Zucc.
| species = T. aralioides
| binomial = Trochodendron aralioides
| binomial_authority = Siebold & Zucc.
| APG Clade 1 = Angiosperm
| Clade 2 = eudicot
| Family = Trochodendraceae
| binomial = Trochodendron aralioides
| binomial_authority = Siebold & Zucc.

All that needed to be added are enough lines to add that particular information, up to 3 (max 4 I think) containing clades, the top one always being APG Clade 1 Angiosperms, and the particular system chosen either beside or directly under the Scientific Classification. If there is an order it would be Order =, not Clade, same with Family, other APG groups are just clades. Binomial and athority could be included only once, or twice if needed. We can't keep using APG classifications mixed with the Linnaean, though. It's incorrect. KP Botany 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would just ditch any part of a taxobox that is at all difficult, replace with a "see text" with the explanation. Taxobox is supposed to be a convenience and a quick summary; adding more fields makes it harder for nonspecialists to make sense of it all, and of course there is no room to explain why this link and not that one. I assume that "Trochodendron aralioides" doesn't change based on one's favored system of the day, and presumably we all still agree that it's a plant (right? right? please don't tell me there's new research showing saurians to be basal to angiosperms :-) ), so it's really a matter of moving the in-between material to the article proper, or better to the clades' articles so that the mysteries of rosacean placement can fill up the family article where people who care will read about it, while readers just interested in apples can carefully avoid clicking on those links. Stan 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is mixing the two actually incorrect? I was under the impression that APG didn't list kingdoms and divisions so that it could be used with any other system for plants, rather than because it shouldn't. I can see omitting the classes, but the clade of angiosperms is going to show up in any ranked system we adopt for plants as a whole, and I don't understand the advantage of double-lising it. This is especially true for families and orders, where the taxoboxes follow APG (or extended APG systems for a few groups like Trochodendraceae) to begin with. Josh

Brya contended that mixing them constituted original research, but as I pointed out elsewhere, there is no single reference that provides a classification of any substantial number of organisms from species to kingdom, so some combination is necessary. I only see an issue when combining APG taxa with other taxa that are necessarily incompatible, such as Magnoliopsida (dicots).--Curtis Clark 04:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is they are already mixed or confused, the APG and classical systems of plant taxonomy. This article, the one on Trochondendron implies that the APG ranking system is the current one favored (with this strong unsourced statement, but I assume APG II: "genetic research by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group has shown it to be in a less basal position (early in the eudicots), suggesting the absence of vessel elements is a secondarily evolved character, not a primitive one"). Yet the taxobox shows the Cronquist (I believe) Linnaean taxonomy, and nothing in the article clarifies that Trochodendrales is not an accepted order in APG II, and that under APG II it should be: angiosperms, eudicots, Trochondendraceae. It doesn't matter that there is no single system, one can simply use Cronquist or Reveal or Takhtajan or Thorne, and list what is used. Mixing these systems is original research, though, when not mixed by an author in print, and implying that the plant is classified in the taxobox according to APG II by strong statements in the text, when it is Cronquist is misleading to the user. All I ask is that we be able to add these bits of information:

1. the system of classifation by author in the taxobox, and
2. the APG II classification to the bottom.

KP Botany 04:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But why is it important to make it longer by adding multiple systems, rather than shorter, by removing the ranks for which there is no consensus? Stan 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In this particular example there are no ranks for which "there is no consensus" so there are none to remove. There is consensus for the Cronquist, in the latest Takhtajan and Reveal, and there is consensus for the APG II. KP Botany 13:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Mixing these systems is original research"—Take the Cronquist system as an example: it includes only a sampling of genera and few species. I can look up a species in a local flora and find that it is in the Verbenaceae, but that is no assurance that Cronquist would have put it there had he gone down to the level of genera or species. So some mixing of systems is implicit in almost every taxobox. Admittedly mixing APG and Cronquist is more extreme, but it's a difference in degree, not in kind.--Curtis Clark 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Antirrhinum
Snapdragon
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae Division: Magnoliophyta Family: See text. Genus: Antirrhinum L.
Species
[...]

If you step away from the idea that the taxobox must present every clade or rank imaginable, this whole problem goes away, and taxoboxes get simpler. For instance, in fauna-land, the "in-between" ranks such as infraclasses are generally discouraged, because even the ones that have consensus clutter up the boxes to where it's harder to pick out the key groupings. Taxobox is supposed to be a quickie summary, and there is just no simple way to correctly describe things like the current scrophie/plantagie situation. So, take it out. I've included an example here - as you can see, the earth has not opened up and swallowed WP whole. :-) Stan 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not welded to any particular method, I'm simply against implying things that aren't so, and yes, that's a good solution of a sort and practical in many ways, just removing the unecessary. But it doesn't answer to what is going on in plant systematics today, two basically competing systems of classifications, with taxoboxes designed to only display one. It simply addressed one of the two difficulties in a way. Curtis, I see your point as it's an obvious one that escaped me in my focus on the APG versus Linnean thinking, but doesn't it just show the need to list which authority is used for any classification in the taxobox? KP Botany 16:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And it raises another issue that is currently not resolvable among Wikipedia botany editors: which system should we put in the taxobox, the Linnean (whether Conquist or Thorne or whomever), or the APG II? Should it be systematic which we choose, and what is the reason for choosing. My suggestion of including both, does away with this discussion or irregularity potentiality. KP Botany 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You still have to have the discussion in the text, or link to where the discussion is. One of the things that people didn't really think through back in WP prehistory is that including all the higher-order groups in *every* *single* article makes for horrendous maintenance problems - people not working in science tend to view the scheme as mostly unchanged since Linnaeus, save for the addition of some new taxa, and they didn't consider that there might be multiple competing systems that would simply not fit into the rather rigid taxobox design. Since the whole classification churn is really not of that much interest or value to general readers, we need to do two things, a) let them know there *is* churn without pushing the details into their faces (that's what a "see text" says to readers), and b) give the 1% of interested readers a link to follow to get to the full story. Stan 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reset indent I don't quite follow what your point is. Yes, I realize that one must have discussion in the text, in my example, that is the biggest fault, not issues with the taxobox or the implication that it is APG II, just serious lack of any discussion in the text. It doesn't hurt to emphasize this point, though, imo. This overloaded higher order ranks are more of a problem in things like vertrebates, though, than in plants, where everything seems to go to tribes. I'm not sure what you are saying or suggesting though? KP Botany 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the options for taxobox higher groups as the inclusion of groups for 0, 1, or 2 systems. 1 is the best (if we can agree on which 1), 0 is next-best. 0 has the advantage that taxoboxes will never again need updating as higher ranks move around, which is a work savings to consider. Stan 15:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Trochodendron aralioides
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae Division: Magnoliophyta (unranked) Eudicots Family: Trochodendraceae Prantl Genus: Trochodendron Siebold & Zucc. Species: T. aralioides
Binomial name
Trochodendron aralioides Siebold & Zucc.

The problem is there aren't two basically competing classifications. APG II uses orders and families, it simply doesn't recognize any of the larger clades. There are several other classifications like Cronquist, Dahlgren, Takhtajan, etc, and some of them are also meant to represent phylogeny. We've managed to choose APG II as the best option; having to pick the two best instead isn't necesarily going to make things easier, and it promotes a misleading dichotomy.

For plants, I think all we have to do is clean out the non-APG groups, as in the taxobox at right. The class and order aren't part of APG II, so they're removed. Magnoliophyta is kept as part of the general system of dividing plants; it doesn't strike me as original research any more than kingdom Plantae. Is this really so bad? Josh

Only APG II in taxoboxes would be OK with me. Stan 15:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

UNINDENT However, APG II is not what is currently used by everyone. Have we voted out the work of Cronquist, Thorne, et al., when these are still extensively present in textbooks and other sources? If so, we should have a place explaining this, with the supporting evidence. And then, what if users have to look up information that is present in millions of books today that use other systems, where and how will that be placed in articles for the users to find? I think simply adding a few lines of APG II gets us away from having to support a wholesale adoption of this system while plenty of existing sources support other systems. And I don't think we can realistically use APG II only without supporting our choice. KP Botany 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And we'd have to explain on each page, why the Linnean taxonomic system is not used in the taxobox while it is used in taxoboxes on the animal pages, and probably include this explanation on the taxobox page for users. KP Botany 19:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile the APG II system is becoming more outdated with every year that passes since its publication, one reason why I've protested its adoption by Wikipedia. The APG II system is useful and seems to have gotten broad acceptance, but as with the Cronquist and other systems before it, few systematists have accepted it wholesale; in particular the specialists working on a particular group of flowering plants are more likely to differ from the APG II classification for their own group. As an example, today I got to wondering why there was an article placing Hesperocallis in an article titled Hesperocallidaceae while this genus was included in the list of genera in the Agavaceae article. I did some checking and found that the APG II system accepts the family Hesperocallidaceae as an optional segregate from Asparagaceae but research published since APG II places Hesperocallis in Agavaceae. Who do we follow? If Wikipedia follows APG II, Hesperocallis is in either Asparagaceae or Hesperocallidaceae; those are the only two options available, but given new data it makes no sense to place the genus in either family. I solved the problem by moving the Hesperocallidaceae article to Hesperocallis, where I discussed the problematic family placement, and left the genus in the list at Agavaceae with a brief explanation. MrDarwin 20:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving things around based on new research is normal and expected, happens all over ToL - none of the systems are a suicide pact that we have to follow down into error. I'm no authority of my own, so I just have to write down what the authorities say and try not to inject my own opinions too much. In answer to KP Botany, it would be easy to add a modified template to link to our excellent (ahem) article on plant taxonomy that explains why things are not so simple. The hazard of the taxobox format is that it gives the appearance of simplicity and accuracy - while this is achievable (usually :) ) for things like a species author, not so for higher clades. Two sets of non-consenus systems is not an improvement, because that's more false precision, not less. If there's no system that people want to support as a default, then let's start pruning taxoboxes to contain only consensus groupings. Stan 16:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My God! That's our Plant Taxonomy article? It's no wonder we can't reach consensus when not a single one of us has made plant taxonomy an area of study. I'm fine with prune if that's the consensus, but it doesn't answer the underlying issue: which do we prune to the morphological or APG II? MrDarwin, I think that APG II will prove robust in the long run (except I suspect they're wrong on something), but it's one single research effort, the same drawback as all the others, in an incredibly dynamic field that never reached broad consensus in the first place. KP Botany 19:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee, yes, although I think we have some better discussion of systematics scattered across other articles. If one of you experts doesn't do something about it, you risk me picking a random textbook from the UNLV and writing from a very limited understanding... Stan 18:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topic:Paleontology

Hello at Wikiversity there is a disipline in development on palaeontology that needs help. The courses could help with te development of articles on wikipedia so it is a long term program. Interested people can go to this URL: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Topic:Paleontology#Content_summary Thanks for reading Enlil Ninlil 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maple

I was wondering if you guys can help point out what things I need to do in order to make it an FA. I made FA's before, but I do not know anything about trees or what is needed in a science article. Thanks in advance. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should ask that. This summer, I tried to work on it, and my pathetic work is at User:Circeus/Maple. It does include a lengthy list of references, though, that might prove useful. Circeus 14:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Sundew as well if you're interested in bringing articles to FA status. It's very close to being a featured article. It has had a peer review and was once a featured article candidate, but was turned down. NoahElhardt completed all the suggested fixes, but further suggestions were not provided once those were completed. I don't know what it would take to get it there. If you could look it over, those of us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnivorous plants would appreciate any input. :-) --Rkitko 09:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for species

I noticed that each article on Trillium species have this template:

Species of Trillium

Trillium albidum | Trillium angustipetalum | Trillium catesbaei (Bashful Wake Robin | Trillium cernuum | Trillium chloropetalum (Giant Wake Robin) | Trillium cuneatum (Little sweet Betsy) | Trillium decipiens | Trillium decumbens | Trillium discolor (Faded Trillium ) | Trillium erectum (Wake Robin) | Trillium flexipes (Bent Trillium) | Trillium foetidissimum | Trillium govanianum (Himalayan Trillium) | Trillium gracile | Trillium grandiflorum (Large-flowered Trillium) | Trillium kamtschaticum | Trillium kurabayashii | Trillium lancifolium | Trillium ludovicianum | Trillium luteum (Yellow Wake Robin | Trillium maculatum | Trillium nivale (Klamath Trillium) | Trillium ovatum (Western Wake Robin) | Trillium parviflorum | Trillium persistens (Persistent Trillium) | Trillium petiolatum (Roundleaf Trillium) | Trillium pusillum | Trillium recurvatum | Trillium reliquum | Trillium rivale | Trillium rugelii (Southern Nodding Trillium) | Trillium sessile | Trillium simile (Jeweled Wake Robin) | Trillium smallii | Trillium stamineum | Trillium sulcatum | Trillium texanum | Trillium tschonoskii | Trillium underwoodii | Trillium undulatum (Painted Trillium) | Trillium vaseyi | Trillium viride | Trillium viridescens (Ozark Trillium) |

Is this against our standards? I mean, usually the navigation is done via the taxobox, as in many cases having such a template is not practical. Should I nominate it for TfD? bogdan 10:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My thought is this fine even useful when species are moved around taxonomically though it would be unworkable for a genus like Eucalyptus with 700+ species. My only dislike is the use of common naames. Gnangarra 11:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that it's better to make a category instead. bogdan 11:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not much different from the whole lists vs. categories discussion that is very present on Wiki. Generally, though, I'm not sure such a template is necessary, see also Template:Nepenthes. I think a category would be helpful to keep track of these. Circeus 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates are useful when they give a different information than the categories. For example, the categories sort the articles alphabetically, while it might be useful to have articles in a chronological order (or any other organization which would be useful for the reader). But for plants, this is simply a duplication of the categories. bogdan 09:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while this comment applies to Template:Nepenthes, we don't have a category:Trillium (and quite many genera will never have categories), so this argument is moot as far as {{TrilliumSpecies}} is concerned. Circeus 13:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was cleaning up the categories when I noticed this template. :-) bogdan 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I like a uniform appearance; this is impractical for large genera like rhododendrom. There for I'd say that the taxobox-genus entry or a category is a better solution. TeunSpaans 07:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "very large genera" usually have their species listed in a "List of Fooia species", such as List of Acer species or List of Maxillaria species. Circeus 13:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

...and of course, the List of Euphorbia species (over 2000 species!) bogdan 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the template isn't too long (removing commmon names would fix that in this case), such templates can actually be useful. True, Template:Nepenthes displays the same information as Category:Nepenthes, List of Nepenthes species and, in another form, Nepenthes classification. However, the template displays the entire list in a compact format on each species page, so that navigating to another species takes only one click, rather than the multiple that navigating to and from the other lists would require. I'm all for keeping the templates in genera where a significant number of species have their own pages.--NoahElhardt 18:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit biased toward a system closer to what WikiProject Banksia has implemented (simplified classification in all articles), but I suspect that the classification of Nepenthes is not detailed enough fro that to be practical. And there are far more Banksia species than Nepenthes. See also Template:Heliamphora.Circeus 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the Nepenthese template to be attractive and useful--it prints out nicely, and I gave one to my Aunt, laminated, as a book mark with an image on the back side. In addition to printing out attractively for cheap presents for carnivorous plant nerds, er afficianados, it meets all Noah claims it meets: "the template displays the entire list in a compact format on each species page, so that navigating to another species takes only one click, rather than the multiple that navigating to and from the other lists would require." If a template adds functional utility to Wikipedia it should stay. I think it simply has to be done on a case-by-case basis. KP Botany 19:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is nice too, but I'm not totally convinced of the need for the list of species to be so much repeated. The fact it can be hidden is a nice touch, though. Circeus 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese herbalism

An anonymous user, User:74.129.247.48, has added "Chinese herbalism" content to taxoboxes in several articles--see Juglans regia, Aralia chinensis, garlic, etc. As far as I know this addition to taxoboxes has not been discussed by other editors, and as added is rather unhelpful. MrDarwin 14:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Stylistically, it is discordant, with its ALL-CAPS SETTING.
2. There's no link to an explanation; as it stands, one has to know a modicum of Chinese herbalism to even interpret it.
3. I'd argue that it surpasses the rationale for a taxobox, but then I think conservation status already does that.
4. In the context of a taxobox, it's POV, since no other herbal traditions are included, and including them all would overwhelm the box.

I think if this sort of thing needs to be presented outside of the text, it needs its own box.--Curtis Clark 15:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it have an authoritative source? No? Then just delete it. Not to mention Chinese herbalism doesn't have anything to do with taxonomy, so taxobox can't possibly be the right place anyway. Stan 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a topic like this should probably be on wikibooks rather than wp... too much long-hand explanation is needed. I'll leave a note for the user, hopefully it's not a proxy. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need a book about it, just a single article, there probably is one already, and then specific references from specific works in the articles. KP Botany 19:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese herbology--Curtis Clark 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fern classification

I've just made a major edit to the classification section of ther fern article, as well as a few of the fern family and genus articles, to reflect the proposed classification of Smith et al. 2006. While quite new and a major departure from some other classifications, in many respects this is the fern version of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification, as it is authored by several respected pteridologists and is based on numerous molecular systematic studies supplemented by morphological data. Most importantly, it is a referenced and verifiable classification linked to a publshed paper that can be consulted for further information, unlike the rather mysterious one that was used previously. The classification section of this article still needs major work, but I hope this will provide a framework, and encourage other editors to go to the various fern articles and update their classifications. MrDarwin 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll read the AJB article. I just got the Natural History of Ferns but am too busy with my art work right now to read much. Good book, much funner to read than my textbooks. KP Botany 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

One additional note: the Smith et al. 2006 classification does not recognize any named taxa above the rank of class, so it may be tricky to accommodate in taxoboxes. For the most part I've avoided editing taxoboxes, especially at the higher ranks--not my cup of tea, so I'll leave that to others. But in looking through the various fern and "pteridophyte" articles and taxoboxes I've found quite a bit of inconsistency in classification, with the text and taxoboxes in numerous articles contradicting each other. These articles need massive cleanup. MrDarwin 14:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

All the botany taxoboxes need massive cleanup. This is why I keep trying to gain some consensus on how to go about, but continually get sidetracked. Thanks for the warning. KP Botany 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The only taxon above the rank of class that is routinely of concern is that of division, so if we put the ferns (and Psilotaceae?) into the Pteridophyta, the problem is moot. The only tricky bit comes in placing the Equisetaceae and some extinct taxa, such as the Ibykales, Stauropteridales, etc., but most of these groups don't have articles here yet. In any case, I wholly agree with following the proposed classification. I know Smith and Pryer personally and have been eagerly awaiting the publication of a fern phylogeny based on total evidence. Pryer and Wolfe are both amazing when it coes to molecular work and its interpretation, while Smith has long been one of the top workers in issues of fern morphology and taxonomy. Their work will have been both careful and thorough. Besides which, it is published as you say, rather than coming from the ether as the previous classification. One note: I have moved the Marsileales article to Salviniales to match current priority as described in the aforementioned article, and have given the Marsileaceae page a much needed expansion from stub status. --EncycloPetey 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)0

Plants folks, I would like to see some acknowledgement of Ricardo Carneiro Pires for his tireless work maintaining the hotlist of missing plants in a usable format, including redirects from common names and other detail work that makes our whole area less of a mess than it could be, a group barn star would be a good idea, also. Comments? KP Botany 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image quality project on commons?

See commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Image_quality_issues. I'm interested in getting some cleanup done on commons in order to make it easier to find high quality images for plant articles... there are a lot of images that really aren't "up to snuff", and it can be an excersize in frustration when you have to go through 10 blurry or otherwise problematic images in order to find 1 good one. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons can be a bit hostile to folks doing clean-up. The Flora of California page, for example, has a lowly 40 or 50 contributions, in spite of hundreds of images of California plants being on the database. When I attempted to add some of these stray images to the page, finding dozens of excellent images by various contributors that could be added to assist others in finding the plants, I met an aggressive administrator who made it rudely clear in multiple languages that I had no right to do this. I would be disinclined to send anyone to Commons to do the necessary clean-up work while this attitude is prevalent. It simply is not wanted. KP Botany 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Who did that? Help is wanted, though I admit odd tussles happen occaisionally. Did you talk to anyone about it? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Talked until I was blue in the face, with no resolution. It was an incredibly frustrating experience, one in a long line of many at Wikicommons, where I would like to upload pictures galore. But the bottom line is there is nothing they can or are willing to do to prevent it from happening again. So, I spent 4 hours categorizing pictures, after spending two months trying to figure out how to do it (although they did change the name of the tab to make sense), then got verbally battered by someone who felt that there might wind up being 100s of pictures in the Flora of California category if I kept adding them. Hundreds of pictures in a state with a few thousand native plants? It is likely to happen to others who see the difference between the hundreds of pictures of California native plants, and the Flora of California category with about 50 plants, and think they might do something about it, and foolishly start categorizing uncategorized pictures. Most of the users over there seem to have niches--they want pictures (and not just their pictures, the image that created the mess wasn't by me or the guy who was fighting me tooth and nail to keep it out of Flora of California) to be categorized only one way, and new users to Commons don't realize these battles exist, or that there are multiple ways of finding and categorizing pictures, and that certain users only do it one way or the other, and these new users come in and look for pictures and find nothing, or don't find what they want because images can't be categorized without wounding people's rigorous ideas of the only way they should be categorized.

It's not really fair to ask the uninitiated to go to Commons and categorize, which, yes, desperately needs to be done, when doing so may wind up causing them to step on someone's foot and get attacked for it. Commons needs to fix what's broken for it to be useful. Until then, it's not safe. KP Botany 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the "category thing". Yep, they've got issues with that (I should say "we" actually). So far as I understand it, the preference is for creating "articles" (which have galleries of pictures for a particular species), and then categorizing the articles, rather than the images. It's not a policy, but yes, people apparently have sore toes which are somehow difficult not to step on.

What I had in mind was something more like this page, which would be categorized like a wikipedia article (Category:Oleaceae. There is a TOL project on commons too, where you might find an English speaker to explain it better. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 02:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's very nice!--Curtis Clark 05:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

KP Botany ran into a commons-specific phenomenon where the editor / culture ratio is so low that it's very difficult to develop anything like consensus - there are so few people doing anything other than uploading that an organizational idea is developed by one or two people, then upended by a third person, then re-upended a few weeks later by a fourth person. The right solution is to have more WP editors get involved with commons, not to avoid it - uploading only to en: just results in duplicates as people copy the images around (the best case was where one of my images was uploaded to commons from Finnish WP under a new name, having for some mysterious reason been copied there from commons). Stan 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. That's not going to get any better until more people hang out there. A ToL-specific MoS would actually be a good thing, but the problem is that it's not actually written down anywhere (thinking back, I think I ran into the very same thing on commons when I first arrived there). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that was one of the two-people decisions that got overturned. Since people regularly move images to commons but not the other way, it's only going to get bigger over time, and it behooves us not to concede it to the most stubborn. Stan 15:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Johnny, the sample page you provided is very useful. Stan, as you've seen I can be pretty stubborn, but the Commons stompers are ferocious--and I often am not completely vested in a method, so much as agreement upon a method. I think that is the issue at Commons, there are just too few administrators/editors, and also those few have definite ideas how things should be. Probably the latest attack was just a function of who was there that week. Still, I don't see how to get around the problem of any work done on Commons being attacked by a guarding admin/editor who disagrees with what you are doing. I liked the results of categorizing the California species so much that I rescheduled my work week to have half a day each week just to do that--and it was a monumental waste of effort. If we attempt anything useful at Commons, will this be the result? Being attacked by other editors and wasting our time? I don't see how the work can be done without disaster. Yes, I agree that maybe a critical mass of editors will change things, but until that critical mass is reached, it seems unlikely it ever will be reached..... KP Botany 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(reset tabs) - It's not really a problem with there not being administrators, just a different culture that's badly underpopulated in the ToL end of things. Personaly I'm hoping to start doing redirects as well to the "article" pages in the hopes of making the search button more useful. The problem with categories there has a long history, and actually stems from the Wikipedian "unwritten rule" about keeping category pages under 200. There's some sense to it, but it needs to be discussed and clearly laid out in some standard way.

There is a problem with administrators if he was actually deleting pages in a content/structure dispute... I'll look into that if you like, and undelete if appropriate. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources of dispute is what commons is supposed to be. Is it like a giant shoebox of photos that only hardcore editors ever thumb through, or should it do more? About the only viewpoint that has general agreement is that it's a shoebox. So if you want to build a visual guide or index today, it's going to be harder to do it on commons. While shorter guides would make sense on WP, what would be really cool is some full-length plant field guides on wikibooks. Stan 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to see full-length plant field guides on wikibooks. Would everyone please read my post in the section above? KP Botany 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some sorting of images needs to occur and that articles/galleries is the best way to do this. What I concerned with is that this will become a deletion policy as the discussions at commons already allude too. How many articles have you contributed to that would have benefitted from an image that wasn't taken yesterday? Gnangarra 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean with that last question, but I often used images taken before by others to write articles. TeunSpaans 06:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not following the question Gnangarra asks. I don't generally contribute to articles based on images. My photographs are guided by project I'm working on in real life that doesn't overall reflect my research strengths and interests at Wikipedia. KP Botany 20:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My appologies for confusing I see the images of Commons as a resource that with time should accumulate media on any/every subject, and that over time this collection's value will be the time span of the collection not the quality of the individual items within. The proposal being discussed has a deletion component based on image quality, the question asked is intended as philosophical. In that while there is obvious reason to use the best available images for articles, saying an image is no longer of the ideal quality it should be deleted ignores the good faith uploading of the image and dimishes Commons as a historical resource. Hence I challenge editors to think beyond whats created today/viewed today to how an editor in 5,10,15,50 years will marvel at foresight of this community to accumulate, retain and provide for the future. As such I'll ask again have you edited an article where an image from 5,10,15,50 years ago would have been a wonderful enhancement, or maybe I should just ask would you destroy a painting because its old, or the technique used is no longer used. My thoughts are that this proposals current form has a negative impact that shouldn't be acceptable. Gnangarra 15:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(reset tabs)While appreciate the concern, the possible deletion I was thinking of was only for really troublesome images. I kind of regret even bringing up the possibility, since "organizing" the pages does the job just as well. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Wikipedia as the place to shoebox all pictures. If it's a blurry out-of-focus image, it doesn't need to be kept forever. Yes, really troublesome images abound. Oh, fun, CNN.com[1] has an article about Rafflesia with an image of Amorphophallus titanum and a caption calling it Rafflesia. I sent them an e-mail, but before I read the article, and realized at least the article is really about Rafflesia. KP Botany 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the CNN goof, too. It looks like they've taken the offending photo down. I've mailed them, too, every once in a while about blatant errors. This one is forgivable, though perhaps we should suggest that the editors watch a section or two of The Private Life of Plants (particularly, Flowering). ;-) --Rkitko 04:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title problem

I'd like to start an article on candy cap mushrooms, aka curry milkcaps. The problem is that Wikipedia convention is to use the scientific name as the article title, and there are three closely-related species – Lactarius camphoratus, L. fragilis, and L. rubidus – that all go by the same common names ("candy cap" or "curry milkcap"). Titling the article "Lactarius" won't do, since this is a genus with hundreds of species, most of which are not "candy caps". I'm not sure if there's a named section or stirps which stands as a collective name for all three species.

What to do? The three species are similar enough that they really should be treated under one article, but what to call the article? "Candy cap" violates the rule against using common names for non-agricultural plant and fungal species. "Lactarius camphoratus" (or one of the other two species names) excludes the other two species. I was thinking of "Lactarius camphoratus and allies", but I'm not sure how well that fits in with naming conventions.

Ideas? Peter G Werner 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Japanese wiki article says that Lactarius camphoratus is in "Sect. Russulares". bogdan 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No idea. You could name it after one and redirect all the others to it. Someone more experienced needs to input here. KP Botany 22:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think using a common name is the most feasible option in this case, several fungi articles are known by common names already. Amanita phalloides is under Death cap and Destroying angel covers Amanita virosa and A. bisporiga.

I'd say fungi are a special case distinct from plants as there is a much higher percentage of species complexes and similar taxa which are indistinguishable without the use of a microscope, thus the use of a common name for a group of species. Furthermore, fungi aren't plants so as I am writing this I am musing on copying this to Wikiproject fungi and leaving it there as a rule to vote on. Wikiproject birds prefers common names to scientific names for article headings. cheers Cas Liber 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do copy, maybe Wikiproject fungi already has a policy on common name usage. Although I never learned that fungi were plants, fungi have always been part of the botany curiculum and their names are under the botanical code, however, as this is Wikipedia, and there is a project for fungi, that would be the place for the best answer. KP Botany 22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest Candy cap, with redirects from the three species names. If at some point any of the species warrants its own article, it can be substituted for the redirect.--Curtis Clark 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I started Wikiproject Fungi, but we have no specific naming policy. So I've just been following the naming policy used here. Titling the article "Candy cap" with redirects from the species names sounds like the best solution, and consistent with the way the Destroying angel species complex was treated. (On the other hand, Death cap only refers to Amanita phalloides, and I'm not sure if that article title shouldn't carry the scientific name.) As for using Lactarius sectional names, that's still too broad of a category. If the three species do make up a named taxon, its probably at the "stirps" or "series" level – I haven't had a chance to look that up yet. Peter G Werner 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You could always make a common name disambiguation page, something like this one I reorganized a while ago - including links to all the relevant species pages. Its probably a neater solution that writing an article about four or five things that all share a common name. --Peta 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you're missing the point. These three species are very similar and quite closely related, and with identical culinary uses. Three separate articles would be uncalled for. The precise taxonomic differences between the three could easily be worked into the article. Peter G Werner 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an example where you could make a good case for using the common name as the article title, then discussing the various species that go by that common name within the article, especially if they are similar in appearance and use and closely related, as you indicate. Most taxonomic articles are not at the point where each and every species in a genus merits its own detailed article (but I would suggest making sure that there is a link from the genus article). MrDarwin 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's useful to discuss things before taking steps, as you have done, Peter. In this case, it seems you know enough about the species concerned to judge that a single article with the common name is the appropriate way to go. If there is future discussion about the choice of article title, just refer to this discussion. Thanks. I look forwarding to learning about these mushrooms with the cute name. KP Botany 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There's now a discussion of article naming policy for fungi at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi#Fungal_article_headings. Peter G Werner 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer reviews requested

Here are a list of plant articles that have been pointed out to me that are in desperate need of work. I would appreciate some suggestions for how to go about it. I also would like some guidelines about the general format. What about SB Johnny's suggested template? Can anyone adopt a taxon? I'm researching Fabales, but it's rather large.

• Betulaceae
• Boraginaceae (No apomorphies/characteristics described)
• Cannabaceae (This one is ridiculous!)
• Crassulaceae (No gereral characteristics/apomorpies described)
• Cucurbitaceae (Too short for such an economically important family)
• Cyperaceae (No photos, no apomrphies... Nothing!)
• Fabaceae (No description, we need a picture to describe the flower of Faboideae -I could take it if it wasn't winter!-; Papilionaceae redirects to Fabaceae, shouldn't it redirect to Faboidea?)
• Fagaceae (No apomorphies)
• Malvaceae (Edit war about taxonomy, needs to be rewritten, more about morphology)
• Polygonaceae (No apomorphies described, no pictures)
• Rosaceae (Much about taxonomy but no apomorphies/characteristics)
• Rubiaceae
• Salicaceae (Ok, it's always like that: no apomorphies, no general characteristics, no photos...)
• Scrophulariaceae
• Violaceae (is this an article or a stub?)
• Urticaceae

KP Botany 19:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I'd like to see is mention of the one or two leading monographs for each family, so I can make up my Amazon shopping list. 1/2 :-) Then just summarize what they say. The problem I've always had with these is lack of source material - there are lots of people that mention Crassulaceae, say, but not so many that say what defines it. Anderson's The Cactus Family is an example of the perfect kind of source for WP, being both authoritative and accessible to nonspecialists, but I gather that most plant families are not similarly graced - or are they? Stan 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the best things about group thinks, imo, when other people say things so obvious it should have been in my mind, but wasn't. Yes, all the family articles and genera articles, and if they have them, species articles, should list the major monographs. Many science articles should. Not just in references, but in the article text with a discussion putting them in the context of current research. Some of them are just so big, and some of them I don't know. For Geraniaceae there is a major set of 3 books on the Pelargonia, maybe with Geranium, I don't remember, that should be listed--it would be appropriate to mention in the family article, even if it is on the genus. Baldwin's (or whoever's) CNPS paper on Scrophulariaceae should be mentioned in that article. I don't know the others off-hand. I've added a section on just what the articles should include. KP Botany 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note I forgot to add, many of these are being worked on by Aelwyn who speaks English as a second language, so please add some of them to your watch-lists as a courtesy and correct the English where necessary. It's understandable, although some awkward word choices. The botany is fine. KP Botany 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much KP Botany! I hope my clumsy English doesn't make my contributions more troublesome than useful! If so, please let me know. Enough information to make Angiosperm articles at least decent can be found on the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. I'm focusing on plant family articles at the moment, I'm going to work on the bold articles in the list. Aelwyn 13:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see whether I have time to help out with some of these in the coming months. The biggest problem with writing a family article is that most people and most books are familiar only with the members of a family that grow in their country or region. The second biggest problem is the constantly shifting definition of what gets included in the group - you'll have a hard time getting a good Scrophulariaceae article because it's definition was never good; it's been realized that the old defition was not even remotely monophyletic, and the new version has very few good descriptions available. --EncycloPetey 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Scrophs? I know someone who works on Scrophs, and he doesn't seem to have a good definiton of what a Scroph is any more :) Guettarda 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that the Scrophs article is terrible might just be a reflection that the situation in the family is complex. Let's start with Olmstead's (not Baldwin's, and I always transpose their names) CNPS article[2] for the Scrophulariaceae and, unless an expert jumps up, just assume some serious group work and talk page discussions will have to be had? For this article, please post links to all of your sources on the talk page as you are working, rather than waiting to post as references if you use them. I do know someone who works on the monkey flowers (now Phrymaceae) and could ask her what she thinks we should use, if any particular resources. KP Botany 20:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The articles should include (not in any particular order)

1. Mention and context of one or two major monographs on the family.
2. Apomorphies that distinguish the plant family within its order and within angiosperms.
3. Description of habit, branching, phyllotaxy, leaf morphology, flower sex (perfect, imperfect, #houses), overall morphology, whorl descriptions, apomorphies of seed if applicable, fruit.

[edit] Lepidoptera mentions in articles

Discussion from Plant article:

Is it really appropriate for so many plant pages ( genus usually ) to have an account of the Lepidoptera that feed on it? No doubt this information is useful to someone studying butterflies and moths, and it is certainly relevant to include it under those butterfly and moth articles. I'm questioning whether it is of any interest for most plant articles to include the information that a particular species of moth, often with a wide range of food stuffs, has been known to feed on it? Imc 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Often a plant and a butterfly will have a co-evolutionary history. When this is the case, it is not appropriate to omit the butterfly from the plant's page, as the relationship between the two impacted and impacts the evolution of both plant and animal. An obvious example is the relationship between swallowtail butterflies and their pipevine host plants, which contain aristolochic acids that the swallowtails sequestor in their tissues to deter predation. The plants may have fewer herbivores because of a particular secondary metabolite that the herbivore has developed a tolerance mechanism for, and the herbivore may have less competition for the plant's food resources (as with certain insects that feed on members of the Brassicaceae) due to the presence of this chemical or molecule or system, and the herbivore may sequestor a toxic substance made by the plant that makes it unpalatable to predators. KP Botany 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accept that it is appropriate to include a herbivore (or pollinator, et.c) when there is a relevant connection to a botany article. If a connection is known, then it should be stated, otherwise why include the animal? Of course, such connections could extend across to many more animals than butterflies and moths; e.g. grasses and a distant connection with herbivore mammals, hummingbirds and their flowers, et.c. BTW, the Aristolochia article has no mention of any butterflies, and the Brassica article connects only to a list of moths, with no mention even of the common Cabbage White butterflies. This is one of the reasons that I raise this; the inclusions I've seen are limited to the Lepidoptera only, and I'm not sure that it includes all of them. Imc 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, that the article is incomplete? Lots on Wikipedia is. If the article is about a plant and it has no herbivorous pests, they should be included in the article. There's a lot of research done on lepidopterid pests as they do intensive crop damage and the research is funded by agricultural and government dollars, so these are common known, well-studied herbivores. In addition, Brassica is a major crop plant all over the world, so it is well-studied and its pests are intensely studied. I would argue that a moth is not listed just because it's known to feed on it, but rather because it lives in the same area and is known to be able to feed on it (not a given with Brassicaceae, not everything can eat 'em). I'm surprised the Cabbage White isn't listed, also, but I'll just add it. You can't assume it's purposefully not listed. If it's known to feed on it, it has been researched, and it's generally reportable, particularly with crops. Is there some particular article where you think it is superfluous information? KP Botany 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For an example of what I think is inappropriate in level of detail, look at Solanum. The information there is inappropriate at this level, since Solanum species are used as food plants by numerous animals, including many mammals, birds, and also many orders of insects, not just the Lepidoptera. That sentence, in its present isolation, implies that there is no other important grazer. It has nothing to say about evolutionary or other relationships, though of course these may be important. Imc 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, the article itself is so dreadful that singling out one sentence as inappropriate is meaningless imo. Solanum is a major crop plant and is one of the genera, as I said above, that is well-studied for its herbivorous pests because of its value in agriculture--thus the mention of lepidoptera as pests will be a major focus of much research on the genus. Thank you, however, for bringing it to my attention, namely just how crappy this particular article is. I will post it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants board to let folks need the article is in desperate need of attention. This is really more a function of it being a crummy article, then of this sentence being inappropriate, it simply has almost nothing to say about this hugely studied genus. I will start working on the article, and take this over there (to the talk wp plants board) also.KP Botany 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Obviously Solanum needs some serious work, also. It is probably better to start with the families, and I haven't looked at Solanaceae. I think that Imc makes a good point here. The mention of the lepidoptera pests stands out without context in this article, and possibly in others, but more because the article needs a lot of work, than because it is inappropriate to mention the herbivorous pests, and because there was no attempt to put the herbivory in contest, namely there are billions of butterfly species (as far as I can tell), and they do serious damage to crop plants, and have sneaky adaptations to doing that damage. I can add an older monographer later to the Solanaceae, is there anyone who can at least put this sentence in context over the next few days? Namely someone who already knows enough to update, I'd have to look up the pests a bit and am a bit slow in the reading/time department. KP Botany 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sycamine tree

Can something be done with the Sycamine tree article? (apparently it was mentioned in the Bible) --Montchav 14:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion

Another thing, could you make this page easie to find? Maybe put a link on top of Talk:Plant. --Montchav 14:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosopsida

I just wanted to bring this article to someone else's attention. I don't know enough about the taxonomy issues spoken about in this article and it appears this is one of the articles that Brya left behind full of POV (I've never seen an article self-reference to Wikipedia so much). Anyone care to help bring this article back under control? --Rkitko 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at it on my lunch hour. I agree it needs cleanup but it's not worth a whole lot of time as names at this rank are so unstable and not used at all in the APG II system. It's not POV so much as extremely awkward wording; Brya inserted variations on the phrase "Wikipedia has adopted the APG II system" into many Wikipedia articles; I've cleaned up such articles when I come across them, but there are many more still out there. MrDarwin 14:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I try to clean up as many as possible, found some by doing google searches, too. Still a lot out there that needs work. Thanks for the post, Rkitko. KP Botany 15:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, did the dirty deed. I removed a lot of information I felt was unnecessary, but also tried to make the article more informative by comparing "Rosopsida" to the classifications of Cronquist and APG II. MrDarwin 17:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It looks much better! Now, I don't pretend to understand taxonomy much above the level of family, but it looks like other wikis like the German Wikipedia (Dreifurchenpollen-Zweikeimblättrige) and the commons (Category:Rosopsida) use this taxon quite frequently. The German Wikipedia interwiki links even link back to several other language wiki articles on the eudicots. Why the prevalent use elsewhere? The reason this came to my attention is the Triggerplant article that I'm constantly working on. The German version, Schusspflanzen, and its commons page, Stylidium, include Rosopsida as the class, whereas I found the current en.wiki article taxonomy classification on several websites (mostly academic projects). Well, hell, let's just say I'm stumped and any input would be appreciated. --Rkitko 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick look and it seems they are emphasizing a classification system by Ehrendorfer, a German botanist whose system has apparently not been widely discussed or adopted outside of Germany--I haven't seen it, or until now even heard of it, myself. There are all kinds of classification systems, the Cronquist and APG II systems only being two of the more prominent (in the USA at least), but no two systems will be in agreement so when discussing a particular name it's always necessary to qualify whose sense of that name is being used. All classifications are opinions, as I've said many times before, and the only real way to be NPOV is to discuss the different ways in which particular taxa are circumscribed and names applied to them in the various systems. MrDarwin 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ehrendorfer? Isn't that F Ehrendorfer the Winteraceae researcher? He also does Caryophyllaceae, Rubiaceae and Brassicaceae off the top of my head. He's probably at least as well known as Reveal, probably better known than Reveal. I didn't know he had his own plant classification system, though. KP Botany 00:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There are so many different classification systems, it's impossible to keep track of them all. This is one reason why I've been skeptical of Wikipedia "adopting" the APG system--it's just one of many competing systems, and will be superseded by the next one to come along. One big advantage of the Cronquist system, with all its flaws, is that he explained it in detail, gave descriptions of all the taxa, and even discussed the things that didn't quite fit (and the misfit taxa are turning out to be the really interesting ones!). Too many other classifications are little more than lists or tables of names. MrDarwin 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't give much credence to the descriptions. I bought the book not too long after it came out, and it became readily apparent that the descriptions (1) weren't often parallel in construction, making it difficult to compare families, and (2) included only the most obvious synapomorphies (of course that wasn't Cronquist's intent, and he was pretty much an anti-cladist, but a synapomorphy is as good a diagnostic feature as any other). Perhaps in an uncharitable mood, I once said that the book was only useful for its nomenclatural information on families.

Not so much to brag but rather to indicate how ancient I am, I had several conversations with Cronquist (I may have been the last California botanist to see him alive), I know Bob Thorne reasonably well, and I've met Takhtajan, Dahlgren, and Reveal (as well as Peter Stevens, of course). Now where are my Geritol and Preparation H?

--Curtis Clark 04:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought Europeans use Takhtajan system more than the others, though, and, is it Thorne system that is broadly accepted for monocots? Still, yes, it's flawed. APG II has the advantage that it is not a system done by one person, and, like K----zi whatever, individual sections were done by experts in those areas rather than one person doing all--although sometimes I'm not certain that's the advantage folks think it is. Then, can I get you to agree that the taxobox should list which system it is based upon at least? The Reveal system, by the way, is simply his best mix of other systems. Takhtajan is supposed to be rather detailed, also, although I have not read his latest. KP Botany 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plant ID help needed

We're getting the bloom clock underway on wikiversity, but I'm stumped on an unidentified plant that's there now... quince maybe? I think over the long term we're going to need help with this (I'm pretty good at ID as long as it grows in my climate, but not for others), see Bloom clock project/What's this plant for the photos. If you know the name, hit edit and the template is self-explanatory (it becomes a "quiz" after that). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galium monograph?

Is there a good monograph for Galium? Not only could the article use the ref, but (unusually) Jepson doesn't have a reference either. I think I may have photos of the uncommon G. proliferum, but info online is rather sketchy. Been reading Leuenberger's monograph on Pereskia lately, wish every genus had a ref like that. Stan 17:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about a specific monograph, but I suspect their might be because of the extensive amount of research done on the Rubiaceae in general. There are some North American, maybe Central American works by Lauramay T Dempster, which are fairly well known, and there's a pamphlet that I've seen in the weed library at work which may be "Notes on the genus Galium" by Roxana S Ferris (which came up at Amazon). KP Botany 00:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desperately seeking edit to Fabaceae

This article is unreadable because of a certain editor. Could someone please make the introductory section readable? Thanks. KP Botany 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Better now?--Curtis Clark 05:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, English, who'd have known it was such a handylanguage to use on en.Wikipedia? The last 2 sentences of point 2 need reworked a bit. I'll look at it. I just couldn't do it after formating a lengthy list that disappeared in the ether of cyberspace--but it had to be done. KP Botany 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Is there a template for the wikiproject that can be used on plant article talk pages to assess/sort them? I can't see one around, so I presume this project doesn't have one yet. If one could be created that would be great, I was just looking for something suitable for clover and biology is far too general to place on the talk page. Richard001 04:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This had been discussed earlier on this talk page. The discussion is archived here. I agree with what SB_Johnny says there--the backlog would be huge, considering this WikiProject's scope. I think if something was created, we wouldn't mind placing them on new articles we create (or at least I wouldn't mind). I suppose a bot could be utilized for the remainder if it just spidered through the plant categories. Would be a lot of work, though. --Rkitko 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I see... I find the templates handy as an easily visible way of rating an article and placing it in a project which gives guidelines on writing. Would it be possible to add rating/importance fields, or would the amount of articles make it too much work? Richard001 05:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment gives a number of 7,000+ articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Assessment is just short of 8,000, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment has no less than 37,000 articles accounted for, so I don't see why we couldn't...Circeus 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against it - it would allow us to track progress and set priorities. --NoahElhardt 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York Botanical Garden

Hello WP Plants, I don't know if you're the WikiProject to handle this, but I've found New York Botanical Garden orphaned by any WikiProject, and was wondering if yours is the one to assess it. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the WikiProject NY for now. I don't know if plants folks assess the botanical garden articles or not, but it does belong to NY also. Thanks for the notice. KP Botany 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microformat

Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 15:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out what this is? KP Botany 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Microformats are a way of adding simple markup to human-readable data items such as events, contact details or locations, on web pages, so that the information in them can be extracted by software and indexed, searched for, saved, cross-referenced or combined. More technically, they are items of semantic markup, using just standard (X)HTML with a set of common class-names. They are open and available, freely, for anyone to use.

The proposed format respects all existing biological taxonomies, and is not intended to change or supplant any of them - it merely provides webmasters with a method of either:

1. marking-up a taxonomical name (or taxon-common name pair) in such a way that its components can be recognised by computers
2. marking up a common name, so as to associative with it a taxonomical name, in such a way that the latter's components can be recognised by computers

For instance, if I mark up a list of common names on a website using that microformat, a visitor might have browser tool which lists all the species on the page, sorted into alphabetical order within taxonomic class, or in taxonomic order, and then creates links to, say (for Joe Public) their entries on Wikipedia, or (for scientists) some academic database of the users choosing. For content on Wikipedia, the lookup could be on some other website of the user's choosing..

Have a look at the Straw Man proposal, and the examples below that, and please let me know if you need further clarification. Andy Mabbett 20:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like something similar to Persondata. Circeus 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, though it's closer to "taxoboxes"; not least because "microformatted" data is generally intended to be visible to the user. The format is usable by any publishing or parsing website, and any parsing tool. It would be relatively trivial to arrange to have "Persondata" published with hCard microformat mark-up, simply by applying some standard class names to its containing elements. Andy Mabbett 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone brightly said on the list-serve, pretend I'm stupid, and 8-years-old. KP Botany 02:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), its a way of attaching information to words or phrases. Say you have a sentence on your website that contains the term Quercus agrifolia. Using these "microformats", you could also attach a number of invisible labels to that term, such as "Coast live oak", "Quercus", and "Plant". Other programs could then use these invisible labels to generate useful links or lists. For example, one could make the terms automatically link to an appropriate website (such as a website on "oaks of california" or the appropriate Wikipedia entry). As another example, a program could easily generate a list of all the terms on your webpage that you labeled as "Plant" or as "Quercus". Microformats would basically allow us to assign more identities to terms we use in articles without decreasing readability. --NoahElhardt 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could be used like that, but that's not best practice, It's really intended for marking up such information, when it's already visible to the user, such as in a taxobox. Where all that's visible is a binomial name, or a vernacular name then they're all that would be marked up using the microformat. Your suggested use-cases are correct. Andy Mabbett 11:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the tagging automated by (the wikimedia server making) use of the taxobox entries and looking at pages linking into species articles ? Or is this something we as article authors would need to add manually to links ? Hoping for the former:) Shyamal 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[Indents reset] I'd suggest that microformats are "built in" to taxoboxes, and that tools be made available for people who wish to mark-up taxonomic info elsewhere in pages; in the way that Wikitravel listings work. Andy Mabbett 15:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I understood what Noah said, then Andy said, no, that not the purpose or "not best practice," and more unsuitable for a stupid 8-year-old. I still have no idea what the purpose of this is. KP Botany 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

 :) I think this might help - Semantic web. It is not actually for humans, its for the machines ! Shyamal 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

KP Botany- It's about taking visible information, meant for humans, such as that in a taxobox, and wrapping it in something that says to your computer this is the genus and this is the vernacular name, and so on, so that your computer can then go and find it for you, on your favourite academic biology reference site, or in Flickr, or wherever or, if you're seeing it elsewhere, here on Wikipedia. Or can present you with a list of all the species listed on a page in, say, alphabetical or taxonomic order. It could even say to your software that "Parus major" is special - when you translate this English page into German, don't translate "major" to "hauptsächlich"! Andy Mabbett 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's like XML. Thanks. KP Botany 02:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)