User talk:Sminthopsis84/Archive 7

Portals

Trompe l'oeil with violin, painter's implements and self-portrait (1675), Royal Castle, Warsaw

Can you help fix the portals at the bottom of Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho? I just finished translating an article from the Portuguese WP on this writer. I asked for help regarding the portals at User talk:CorinneSD#Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho and received a reply, but not yet a reply to my subsequent question. But even if that question is answered, I don't think it would help me correct the portals at the bottom of the page. It's just two portals: Biography, or Biographies, and Literature. I don't know why they appear in red, and there may be some duplication that I don't understand. CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The categories were producing that redness. The super-categories are helpful for finding the forms of the categories; there are [[category:Writers by nationality]] and [[category:Writers by language]], but none for journalists or ethnographers by language. Portuguese writers is used for the nationality rather than the language. I don't know if the portals are as they should be at this point. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I have scared away CorinneSD from my page with to mant scary creatures... Hafspajen (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all. What scary creatures? That picture of the upside-down hanging lily (I don't know what the right term is) is just beautiful. It looks like a pale, pale green, or green-yellow. I've been busy with 4th of July activities.

Thank you, Sminthopsis, for the information and for your edits to the article. I know nothing about portals and categories (though probably should learn). CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That is an Erythronium, I think, it flowers in the spring. Oh, so you were on 4th of July activities. Thought you forgot about us all. Hafspajen (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That's impossible. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it is an Erythronium, it is just a white variety ... the usual form is lilac. Hafspajen (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hafs, I meant that it would be impossible for me to forget about you and the others. You made me laugh. CorinneSD (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Thought you meant the flower... Hafspajen (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Around here, they are yellow, which makes the name Dogtooth Violet quite peculiar. Cakile is so elegant. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Put the here because you said your soil was sandy. Hafspajen (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sminthopsis -- You mean that flower that looks like a hanging lily (above left) is called a Dogtooth Violet? How do you pronounce "Cakile"? CorinneSD (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this a still life? Nope, just inspiration for a painting.

The Trout Lily name makes more sense, because of the spots on the leaves. I don't know where Dogtooth Violet came from (at least they are sort-of-violet-coloured in Europe, but do dogs have no teeth in Europe, or something?) I say car-keel-ay, but Latin pronunciation in English is a free-for-all, so some people probably say ca-kile.

Hmm, I don't see how that picture is Trompe l'oeil, though the angles of the objects seem a bit strange. And what exactly is a still life? The definition seems very flexible. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally it is meant - a painting with no people in it. one doesn't really use still life about a photo... (unless it is a very artistic photo). Hafspajen (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Celery

I'm reading the article on Celery, and I have a few issues I'd like to mention. Perhaps you'll be able to resolve them.

1) The word "petiole" is used several times during the article but is not defined until the beginning of the section Celery#Uses. I was wondering what a petiole was all through the beginning of the article.

2) In the third paragraph in the section Celery#Cultivation, the wild form of celery is mentioned and a number of details are given. I'm wondering whether a picture of wild celery could be found to illustrate this form of celery.

3) In the fourth paragraph in the section Celery#Cultivation, the paragraph starts, "The plants are raised from seed....". From reading what follows, it is clear that this is about cultivated celery, but is this paragraph only about wild celery that is cultivated or about all celery? If it is only about the cultivation of wild celery, what about the cultivation of non-wild celery?

What would you think of trying to find a photo of celery to illustrate this line:

"...planted out in deep trenches for convenience of blanching, which is effected by earthing up to exclude light from the stems"?

4) In the fifth paragraph in that section, perhaps you could answer the question in the tag.

That's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Cardoon

I just read the article on Cardoon, and I was surprised not to see even one picture of the stalks of cardoon, which is what one sees in a market. Do you think the article could use such a picture, or is it not necessary? Also, the last paragraph in Cardoon#Other uses is not very clear, and the very last sentence seems to be out of date. CorinneSD (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A picture of the stalks would be good, I think. It might take me a couple of days to get to working on these two blanched vegetables. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Chard

I've been reading the article on Chard and have made a few minor edits. (I've also asked Rothorpe a few questions at User talk:Rothorpe#Chard if you want to look at them.) I have a question for you. It is the second sentence in the lead:

"The leaves can be green or reddish in color like Bibb Lettuce; chard stalks also vary in color."

I don't understand bringing in "Bibb Lettuce" so early in the article. (Also, I've never seen reddish Bibb Lettuce, but that's another issue.) I think it is confusing if one has never seen Bibb lettuce.

Also, overall, I think the sentence doesn't flow smoothly. There's no reason to have to start a clause with "chard" (in "chard stalks") so early in the article. Do you see what I mean? Do you want to see what you can do? CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to me a Bibb Lettuce is pale green, they are usually called Butter Lettuce or Boston Lettuce, various other lettuces can be red, and the introduction to Chard was not a very good introduction. I've made some changes including zapping the Bibb Lettuce, but I hope that you'll look at it again for the flow, etc. What do you think about removing that two-column layout from the references? (I wish there were a good place to link "leaf blade" to, but it would seem to require major re-organization to achieve that). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you got rid of Bibb lettuce, but I'm sorry to say that I don't like the inclusion of the following sentence in the lead:

"In some cultivars, the leaf stalks are large and are often prepared separately from the leaf blade".

I think any information about food preparation should be saved for the section on food preparation later in the article. Also, the term "leaf blade" is a new one to me. The average reader (like myself) would better understand "the leaves" (especially when referring to culinary use). I think there must be a place later in the article to introduce (and explain) "leaf blade".

Also, the next sentence, "The leaf blade can be green or reddish in color; the leaf stalks also vary in color", seems a bit strange. The first and second halves of the sentence seem awfully close in meaning, so much so that they could be combined. Details about the colors of the stalks could be described later.

These are my non-expert thoughts. CorinneSD (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's problematic. I'm familiar with French culinary treatment of the two parts (the green and the white) as different vegetables, so that one would expect to be able to buy just one the white, with the green removed. Under Glossary_of_botanical_terms#B is a definition of blade that I'm assuming (but it can't be linked to directly), and Petiole (botany) would be the leaf stalk. I'm also taking it as given (I think it's true) that nobody eats the ancestral form with a green petiole. I've adjusted the leaf-stalk colour, which I've never seen be the same as the leaf-blade colour. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It reads a bit better now. In my U.S. experience, the leaf stalks are cooked together with the leaves. CorinneSD (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John Frum

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to John Frum? I'm not sure what is the usual format at the beginning of articles, but I thought it might be the way it was before the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the usual format for something like that is either. It is so much more common to have the sort of name variation seen at Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Corsica

I know this isn't your area, but you're an experienced editor, so I thought I'd ask you. I don't know who else to ask. Just today there have been several edits to Corsica by two different editors. The ones by Franking seem all right, but the ones by Alessandro, especially the last one, adding information about a murder at the very end of a paragraph, seem questionable. Can you look at these edits and see what you think? Regarding the language, I had already asked Kwamikagami (see his Talk page), but he said it's not his area. I don't know of any editor who really knows this part of linguistics who can review the edits. CorinneSD (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly it is true, but I would ask for better references . Hafspajen (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Since it is linked to Claude Érignac, do you think the references from there need to be copied or improved? About the language, I have access to a ginormous encyclopedia of linguistics which probably has that information (I've only glanced inside its multi-volume hide once), but I won't be able to get to it until next week. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at references about this, it seems to me that the page Corsican language is confused and beyond help. It seems that the page is trying to describe the modern languages spoken on Corsica, but the scholarly references that I added which said that the Corsican language is not of the Italo-Dalmatian group were dismissed by Alessandro (with a weird "please explain" edit summary: how do you explain citations?). Perhaps it might be the case that two pages are needed, but I don't know where one would go to find the material to support that, and I'm no expert in that field. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Upazilas: Thanks, Plan, Question

Thank you for your kind welcome. Being comparatively inexperienced at editing Wikipedia, I've been spending a lot of time studying guidelines, the MOS, template documentation, featured articles, WikiProjects, other people's edits, and the like. I'm familiar with some of the links you recommended and look forward to exploring the others.

The Bangladesh upazila articles hooked me with their simple elegance. They have great bones, but could use more polish. To start with I've chosen to focus on the 12 upazilas of Bogra District. I don't expect to add (or remove) great swathes of text. My goals are:

• So far as possible, add citations to reliable sources for everything already in the articles.
• Where someone has corrected or improved one article, replicate that throughout the others.
• Add the latest census data.

I'll be editing in small steps that I hope will make each change and its reasons clear. If my edits to the Bogra District upazilas go well, then I'll eventually extend them to the hundreds of other upazila articles.

Thanks for disambiguating the Shibganj Upazila, Bogra links. I noticed last night that I'd introduced some ambiguous links, but thought it would be safer not to fix them while I was tired. I'll try not to step on any toes or break anything as I go. Any constructive criticism is welcome.

When I started using Banglapedia as a reference in the articles, my inclination was to drop it from the external links. I couldn't find a guideline that says a source should appear in only one of those two sections, but I see that you've dropped it from external links when you've started using it as a reference, for example in Dhupchanchia Upazila and Shajahanpur Upazila. Is that the course you would advise? Worldbruce (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi WorldBruce, it is very nice to make your acquaintance. You've probably noticed friendly people chatting here, and I'd be happy to try to answer questions. Some of the others might join in, perhaps.

I think that what you are doing has huge potential because I have the impression that there are quite a few edits from IP addresses in Bangladesh where it looks as if the person was experimenting with editing wikipedia by first looking at the English page about their own upazila. By polishing those pages, particularly by introducing citations, I think you could be both cheering them up with the quality of the coverage, and showing them some useful general techniques. It is a bit of a handicap for you that there are nearly 500 upazilas, though!

About converting the external link into an in-line citation, yes, I do recommend that. There is a template that people use to mark pages that they feel haven't gone far enough in that direction, such as Capetian dynasty, so that suggests what the consensus of wikipedians seems to be, that citations should be in-line. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Malvaceae diversity citation

I suspect that the figures for generic and species diversity are taken from Angiosperm Phylogeny Website rather than Judd et al, but I don't have access to the 3rd edition of Judd et al to verify this. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I suspected the same thing. It's in the library here, and I planned to go there next week. However, it's in the course reserves section, so I'm not sure if a plebeian like myself can look at it. Since Walter Judd has worked on Malvaceae, I wondered if the numbers in the 2008 book are up-to-date anyway, or alternatively, if another citation needs to be substituted for those figures, perhaps the book offers a citation for some other statement on the Malvaceae page, so that the citation might not need to disappear. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Gooseberry

I don't know if you have Gooseberry on your watch list, but I thought I'd just let you know about a number of edits made today to the article by three different editors, starting with an IP editor. Perhaps if you have time you could review all the edits. CorinneSD (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I say, IP is OK, Fortons is crazy and Gravuritas - dubious. Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen a 10 ft-tall gooseberry. Do they exist? I have to go, but suspect that more of that page is unattributed copies of the 1879 encyclopedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

NO, no 10 ft-tall gooseberries, 6'5 highest -and probably that is too much - too, it has to grow in Italy I guess - actually I am not sure if they grow them there either. Hafspajen (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

6 ft-tall would be one scary spiny shrub! The biggest I know here is about 4 ft tall and the same wide, but it is not R. uva-crispa since those grow poorly on this continent, it is a hybrid. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen cultivated plants grown as cordons at an angle that were at least 5 ft 6 in tall, so a vertical cordon more than 6 ft is possible, I think. But 10 ft? Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I suspect that one of the recent edits was because the person has only seen North American cultivated gooseberries, which at least in my experience don't get so tall. Actually, that page being called "gooseberry" is problematic, I think. In South Asia, a gooseberry is a Phyllanthus, but I'm not sure which species is the most common, or whether they are such popular fruit that they could unseat Ribes uva-crispa from the position as the primary world-wide meaning of gooseberry. I've just made a number of edits to related pages, such as List of plants known as gooseberry, but my energy has been sapped before the task is complete. I will ask a knowledgeable friend how popular those Phyllanthus gooseberries are. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

My friend responds that she doesn't consider Phyllanthus gooseberries vital to her South Asian culinary tradition. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done all that I can think of there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Anise

I know you're busy, but if you have time, could you look at the very latest edit to Anise? I was trying to figure out exactly what changes were made to the links at the various names for mastic, particularly those around Macedonian mastic. There is no WP article on "mastic". There are several disambiguation pages, one to the tree but none going to the article on "Mastika" (unless I missed it). Since there is a section on Macedonia in the article on Mastika, shouldn't a link be made to that article? And isn't the word in English "mastic"? But I don't see that. I'm going to take a look now at earlier edits on the article. CorinneSD (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a change at Mastika, bringing the Bulgarian matter to the lead. I don't know how the pine-like taste of mastic could be said to resemble anise. I've removed the Macedonian mastika from the anise article (as far as I can see that is okay, but I'd really need to spend more time hanging out in liquor stores reading the labels). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I notice that 66's first edit in this series, on July 7, 2014, he/she changed fractions such as 1/8 and 1/4 of an inch to decimals using the conversion template. For miles, decimals make enough sense (such as .75 mile, or 2.5 miles), but for inches, decimals such as 0.39 inch do not help the reader at all (if he or she is used to inches and not metric measurements). To me, something like "1/8 to 1/4 inch" is much clearer. Someone earlier must have taken the time to calculate the fractions. Now they're gone, leaving metric measurements. I don't know if there is a policy against fractions on WP, but if there is I don't think there should be (for inches). If you can put them back, would you mind doing that? CorinneSD (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Fractions are permitted, MOS:FRAC#Fractions, and there is a way to make them with Template:Frac. Also, the convert template can handle them for input but not for output.Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Fennel

I'm reading the article on Fennel. In the first paragraph in the section Fennel#Culinary uses are the following two sentences:

"They are used for garnishes and to add flavor to salads. They are also added to sauces and served with pudding."

Do you see the two "they's"? It is not clear to what "they" refers. The previous sentence says "The bulb...".

At the end of the third paragraph is the following sentence:

"In Syria and Lebanon, it is used to make a special kind of egg omelette (along with onions and flour) called ijjeh."

It is not clear to what the pronoun "it" (in "it is used") refers. Is it just "fennel"?

Can you figure out what these pronouns refer to? If you can, I think the noun ought to be used instead of the pronoun. CorinneSD (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the last paragraph in the section Fennel#Similar species, can you clear up the questions placed there by another editor? CorinneSD (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Some changes made. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to list the white-flowered Lomatium species there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Huchen

And here is a nice little landscape for someone ...I am not allowed to say who

I've been looking at articles edited recently by 66. In Huchen, I changed one of his/her edits back to the way it was before. He/She had changed "There is now a considerable effort to..." to "A considerable effort now exists to..." (this editor seems not to like the "There is/There are" construction). However, when I changed it back to "There is...", I forgot to put in "now". Now I'm wondering whether the word "now" is needed. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I like your efforts there, definitely improved. That word isn't important, I think, with it or without it being equally acceptable. I agree that "A considerable effort now exists to…" is a very peculiar construction; it grates; it is a discordant contrast to the meaning of "effort". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful landscape! CorinneSD (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't forgot about us, say? Hafspajen (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No, of course I didn't. Sometimes I think I spend too much time on WP. Occasionally I need to clean the house, or walk, or weed the garden, or do errands. It's nice to know I'm missed, though. Thank you! CorinneSD (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We need your voice. Your oppinions. Your sharp look. Hafspajen (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems quite common for "there is/are" constructions to be changed, usually it seems to me by Americans. I'm wondering whether there's some style guide that advises against "there is/are"? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I know of, and I've never heard that. Unfortunately, many people don't know how to write well. I often hear "There's" with a plural noun, and I cringe every time I hear it. CorinneSD (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's just thoughtless application of the rule discussed here, possibly because the rule was repeated somewhere with no context and no urging of caution. There are short special-purpose manuals of style, and I'd bet that the shortness of them could lead to that sort of trouble. (The manuals used by newspapers here state that species names shall be set in lower case, homo sapiens. Aargh! How could that come about??) I'm sure it's not a two-sides-of-the-pond phenomenon because there are divergent styles in North America too. My ancient Chicago Manual of Style (14th edition, 1993), bless its heart, says that in a simple series or list consisting of three or more elements, the elements are separated by commas; when a conjunction joins the last two elements, a comma is used before the conjunction: A, B, and C. One hardly ever sees that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting because in grade school I was taught not to put a comma before the conjunction. Now, I use it more, but more often when the items are phrases than single words. I wonder what the MLA (Modern Language Association) style guide says. CorinneSD (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding not capitalizing things, did you see on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds, that quite a few editors who are either ornithologists or biologists interested in birds have left WP because MoS insisted that bird names not be capitalized? CorinneSD (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC) See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#So long, and thanks for all the fish, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#I'm out, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Bird names in lower case. CorinneSD (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. I haven't been following ornithology matters here (as is now explained on my user page). Since this appears to involve more than just one or two people, presumably they tried hard to change the MoS silliness, which would seem to mean that it is pointless for the rest of us to even try. I've decided to never downcase, but that means little because I wouldn't have done much to impose an MoS style. It means less in other areas of biology where common names are considered too ludicrous to worry much about, but in ornithology they have tried to standardize them (and in wikipedia some people have even tried to expunge the historical common names that provide a link to important literature). I care about common names because one of them is often the only name a person has to try to identify a plant, and misidentifying a plant can lead to poisoning. It's a huge undertaking, though, to get even a small fraction of them into wikipedia with citations. Battles to clarify that common mugwort has a different meaning from Common Mugwort would have to take a back-seat to the basic addition of the names with silly, confusing typography. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: ah, good find! Yes, blind application of style manuals is a pain; the same thing happens with passives. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone look at this article - Black and Tan Coonhound, please? morse SOS ...---...---...---...---... It is hopeless. Hafspajen (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Back to Huchen: An editor just changed a section heading from "Appearance and behavior" to "Appearance and behaviour", with an edit summary saying it was "for internal consistency" and a link to WP:ENGVAR. I searched in the article for something that would indicate that the article was written in British English style but found nothing. I'm very tired; have been editing a long article for hours, so I may have missed it. If there is nothing, then "for internal consistency" is not a good reason to change the spelling. Could somebody make the decision whether to leave the edit or undo? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Huchen is a European fish, American spelling would not be the default, so "behaviour" would be appropriate, but WP:ENGVAR expresses that only as "strong national ties", so it could be debated on the grounds that Britain doesn't have a strong tie. Following WP:ENGVAR, the first non-stub version is this one. Microsoft Word tells me that "fertilisation" is not a spelling accepted with "English (US)", and that there are no problems with the text considered as "English (UK)", so by the "Retaining the existing variety" criterion, British English wins. I've added the template to the talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 July

Dogs to chase of uggly bots

All cleaned up now.

A cupcake for you!

Thank youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hafspajen (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ooooh, meringue top! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Rhubarb

Muscular rhubarb.

An editor just made a number of edits to Rhubarb. Though they're not terrible, I didn't like some of them, so changed some of them back or revised them. Generally, this editor broke up some sentences that had clauses separated by semi-colons or had participial phrases beginning with -ing forms, and made separate sentences. I have to ask you about one edit, though, because I'm not sure what would be correct. It is in the middle of the first paragraph in Rhubarb#Historical cultivation. It begins:

"Though Dioscurides' description..."

Could you look at the way it was before the change, and then the revised version, and decide which is more correct (or if even further changes are needed)? And while you're at it, could you review all the other edits?

I just noticed that User:Ehrenkater undid one of my edits, the one I was most sure about! The editor with the red user name had changed the sentence so that it looks like "rhubarb cultivation" was compiled 2,700 years ago, when I'm sure it was the Chinese herbal manual that was compiled 2,700 years ago! The way it was worded before was perfect. The "but" is because the manual was attributed to a mythical emperor but scholars have determined a real date for its compilation, thus the contrast indicated by "but". CorinneSD (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I'll get to reviewing all those edits today. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ministry of Education, Trainings and Standards in Higher Education

Hi i saw you moved the article Ministry of Education, Trainings and Standards in Higher Education to Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training (Pakistan). This should have been done opposite way as this is ministry's old name. the new name according to government of Pakistan is Ministry of Education, Trainings and Standards in Higher Education.

Please revert the redirection.

Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please check the citation in the lead paragraph of the article. It cites government document numbers to the effect that the name was changed 7th June, 2013 to the name you are saying is current, and then was changed again 19th June, 2014 to the name that I moved it to.

Also, for the sake of clarity, the page title should include the word Pakistan somewhere, since the name is very similar to the names of departments in other countries, such as the Ministry of National Education and Professional Training (Haiti). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Morus (plant

Just in case you don't have Morus (plant) on your watch list, you might like to check out the latest edits. CorinneSD (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The joys of taxonomy (again)

Ah, the joys of taxonomic puzzles when editing Wikipedia. A couple of questions for you:

1. Although Rhodochiton atrosanguineum is all over the web and in apparently reliable sources (including a monograph on the subtribe to which it belongs), the epithet should be atrosanguineus since chiton is masculine (as confirmed by Stearn) and Article 23.5 says that epithets not agreeing in gender are to be corrected. In this case Tropicos agrees ([1]) although TPL quoting WCSP (in review) has the neuter ending. I think Tropicos is right and have moved the article to Rhodochiton atrosanguineus with a note on the gender. Do you agree that this is right?

ING in the Rhodochiton entry agrees, and has both the correction to the species epithet and the extra information that Otto & Dietrich's name R. volubilis (as 'volubile') is illegitimate (which it would be now that the Kew Rule is expunged). I think you could add a citation to ING to bolster your note about the gender.

Ah, good find; will do. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

1. If you look at the Tropicos entry for the genus Rhodochiton here, it has the date as 1834, because it treats the authority as Zucc. ex Otto & A.Dietr. Thus Zuccarini did something not counting as publishing Rhodochiton before it was properly published by Otto & A.Dietr. in 1834. The type species is given in Tropicos as Rhodochiton volubilis (again a correction from the original epithet volubile) – everyone agrees this is the type species. If you now look at the Tropicos entry for Rhodochiton volubilis here it gives an 1832 publication by Zuccarini alone (i.e. no "ex"). I don't understand how this can be right: if the binomial was validly published in 1832, then surely the genus name was too? Or am I missing something?

Peter coxhead (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

IPNI has a comment on Rhodochiton volubile Zucc. that it is "in syn.", which is helpful, but it's amazing how non-published that name is. It's here. He just says "Rhodochiton volubile Zuccar. in litteris.", meaning, presumably, that he'd written letters to people that included that name, but had never published it. IPNI removes names that are not validly published, but in this case does it fail article 36.1, "when it is not accepted by the author in the original publication"? I'd say so, he'd used it previously, but now he's listing it as Lophospermum atro-sanguineum.

If you are suggesting database changes, I think it would be nice if Tropicos listed Rhodochiton volubilis Zucc. as invalid (with their two stars). Since it is invalid (according to me) and not merely illegitimate, it would be nice if they listed the accepted name of the type species on the genus page as well. (I'm not sure that IPNI wants to accept suggestions these days, but perhaps they would.)

P.S.: I *think* that Tropicos has some instances of better interpretation of the required terminations on names than the other databases such as TPL and "WCSP in review" do, but it is hard to insert as a stable citation when it differs from those other sources. (For example, there is some recent silliness on Emmer, which I feel unable to combat because only Tropicos has what I believe to be plausible data.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, in my sporadic efforts to iron out Asplenium, I've sent feedback to both IPNI (correcting a genus authority and then a confusing later homonym situation) and Tropicos (various) and gotten prompt and helpful replies. Choess (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh good. I must have hit a lull at IPNI, but have been keeping notes for later about matters that might interest them … Tropicos responses that I've had have been great. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As an amateur and a very recent convert to the joys of taxonomic debates, it does bother me that every time I've researched a genus in detail in preparation for Wikipedia editing, I've quickly found pretty obvious name errors. Anyway, some responses to above:

• As ever, Rafaël Govaerts at WCSP has replied extremely quickly saying that WCSP (in review) has been updated to the epithet atrosanguineus. However, this won't show up in TPL, as I understand it, until the next version – I have e-mailed them in the past and their reaction has been that they just reflect the source databases.
• @Choess: yes, I've also found IPNI to be quite responsive. However, you don't always end up with agreement between these sources. When writing Roscoea articles, I queried Roscoea cautleoides/cautleyoides with both WCSP and IPNI, but they came to opposite conclusions, and although the latest monograph on the genus and WCSP use cautleyoides, IPNI only lists cautleoides. There are arguments under the ICN for both. Sigh…

[Peter: I foresee the day when you will be submitting nomenclature proposals to Taxon to be considered at the next IBC. ;-) ] Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to encourage someone to do something about conserving Meconopis (can't remember if you're aware of this one, but the type genus M. cambrica definitely belongs in Papaver according to all molecular phylogenetic studies, but this means all the Himalayan blue poppies need renaming unless Meconopsis is conserved with a new Asian type species). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Sminthopsis84: when I have time, I'll try to compose a query for Tropicos re Rhodochiton volubil(e/is) or better still you might do it. It does seem that it was never published according to the ICN's definition (which is what Elisens says in his monograph sourced at Rhodochiton).
• Re Emmer, I think that sometimes you have to be bold and relegate dissenting views which are pretty certainly false to a footnote. See e.g. Lophospermum#Notes. Tropicos did have Lophospermum nubiculum sourced to Elisen's monograph on the Maurandyinae which fortunately is online and does not have this name, only L. nubicola. When I pointed this out, they removed it. But TPL will remain in error for the present.

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You may like to comment...

... at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Plant field guides and manuals do not meet WP:MEDRS standards for reliability of medical information, since I remember you've encountered this issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Collard greens

I noticed a few edits to Collard greens, so I took a look at them. I undid the last one, which had removed "and Brazil" from a heading. I'm wondering whether the one before it should be undone also. The editor deleted "collard" and just left "greens". Granted, it's in the second paragraph of a section, and "collard greens" is mentioned in the first paragraph, but the article is about collard greens after all. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right and I reverted it. If there were flexibility in using other greens for caldo verde, then I think the result could turn out to be indistinguishable from palaver sauce or some of the other Portuguese-influenced dishes from around the world. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The author of the book "Zindagi Ki Yadein: Riyasat Rampur Ka Nawabi Daur"

Hi I would like to draw your attention to the your edit on "Muneeza Shamsie". Here I would beg to differ with your opinion that Muneeza Shamsie is the author of the book "Zindagi Ki Yadein: Riyasat Rampur Ka Nawabi Daur", in fact is it is her mother Jahanara Habibullah, who is the author of the book. I have mentioned two links which say it was written by jahanara Habibullah. If you find any other information, please do let me know. Thanks and you may refer to the following links.

1. http://www.dawn.com/news/659762/flashback-rampur-glimpses-of-a-vanished-world

2. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=XWItAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT185&lpg=PT185&dq=zindagi+ki+yaden:+riyasat+rampur+ka+nawabi+daur&source=bl&ots=Rdbl3ruVFn&sig=1j2Nj-AXP5Q6G76PpljsH_5akh0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EsvdU9-iKtSdugS0mIDICg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=zindagi%20ki%20yaden%3A%20riyasat%20rampur%20ka%20nawabi%20daur&f=false

Regards

User talk:George Sharma — Preceding undated comment added 06:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Yes, I was confused. I've made a couple more changes to the page that I hope you will be able to check, and I hope that this will make it clearer for other readers. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Cornus (genus)

I've been reading the article on Cornus (genus). I want to ask you whether a double bullet is correct at Cornus (genus)#Incertae sedis. CorinneSD (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, someone who either made a typo or wasn't sure about using asterisk and colon in wiki-markup. I've changed it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna Crimson Cloud (hawthorn)

I just thought you might like to see this photo of a variety of hawthorn. I had never seen it before, and I think the flowers are quite beautiful. CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a beautiful plant. It's nice to see a cultivar identified too, a relatively rare thing among the photos in commons. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I was reading the articles on the two types of hawthorn (see disambig page) because I was trying to find a picture of a shrub I saw when I was younger, and I thought it was hawthorn, and there is a vague description of the small branches in the c. western hemisphere hawthorn, but I still didn't find a picture. I remember the small branches had little flanges sticking out of them, almost at right angles. I thought it was very unusual bark. Can you find a picture of that? (I'm not even sure it was hawthorn that I saw.) CorinneSD (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a challenge. For hawthorn identification exact geographic location is helpful (send me email, if you like). Little flanges sticking out at right angles aren't something I can think of as a feature of any hawthorn species. One shrub that sometimes has spectacular flanges is Euonymus alatus (e.g., here and here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the two photos. That's pretty much what I remember, except that the flanges didn't extend unbroken for so long down the little branch or twig. The flanges were shorter. Also, I see that that plant is native to Japan and other Far Eastern countries and an invasive species in the U.S. Also, it is a flowering plant, and I don't remember seeing any flowers on the shrub. CorinneSD (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If it was that plant, the flowers would be hardly noticeable, more noticeable as a sprinkling of little dropped things on the ground than when actually attached. There are a few plants with flanged twigs, but most of those I can think of are trees rather than shrubs. You might try a google search for, without the quotes, "twigs with ridges". Ulmus alata is a shrub-like tree with hawthorn-like leaves (if you choose the right hawthorn to compare it to). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The two pictures of Euonymus you gave me before are more what it looked like than the picture of Elmus alata. I'll look on google, though, as you suggested. CorinneSD (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

J.B. Phipps

Hi Sminthopsis84. Okay, you found the right Phipps. James Bird Phipps, a Canadian botanist. There are three unpublished species of poaceae in Angola that my father and Phipps were communicating about, but unfortunately, with the war, nothing came of it. Phipps came to our house in in the early 70s, my father was away at one of his projects and none of us could speak any English. ;-) Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that confirmation! I'll send you an email message with a bit more information. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

M. champaca

Hello, I noticed you reverted an edited of mine. Yellow jade orchid tree is not a common name for M. champaca that appears in a credible language source. This name appears to be a translation of it's Chinese name and does not occur historically. If every culture did this, we'd include dozens of names for it as well as those recently made up horticultural trade names like "Fragrant Himalayan Champak" etc. Champak is a historic name for this plant used in English for decades and is found in the Oxford dictionary. Uniprot does not cite where they get the information for this common name from so I would be glad to leave it out until a credible source on English language lists "yellow jade orchid" as a common name for M. champaca. I am afraid Uniprot just picked up this name from the internet from non-formal sources. --KaffirLemon (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. In many ways, Uniprot is quite a respectable source, so I thought that seemed okay. I'll take that page off my watch list. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Epacris impressa

I left a note re E. impressa on my talk page. I just wanted to know whether you think I was nitpicking or not. Does "by seed and re-sprouting" make sense to you? CorinneSD (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Cas Liber has since responded and has fixed the problem. It looks like an error to me, rather than any possible difference in word usage. Re-sprouting would mean from a lignotuber or the main trunk, I think, but the article says "Forty-six percent of trees and shrubs regenerated only from seed" and lists Epacris impressa as one of those. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. Additional information for the discussion on my talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've responded there. Another example of how hard it can be to get correct information into wikipedia without running afoul of WP:OR. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of the phrase "it regenerates for bushfire", appearing in the latest revision to the lead? Is that botanist jargon? CorinneSD (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm confident to say that no botanist would use such a phrase. I've changed it. Now, could firefighters say such a thing? ;-) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Life cycles and alternation of generations

Hi Sminthopsis84,

I've made a revision of the topics of the discussion about life cycles and alternation of generations (Talk:Biological life cycle#Types of cycle), would you like to give your opinion? Zorahia (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Oof, you do delve into deep material! I'll have to get back to you about that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!Zorahia (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As was discussed previously on that page, I think that material on alternation of generations needs to be kept separate as much as possible. It's wonderful that you are reading all that classic literature, which I haven't done. I have a couple of questions: What is an example of a vegetative activity that doesn't include mitosis? About individuals or bionts: how would coral polyps that are interconnected fit into those authors' schemes, would they not fit the definitions at all? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"What is an example of a vegetative activity that doesn't include mitosis?" I think that Chlamydomonas vegetative phase is an example (it must differenciate to generate a gamete, and the zygote is a cyst).

"About individuals or bionts": I think that a biont must be originated by a reproductive cell, sexual (gametes) or not (spores). As clonal colonies of polyps are originated by asexual reproduction by budding or fragmentation, these organisms must be haplobiontic.Zorahia (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the independence isn't physical, but physiological (nutritional). Mosses [2] and spermatophytes [3] are haplobiontic, and ferns are diplobiontic [4] (Svedelius, 1931 [5]). Zorahia (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem! : ) Zorahia (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Internal links

I removed them[6] because I did not know what they were. My error. Sorry. FloraWilde (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I wondered if that page might become so large that it needs to be broken into pieces, at which point I think those links would stop working. I do think that they are helpful to readers, so presumably if a page-split happens there could be a big effort to re-code them with links to the relevant new page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Lilium

Just wondering if you have seen the latest edits to Lilium. CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Good edits, I think, particularly the note about Fritillaria also being vulnerable to the Scarlet Lily Beetle. I've just been noticing that the L. henryi in my garden seems to be almost immune to the pretty little monsters. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the paragraph full of small facts just added to the article? Beware of lillium... CorinneSD (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That and the change to Mythology from the same IP are definitely unconstructive, I'd say. I've reverted them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cinnamon

I have made a few minor edits to Cinnamon, mainly to the History section (so far). (I also put a comment on the article's talk page about a misplaced note to editors.) I'm now reading the next section, Cultivation. The third paragraph in Cinnamon#Cultivation begins:

"The branches harvested this way are processed by scraping off the outer bark, then beating the branch evenly with a hammer to loosen the inner bark".

I feel that there is something wrong with the first part of the sentence. The phrase "harvested in this way" doesn't seem to follow what is in the previous paragraph, even though the previous paragraph begins, "Cinnamon is harvested..." I don't think enough details about harvesting cinnamon are provided in the second paragraph to justify using "harvested in this way" at the beginning of the third paragraph.

I know that "Cinnamon is harvested" (beginning of second paragraph) is using the broader meaning of "harvesting" a crop, but I wonder if it isn't a bit early to say that. I thought I'd ask you what you thought.

Also, just a little after this, I see the construction "Once dry" and in the next paragraph "Once processed". I thought it would be better style to avoid using this construction twice in close proximity. Can you think of another way to say one of these? Perhaps "After processing" for the second one? CorinneSD (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the section Cinnamon#Use as an alcohol flavorant, there is quite a list in two paragraphs of actual products and their manufacturers. It almost looks like advertising. I'm just wondering whether that is appropriate for a WP article. (Also read Footnote A at the end of the article.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC) (I fixed the spacing around the first em-dash, and was trying to figure out (in Edit Mode) where the sentence picked up again, and was about to fix the spacing around the second em-dash, when I realized something was wrong with the sentence. Before trying to fix the sentence, I thought I'd ask you about the appropriateness of the information.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's rather amazing how difficult that text is. I've made some changes (one with an edit summary about euphemism). There is already a section on the talk page about the advertising-like section about the alcohol flavorant. I've already voted in favour of drastic action there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are definite improvements. What about "Once processed" and "Once dry" that I mentioned just above? I'll look at the discussion on alcohol flavorant now. CorinneSD (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had made the edit, inserting the wording that I suggested and you approved on the article's talk page, but now I can't find it in the article, so I guess I didn't make the change. Can you help me figure out in which of the many small paragraphs (should there be so many small paragraphs?) that sentence should go? It's about Europeans, so it belongs more toward the middle or end of the history section, I would guess, but beyond that, there's such a mish-mash of history I couldn't pick the best place. I think we agreed that the "Note to editors" had been mis-placed, and I'd like to remove that note once I add the revised sentence.

Also, can you help me re-word (or break up) the sentence (from User talk:CorinneSD#Cinnamon) I was discussing on my talk page? There's something wrong with the wording as it is now, but I can't figure out how to revise it so that it makes complete sense. CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've tried a drastic rearrangement with some small simplifications, but I think the problem you were discussing is still there. See what you think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll re-read the whole section in a minute, but I wanted to ask you about something before I forget. I wonder if Marco Polo deliberately "avoided precision" in order to conceal the source of cinnamon or because he simply did not know where cinnamon came from. If the latter, perhaps "Marco Polo was vague" would be better. CorinneSD (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but suspect that the former meaning might be accurate. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita

I decided to read the article on squash, Cucurbita, and have come across something I want to ask you about. (I'll probably have other questions later on.) It is the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead:

"Lagenaria are in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita, but different tribes."

I was just wondering whether "but different tribes" was correct, not because of the word tribes, but because of its structure. I'm wondering whether it shouldn't read:

• but are in different tribes, or

• but in different tribes.

CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Changed; Lagenaria is in only one tribe. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In the middle of the second paragraph in the section Cucurbita#Germination and seedling growth I found these two sentences, both of which need sorting out:

"Phytate forms in seeds tissues into spherical crystalline intrusions in protein bodies called globoids. The nutrients in globoids are eventually are completely during seedling growth".

Not sure what to do about that, though I did change "into" to "as". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I just wondered what you thought of the following sentence, which appears in the middle of the first paragraph in Cucurbita#History and domestication:

"The genus was part of the culture of almost every native peoples group from southern South America to southern Canada".

Specifically, I wondered about the phrase "every native peoples group". I know that "native peoples" is probably the right, modern, term, but still..."native peoples group" sounds a little odd. I wonder what the article Indigenous peoples of the Americas uses.

I'll leave that one to you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Finally, there is something I just don't understand, and I was wondering if you could explain it to me. It's in the middle of the second paragraph in Cucurbita#Description:

"There are male (staminate) and female (pistillate) flowers (unisexual flowers) on a single plant (monoecious), and these grow singly, appearing from the leaf axils. Flowers have five fused yellow to orange petals (the corolla), a green bell-shaped calyx, and are either male or female. Male flowers in Cucurbitaceae generally have five stamens, but in Cucurbita there are only three, and their anthers are joined together so that there appears to be one.[5][6] Female flowers have thick pedicels, and an inferior ovary with 3–5 stigmas that each have two lobes.[7][8] C. argyrosperma has ovate-cordate leaves and the corollas of its female flowers are larger than the male flowers".

The first sentence says "There are male...and female... flowers (unisexual flowers) on a single plant..." The next sentence says, "Flowers have five fused yellow to orange petals...and are either male or female". The subsequent sentences discuss first the male flowers and then the female flowers. I just don't understand how the first and second sentences can both be true. CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

All the flowers have similar calyces and corollas, but the middle parts are different depending on the sex. I've added a picture of a male flower, which I hope helps to explain that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the latest edit to Cucurbita? An editor added a third toxin, but it sounds an awful lot like the last one in the list. Just thought maybe it should be reviewed. CorinneSD (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back CorinneSD! Your computer seems to be working well, making the letters line up in neat rows and all. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert on chemistry, but the two molecules look very different although the names are almost the same. Cucurbitacin is much more complex than Cucurbitin. Is it toxic though? I don't know how that is defined, but "causes degenerative changes in the reproductive organs of parasitic flatworms" sounds a bit like a toxic effect. As far as I can guess, the edit is okay. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hyssopus officinalis

Would you mind looking at Hyssopus officinalis? An editor changed a caption, but then I saw an image at the left side of the lead/lede. I've never seen an image to the left of the lead/lede in an article. CorinneSD (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the editor was worried that someone would take out the illustration in favour of a modern photo, which is less informative. Images are generally placed on the right, and that one was squishing the TOC on my screen, so I've moved it back to the right. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Millet

I just started reading the article on Millet, and I have a few questions for you. (Let me know if you have had enough of my questions.)

1) In the first paragraph in the lead, it says:

"Millets are important crops in the semi-arid tropics of Asia and Africa…"

In the third paragraph in the lead it says:

"Millets have been important food staples in human history, particularly in Asia and Africa..."

Do you think that's an instance of duplication, or do you think both sentences are necessary?

(I hope I didn't mess up your efforts with some copyedits of my own -- can't help myself, have to change some things!) I think that later repetition could go, but not the whole sentence. I also think it would be good to break that sentence in two, so that "they have been in cultivation in East Asia for the last 10,000 years" doesn't suggest that the plants came from East Asia to Africa. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you didn't mess up any of my edits. I broke up that sentence into two, as you suggested. I hesitated to take out "particularly in Asia and Africa" from the now second-to-last sentence in the third paragraph because this sentence is about being an important staple throughout history; the sentence in which Asia and Africa are mentioned in the first paragraph has to do with today. I don't know if there is a way to re-arrange the sentences to avoid that repetition. CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

2) Also, the third paragraph in the lead begins:

"While millets are indigenous to many parts of the world, millets most likely had an evolutionary origin in tropical western Africa..."

I'm just wondering if "most likely" isn't a bit weak for such a thoroughly studied plant. Do you think a more academic phrase would be better? CorinneSD (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I do know that it is very hard to trace the origin of cultivated plants exactly, and probably in this case there is no definite answer. "most likely" is a peculiarly American phrase though, likely to be mis-read by English speakers from elsewhere. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. CorinneSD (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

3) In the first line of the first paragraph in Millet#Description, there is a metric height range. I used the conversion template and it came out as:

"0.5 to 4 metres (1.6 to 13.1 ft)".

As I think we may have discussed elsewhere, that kind of decimal measurement for feet doesn't make much sense to readers who are used to feet and inches. I'm wondering what you would suggest. Could we round it off and say "1-1/2 to 13 feet"? And there are a few other measurements like that later. (I know one solution would be to just leave it alone, but I am curious to learn about these plants, and height is one interesting aspect of a plant.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a way to do that, described here, which is linked from the basic template documentation. It gives 0.5 to 4 metres (1 ft 8 in to 13 ft 1 in) Perhaps you'd want to combine that with other parameters. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I was amazed when I saw the first photo, the one of pearl millet. The leaves look like the leaves of corn and the tall spikes look a little like ears of corn with smaller kernels. I'm wondering whether millet and corn are related (I mean more related than wheat, for example). CorinneSD (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A beautiful plant. I'm sure I would have remembered it if I'd ever seen it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

4) At the beginning of the section on Millet#Millet varieties, after the initial Eragrostideae tribe millet, there are three types of millet under the heading Paniceae. I noticed that these three types are in this order:

• the third most cultivated
• the most cultivated
• the second most cultivated

I guess they are in this order because they are in alphabetical order. Just wondered if you like this order, or whether they should be in order of most cultivated, second most cultivated, third most cultivated. (And the fourth most cultivated is before them.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Whichever you choose, someone will probably change it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

5) In the middle of the third paragraph in Millet#Production is the following sentence:

"As of 2005, the majority of millets produced in India is being used for alternative applications such as livestock fodder and alcohol production".

I was just wondering whether the verb following "the majority of millets produced in India" should be "are". It just sounds odd. Perhaps "millets" could be changed to "millet", but I see that the plural is often used in this article (I guess to include all the varieties). CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Or make millet singular. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we have to use "the majority of"? Can't we just say "most millet produced in India"? CorinneSD (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"most millet" sounds good to me. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

6) Near the beginning of the section Millet#As a food source, there are quite a number of names of millet in different languages. They are all in italics except for "pangapullu", which is in quotation marks and seems kind of just stuck into the sentence with no punctuation. What do you advise? CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That might be because whoever added it tried to duplicate the coding, but didn't realized that it used two single quotes instead of one double. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

7) Toward the end of the section Millet#As a food source is the following paragraph:

"The use of millets as food has been falling on a per capita basis between the 1970s and the 2000s, both in urban and rural areas, as developing countries such as India have experienced rapid economic growth and witnessed a significant increase in per capita consumption of other cereals".

I was just wondering (a) whether "per capita" needs to be italicized as it is, and (b) whether "per capita" is even needed. CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that one of the "per capita"s is needed (because the total consumption might be increasing as population increases). I think the MOS is saying to set it in italics. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

8) The whole section Millet#Grazing millet needs work.

• Syntax, phrasing and punctuation need to be improved.
• There may be too much information on Shirohie millet.
• Mostly in the second half of the section, several sentences read like a manual, using the imperative form of the verb: Do this...do that…

You could zap that and point to WP:NOTHOW. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• You'll enjoy this paragraph:

"Shirohie millet should not be overgrazed, and there is a risk of photosensitisation, so it is important to observe stock grazing millet regularly for symptoms which include enlarged ears (floppy), seeking shade, looking agitated or uncomfortable, constant head movement".

The plant may need counseling. CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Counselling (that's Canadian spelling) work for plants is what we do here! More anon. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(See my question at the end of Item 5, above.)

I hope you didn't mind my removing "is" from the sentence in the lead. It was ungrammatical with "is". You must have read it quickly. You'll see my edit summary. I like the prepositional phrase there, but if you don't, we can put a semi-colon and change the prepositional phrase to a clause. CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, I must have been squinting, or something. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I like to point things out and leave the job of fixing them to more knowledgeable editors. You're making me work! ;) CorinneSD (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the frequent use of the plural "millets" in this article. In English grains are usually used in the singular, or, to be more precise, the uncountable form: wheat, rice, corn, barley, flax... I know that at the beginning of the article it says, "Millets are a group of highly variable small-seeded grasses," and "They do not form a taxonomic group, but rather a functional or agronomic one", but, to me, (also in the lead), "Millets are an important crop" is not the best writing. It should be "Millet is an important crop" (lumping all the varieties into one word), or something like "Several varieties of millet are important crops." I have changed some instances of the plural to the singular (uncountable) in the Production section, but I'd like to change more instances of it if you approve. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Who's making who work? I think whatever you do with that would be fine. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I found an instance of some duplication of information, and I wonder what you think about it. Is it all right, or do you think it belongs in just one place?

• The third-to-last paragraph in Millet#As a food source reads:

"The use of millets as food fell between the 1970s and the 2000s, both in urban and rural areas, as developing countries such as India have experienced rapid economic growth and witnessed a significant increase in per capita consumption of other cereals."

• The third paragraph in Millet#Production reads:

"India is the world's largest producer of millet. In the 1970s, all of the millet crops harvested in India were used as a food staple. By the 2000s, the annual millet production had increased in India, yet per capita consumption of millet had dropped by between 50% to 75% in different regions of the country. As of 2005, most millet produced in India is being used for alternative applications such as livestock fodder and alcohol production. Indian organizations are discussing ways to increase millet use as food to encourage more production; however, they have found that some consumers now prefer the taste of other grains". CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, generally I don't mind a bit of duplication if it seems likely that a reader would use the TOC to jump to a section and read only that section. I'd entrust any changes to you. About plural versus singular: agronomists would be expected, I think, to favour accuracy over style, and the style here would probably be influenced by agronomic literature that a wikipedian was reading as a source. (Also, many agronomists are not native English speakers; e.g., much of the literature is in French.) Here, if accuracy and smooth readability are at odds, we'd also want to err on the side of accuracy, since that is the nature of an encyclopedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Corsica

I noticed that an editor just changed names of trees from capitalized to all lower case at Corsica. I don't know what proper capitalization is of tree species, so I thought I'd mention it so you can review the edits. CorinneSD (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: I think the style consensus is for lower case rather than capitalization of common names. The "Birds" people had a huge fight over this. I have no opinion about it, myself, other than the fact that a move to lower case seems to be the way things are moving. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've lost some editors over that issue. Perhaps eventually clarity in writing will re-surface in the world. (I checked Holm Oak to see where the name came from, and apparently it is not named after a person or a place, so lower-case it usual.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

North American Phalanx

About a week ago I went through the article on North American Phalanx to improve syntax, punctuation, etc. A day or so ago, another editor, Carrite, who appears knowledgeable about the topic, began further editing, adding material to the article. Today, I noticed that the photos are different from what I remember. I wonder about the size of the first photo. It seems a little large, and in my screen view, leaves a large white space after the lead. I also wonder whether the three photos of the building (including one of an empty room and one of an old staircase) are not too much. I think, instead of at least one of those, an image of one of the more famous supporters would be more interesting. You're more experienced than I am regarding images, so I thought I'd ask you. CorinneSD (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@ CorinneSD - I've actually been gearing up for an extensive rewrite of North American Phalanx, but I got sidetracked yesterday when I realized that Wikipedia didn't even have an article on Fourierism, so I did that. I agree that 3 photos for that much text is "a bit much" but hopefully by the end of the day they will fit nicely, along with a couple more images that I will need to stir up. See Wisconsin Phalanx for comparison, which I was just working on. Charles Fourier is another article that needs some serious work and I will probably be on to that next. Graphic size is easy to tweak, I'll show you how to do that if you're needing to know, although it might be best if you give me a day to work because things are going to look different with more text to "break up"... Feel free to drop me a line directly on my talk page if you need to. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking care of that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because you're swell

		The Original Barnstar
		I enjoyed reading your user page and just wanted to say thank you for your work on behalf of The Project. It does actually matter. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Pineapple fibre extraction

How sweet of you! I thought about making you some nice pineapple string, but you probably already have some of that among your stuff. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Pseudonym

I can't stand to see plural pronouns (they, them) and possessive adjective (their) to refer to a singular subject. An editor changed "he or she" to "they", etc., at Pseudonym. I may even have added "he or she", etc., myself (months ago). I realize that a lot of "he or she", "him or her", and "his or her" is too much, but I don't like "they" when the antecedent is a singular noun. I thought about changing the subject to plural, but, when I looked at the subject noun, it didn't seem like the sentence would sound right with it made plural. Can you figure out a solution? Perhaps just use "he", "him", and "his"? Or rearrange the sentence? It's at Pseudonym#Monarchies. CorinneSD (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I suggest toning it down a bit by removing the relative clause "by which they will be known", and changing one of those instances back: "In many monarchies, the sovereign is allowed to choose a regnal name. This official name may differ from his or her first name and may not even be one of their given names at birth." Sorry, I can't help with the other two. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A funny thing, I could not avoid adding; they can be used as a singular pronoun. – nafSadh did say 03:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Nutmeg

An IP editor just added material to the article on Nutmeg. Thankfully, McGeddon put it into Standard English. However, there is one change made by the IP editor that I wanted to ask you about. Early in the section Nutmeg#Botany and cultivation, the IP editor changed "is grown in" to "is planted in". That kind of implies that it is planted in those places but maybe doesn't grow. I think "is grown in" is better. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of making it harder to read, I put in "cultivated". I suppose they thought it meant that the plants were native there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Cultivated" sounds fine. I made a few more edits. CorinneSD (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Blazing star barnstar
	For stellar contributions that improve botany and plant related articles.

:) FloraWilde (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, what a beautiful plant. You are making a major contribution to plant articles too! (I wonder if there's another plant also called Blazing Star, or perhaps that's Shooting Star … I'll have to look around for documentation.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Liatris. (And I second the commendation.) Choess (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I've made a start at Blazing star (disambiguation). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Milkweed

I just read the article on Milkweed. It was generally well-written. I just made a few minor copy-edits. I just wanted to mention that in the list of species, there is one "citation needed" tag and a few species are missing photos, in case you want to find the missing information. Also, I wonder why "native to...." is missing from a lot of the species. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a big genus that needs more taxonomic work, and so, for example, is missing from the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. That makes it more difficult to check a species list to see that it is up-to-date, or to run through it to see where each species is native. Actually, that's an incomplete list that could be made much longer. It looks as if the effort to add native ranges started from the the top of the list and didn't get to the end. I expect that various editors, as I did just now, decided that although it might be nice to add information, the first step should be to revise the species list, and we don't have an adequate source for that in the usual places (perhaps there is one, but it would take serious searching to find it). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Anise

In case you don't have Anise on your watch list, I thought I'd mention that an editor has added some information to the article. It appears to be added in good faith, but there are some grammatical and spacing errors. I can't judge the content or the references. Do you want to take a look at it? CorinneSD (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite weird, I wonder where they got that "corrected" German spelling from; it almost fits that classic challenge to find a phrase that gives exactly one hit in a google search. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, too. I had never heard of that classic challenge. I can see how that would be an irresistible challenge to some. I also wonder why people add material to articles without first reading the information about editing and adding material on Wikipedia. CorinneSD (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Rosa 'Souvenir de la Malmaison'

Imagine the scent ...

Hello Sminthopsis84,
I just saw your new article and wanted to ask you plan to write more cultivar articles or if that was a special case... I'm asking, as I decided to work a bit on Book:Roses - and mainly on the rose cultivars as that's what I know best from commons - and 'Souvenir de la Malmaison' was on my list of articles to write (which at the moment is quite low on my to do list, as I don't like those rose stubs... ;->).
Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anna, I saw you work on 'Veilchenblau', upgrading it from a small stub to something worth reading -- nice! I don't expect to have much time to work on rose cultivars, but was doing a little bit because I'm particularly frustrated by the poor coverage of the classic groups of rose cultivars. Actually, I'm generally frustrated by the lack of respect for traditional plant breeding and traditional agriculture and horticulture (important skills that mustn't die out, I'd say). I think we should have a page about each of the groups like moss roses (other than Rosa × centifolia), and Bourbon roses, but adding a few cultivars first seemed like a suitable foundation for that, even if they were just stubs. 'Souvenir de la Malmaison' has quite a few places already where a link was wanted, so I thought it was time to make a start on it. It's good to meet you here! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm really glad about your comment about Rosa 'Veilchenblau', because at the moment I'm assessing my own changes - which is really strange for me, as I don't know that much about the quality scales (I did ask for a reference, though), but it has to be done if I want to have my changes reflected in the assessment of the rose book.

And you are right that there should be articles about the different cultivar groups, but that's a much bigger project than to work from time to time on a cultivar.

Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I can't help with the assessment process: I've found some procedures intended to improve the quality of pages, such as GA and DYK, to be so stressful that I don't participate in them; we've lost editors because they were attacked during those procedures. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The good thing is that an article about a cultivar probably can't get better than C-class - so I don't have to fear those procedures ;-> Anna reg (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)