 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
various comments edit
Would it be right to say that Spider Orchid is the popular name for Caladenia? Because the infobox and picture caption say "spider orchid", but the main text (apart from the species list) never mentions the term. - dcljr (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- The use of common names in titles is discouraged, because most common names are not unambiguous. I gave it nevertheless a prominent place on top of the taxobox. This has been debated at great length in the (archives of the) talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. This solution seems the most convenient. JoJan 09:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was basically saying we need to explain in the main text, in the first few sentences, the relationship between the page title, Caladenia, and the term used in the taxobox and picture caption, spider orchid. To not mention the latter term in the article proper is just confusing. - dcljr (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Two comments: One, Caladenia as a group do not have a common name that I am aware of (unlike Diuris, which are collectively called "moth orchids" or "donky's ears orchids" because of the wing/ear like aspect of the two uppermost petals). The common names of Caladenia orchids include "spider", "faries", and "fingers", to name just a few. My second point regards the photo in the taxo box. While it is a fine photo, it's my understanding that the photo in the taxo box should be the "type species" (in this case Caladenia carnea) whenever one is available. I've just added a page for carnea and the photo can be sourced there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeresH (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't quite right to say that the photo in the taxobox should be the type species. It is one of several considerations, others being the quality and information content of the available images. But in this case your photo of the type species is not inferior to the photo we were using, so I have swapped it in. Hesperian 04:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, quality of the image must be a consideration as well. I also know that some people get a bit precious about the placement of their images, either putting their own images in "pride of place", or conversely, taking issue with having their images moved. Thus, I try not to step on toes-ees. KeresH (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's funny, I thought I had swapped it in already. I must have forgotten to hit save. Anyhow, it's done now. Hesperian 06:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, quality of the image must be a consideration as well. I also know that some people get a bit precious about the placement of their images, either putting their own images in "pride of place", or conversely, taking issue with having their images moved. Thus, I try not to step on toes-ees. KeresH (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't quite right to say that the photo in the taxobox should be the type species. It is one of several considerations, others being the quality and information content of the available images. But in this case your photo of the type species is not inferior to the photo we were using, so I have swapped it in. Hesperian 04:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
List of species edit
I suggest it would be appropriate to have the list of species on a separate page (since there are about 350 species). Also, please note (image caption in taxobox) that C. carnea is not the type species - Brown did not nominate a type. (APNI will confirm.) Clean up of flower description coming.Gderrin (talk)