This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The disambiguation page Fascicle has incoming links waiting to be repaired, but before that happens the disambiguation page should be improved. So I started Fascicle (botany) ... and now I am wondering if there should be more than one article, or redirects to other articles, for "fascicle" as used in botany. Thoughts? Please comment on Talk:Fascicle (botany). --Una Smith (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of clear research on the underlying genetic and/or developmental causes, I'm inclined towards having the several concepts treated in a single article. At present, it is a structural phenomenon, and so (to some degree) can be considered an example of evolutionary convergence. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
To ask the same question from another angle: are root fascicles as highly ordered as leaf and flower fascicles, or are they merely fascicles in the general sense of bunches (clumps)? --Una Smith (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Nutation
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Ugh; what a mess. I went to Nutation to read about the plant phenomenon so named, and found an article on planetary nutation, with no mention of plant nutation. My initial assumption was that we had no coverage of plant nutation; but then I stumbled upon the strangely titled orphan Nutation in plants. After linking to it from the Nutation article, I had a closer look at it, and learned that it is a (legal) copy-paste job from a 1915 encyclopedia. You've gotta love an article that baldly gives the causes of nutation "so far as is known at present (c. 1915)". Does anyone have the knowledge/interest to drag this article into the 21st century?
I'm tempted to stick in an invocation of {{As of}} (as of 1915[update]). How often does one get to do that? Kingdon (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That article is funny. Its as if the author(s) couldn't find much to say about nutation, so devoted most of the article to vaguely similar other topics. It is 95 years old, yet just like so many other stubs on Wikipedia now. Quick, someone fix it before another year goes by. --Una Smith (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
According to the intro paragraph of Algae, "they are currently excluded from being considered plants." Yet Template:Botany links to to algae as a topic. Category:Algae is subcategorized by Category:Protista; the algae article does not even mention that kingdom.
I don't know what the answer to this is (perhaps different kinds of algae are classified in different ways?) but it seems unclear and inconsistent as is. postdlf (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose we might remove it from that template, but at least according to Botany, botany treats a broader range of organisms than just plants. There's more detail at Botany. Kingdon (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
But the issue is not whether or not botany treats other organisms. If the paragraph says algae "are currently excluded from being considered plants," it's false. That's an issue in itself, whatever botany treats or doesn't shouldn't matter to false information in the algae article. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:Botany expressly labels algae as a kind of plant (look at the template to see how the links are organized), so it's not merely a question of whether the field of botany may encompass the study of algae. postdlf (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The field of botany does encompass phycology. I thought your issue was with the algae article. Botany clearly covers phycology, the study of botany. Various types of organisms called algae (not a technical name, by the way, and one reason for not using common names) are studied, however, by other types of biologists, particularly the single-celled brown and golden "algae" and a few of the stranger things may be studied more by other types of biologists than botanists.
As I said, lack of clarity and apparent inconsistency. This isn't a topic on which I have contributed, so I'm just coming at this as a reader. The article says algae aren't plants. The template says they are. The category says they're protists. So the issue isn't only with the article because I don't know which, if any of these, is incorrect, only that they appear to contradict one another, and that the article does not provide a clear explanation that would resolve this. postdlf (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the text of the article is more informative than the simple category listing or a word appearing in a topical template? some algae are included in the plant kingdom, but most algae are not. This is a result of "algae" not being a taxon; it's just a convient label for a bunch of things that aren't actually related to each other. It's a bit like "marine mammal" or "Australian plant". The algae are a diverse group of organisms that happen to share certain ecological traits by virtue of convergent evolution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Got it, Postdlf. You're a confused reader, and the article inconsistencies should be dealt with to unconfuse you and all readers. Thanks for posting. I wish I could conclude by clearing stating that someone will take care of it, but I only know algae from the perspective of a marine biologist/paleontologist, and the taxonomies in these articles, granted one is a group, not a clade, need to be dealt with by one of the botany editors who is also knowledgeable about algae. I don't understand plant topologies at the phylum and higher levels. I posted a list of editors who might be able to help in the controversy about the bot who created all the blue-green-algal eukaryotes articles, maybe I can find that and suggest a group of editors to contact about correcting these articles, or maybe one of the botany editors here is knowledgeable. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Revising the Algae article is on my list of things to do, but it's not at the top (yet). There are several other articles I am doing research on, and once that has been finished and the articles in question revised to the degree that I can do so, then Algae is one I want to tackle. It's not my strongest subject area, but I have studied them under two different leading phycologists, and it is (ironically) the only scientific subject for which I have a (non-abstract) print publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were one of the algae competent editors on the list. The article and the overall chaos of algae and photosynthetic single-celled organisms on wikipedia needs a direction, badly. I hope you can con some other editors into helping you. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 04:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Competent, perhaps, but not proficient. Any article on algae takes a lot of research on my part to produce any reasonable content. I can work faster at basic taxonomic cleanup, which is why we now have articles on all the orders of brown algae as well as a current taxonomy for the Laminariales. I've been working to do similar cleanup for the browns on several other lanugage WPs and Wikispecies, as well as for the Commons images. The browns were in an even worse mess before I did the basic cleanup. For example, the brown algae had three different colors of taxobox before I started (remember that the taxobox color is uniform within a kingdom!). I'm currently writing notes for a proper expansion on the brown algae article itself, but don't want to insert the changes until I have a lot of material. My reason is that an article which has been expanded five-fold is eligible for featuring on the main page under "Did you Know...?" If I make the changes piecemeal, then it won't have that eligibility or the extra attention that comes with it. A proper revision of that article would deserve such recognition because there isn't a really good article on the browns on any of the WPs, and it really is a core algal article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
That Template:Botany lists algae isn't a problem - as algae lie within the scope of botany. That it is lists them as plants is - as not all, if any, algae are plants (perhaps the person who added algae to the template was thinking of green and/or red algae). Perhaps a separate row in the template with the major algal groups. The other question is whether fungi should be included in the botany template? Lavateraguy (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I would say "no" to both issues. The algae are listed along with bryophytes, pteridophytes, gymnosperms, and flowering plants as grades / life cycles within the scope of botany. The individual algal groups need not be listed, nor the individual groups of bryophytes, etc. We have a separate {{plant classification}} template for that. The fungi fall more within the scope of microbiology these days, or are better regarded as a separate field. The techniques, biology, etc. have diverged quite a lot from plant-focused botany. The fungi likewise have their own navigation template for the major taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Redwood
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The disambiguation page Redwood is on the January 2010 dab challenge list, due to its large number of incoming links to be repaired. But ... the various articles about trees called redwood are a mess in this respect, loaded with POV about which species is the "true" redwood, the "true" sequoia, etc. Help? --Una Smith (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't find this talk in the articles about which species is the true redwood, sequoia, etc. There is some discussion that the common name "Sequoia" is actually usually used for "Sequoiadendron" rather than "Sequoia," which is correct, but it appears to be written correctly and clearly. I cannot find the confusion you refer to about "redwood," though. Can you quote and link please? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I gave this a taxobox. Have no knowledge of this species and limited time. Anyone want to clean up rather than just delete/strip? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks guys - I hate seeing these sort of things deleted by overzealous patrollers, and was busy IRL this afternoon, and have my hands juggling too many things :/ Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Cyperus
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Does this look like C. papyrus (the seed mother plants had much longer stalks) which is the identification I got from a gardener ? Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Has the egg of a Gangara thyrsis not known to use this genus as a host
Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Taxoboxes and species lists
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I know it's not usually done, but when we have a "List of species of X" article should we be adding a (genus-level) taxobox? It seems to me like it would be appropriate, but I was curious as to what other people thought. Guettarda (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I would say no, because it's not an article about the genus, nor about any taxon. It's a list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Why does it have to be an article about the genus to benefit from a taxobox? It gives the same utility in a list that it does in an article about the species or a genus: family, order, where to seek more information. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It does need to be an article about a taxon to have a taxobox. That's why the taxoboxes exist. A WP list is (by definition) not an article, and such lists are seldom about a taxon even when they are lists of species. Further, the taxobox identifies the taxon (or taxa) which the article covers. It is not merely a navigation tool but a summary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Browsing through Wikipedia:Featured lists, the norm seems to be that the list does not have an infobox, but it does have a link to the article (in this case, the genus article) early on. That should make it fairly easy to find the taxobox. The list should also (ideally) have a photo and a lead (per Wikipedia:Featured list criteria), which helps establish context. Kingdon (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Algae project
Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion
Is there a WikiProject for Algae (sensu latissimo, non-green). I know the project tags on talk pages lend the articles to collections by bots that are monitored by interested editors. I would like to tag algae-oddballs in some manner that would gain them some notice by editors of some sort. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No, there isn't. There don't seem to be many algae editors here at all, so there isn't likely to be a large enough number of current Wikipedians to form a collaborative group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Can I create one, and get the project designated as a subproject of wikiproject plants for the purpose of getting a bot to list newly created articles in a single location and trying to categorize by higher levels according to a reputable source, say Lee? To ultimately undo most of the mess that is eukaryotic photosynthetic single-celled organisms on wikipedia? Sensu nowhere-near-as-broad-as-wikipedia (no wiki-eukaryotic cyanobacteria). --68.127.232.132 (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
If you can find the membership, then it would be a great thing to have happening here. I'm a bit pessimistic about finding sufficient membership, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be found. They may be hiding in the minority among the several related projects (Ecology, Microbiology, etc.) --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
She wants the project to organize algae articles. We discussed this at work and with another wikipedia editor who mentioned she finds new plant articles by belonging to this wikipedia project and subscribing to a bot feed. The question is, can she start the project, and somehow get a bot to create a list of algae articles.
There are no dedicated algae editors on wikipedia, it appears. My friend would like to propose a published the adoption of a published taxonomy for the algae (from a popular and current textbook), discuss it with other editors, then sort the algae articles on wikipedia according to this taxonomy. Having a project page gives a gathering place for decision making and affords editors outside the project a location to ask questions about the articles. Right now, the algae articles are not tagged with any wikiproject, except for some Chlorophytes. The articles are a mess, using numerous taxonomies, some published, other speculative primary research, and some contradictory and even discredited published taxonomies. The category tags on algal taxa at all levels appear random and, therefore, also useless. With a project and a bot, then the bot could be used to fill in taxoboxes after human sorting and assigning. The project would also provide a level of support for interacting with the community for scientists who are not too good at that with the wikipedia anti-expert attitude.
If this were a subproject of plants, then maybe some plant editors would join, but if there were no call for membership and no one joined, but she got it done, the algae would not be a mess. She's a researcher and could organize the algae very well.
Is there any chance of getting plant editors to support this? How about a trial run for 3 months or something, then if it gets off ground with useful results, leave it, if it doesn't, just close shop on the project noting it was a limited run? Also the project might attract interested parties. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the best hope would be to set it up as a task force within this project. It would probably attract some input from people here. Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether you call it a task force or wikiproject makes little difference really. However, if one does make it a wikiproject, it may be easier to manage and classify articles. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Banksia as an example, with Wikipedia:WikiProject Banksia/Article notes as a monitoring/tracking page. I used to think that it was only worthwhile setting up a wikiproject if active, but with all the automated editing, this is less relevant I feel. So I guess my gut feeling is leaning towards a wikiproject....Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I found a task force, but it uses its parent project banner. The botany banner that indicates the article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants is not put on Talk pages of most lineages with different evolutionary paths to algaehood (Rhodophyta, Glaucophyta, Euglenids, the Diatoms). Putting a WikiProject Plant banner on the Chromalveolate page might cause fear in the heart of Wikipedia botanists, and it would confuse readers.
I am asking plant editors to agree to allow me to make this a subproject of plants, like WikiProject Banksia is. This allowing me to create a talk page banner, lists, and a page to discuss taxonomies, and create a place for tasks, and for discussion of bots for automatic cleanup of the articles. I hope, also, someone will volunteer to create the template to make the banner, and project page, if the plant editors can agree to this? --68.127.232.132 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Would such a project be better placed as a direct descendant of WikiProject Tree of life? Melburnian (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I worry it can only attract help and commentary as a subproject of plants, and as a subproject, it limits encounters with members of the larger community who disagree with a project created for what will be a small group of IP editors. At its essence I'm proposing a project for my own convenience to sort higher level algal groups. The Banksia Project subpages would be created to organize tasks so that any editor could help.
Algae, as you know, are not in a single clade of organisms, and the classifications are not stable at this point in time. The classification would have to be discussed with other writers, to reach a reasonable consensus, due to the lack of algae editors. The plant community is the only natural group with any subset of editors who know a red algae photosynthesizes but is not closely related to land plants. Also, due to my personal biases for particular classifications that reflect my research, I'm unwilling to use a classification system that is not understood and supported by the literature as indicated by some group of editors on Wikipedia. I can probably only find those editors here, among botanists, horticulturists, and plant lovers.
What do you think? Certainly the hierarchy is more closely related to a Subproject of Tree of Life (broad) than of Botany (narrow, comparatively), but would other editors of Wikipedia allow a project started by an anonymous user? --68.127.232.132 (talk) 00:17, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Button_redirect.png10 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that anonymity should enter into the issue. I usually work on Wiktionary, and we have some incredibly valuable long-term contributors who remain anonymous. IP anonymity is often associated with cluelessness and vandalism, yes, but your contributions should be more important than your identification, and no one is required to register in order to contribute. I have no personal preference for selecting a "parent" project for the proposal algal group, as I can see about equal advantages and disadvantages in either approach. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, are one of you willing to create the initial project pages if I upload the outline somewhere? Or, rather, first would someone create a sandbox/subpage/temporary page for the outline? I intend to just plagiarize (with credit) what is useful from the WikiProject Banksia page and subpages, as they have some good ideas for a small project. Then I will invite the botany and other editors to discuss the taxonomy--this cannot be done without community input. But, first, I would like to create the project page with a general idea of the scope of the project, some primary references, and with resource templates like WikiProject Banksia has, for some texts and journal articles. This will give interested editors an idea where to start, and a talk page to discuss the taxonomy. After the taxonomies, I will find a bot to create lists of articles that need the higher level taxonomies added as taxoboxes.
I point out the project page can easily be deleted if nothing comes of it. However, the articles are such a mess that there is no way to go forward without a designed plan for tackling the mess, and this requires dedicated project space where I can do work like a database for sorting the articles into their correct taxonomy, seeing what's totally messed up, and figuring out what can be fixed with bots, or editing tools, and what has to be fixed by hand. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I found a user who has created an algal template and offers to create templates, but he appears to be inactive (Smith609). Do you know another person who creates templates? Or is there someone here who is willing to create the project banner, making it with the same functions as the WikiProject Banksia banner (article quality and importance), with this image: ? Can you also create these two subpages for start-up: Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Taxon notes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Drafts? I will post the higher level taxa articles on the project page then move them to these pages and start locating the existing categories. I would like to post a broad request for participants or advisors from existing wikipedia writers and editors. What would be the best places for a post of this nature? I think that I might find at least a few participants among registered editors, and they can handle these details in the future from the project page itself. Thank you for the help. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
If no one else jumps in to do it before I return, then I can handle templates (usually), especially when it's simply a matter of copying and adapting existing templates. I expect User:Rkitko will know how to handle any bits that don't make sense to me, since he's been heavily involved with the WP:PLANTS article assessment project. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. There is no hurry to get the template done, as there is a lot to do in addition to marking the talk pages. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
All the reference templates have been done. I corrected a few errors, and took the liberty of adding templates for Fritsch, for Toomey's Paleoalgology, and for Brook's Biology of the Desmids (because there are go many species). --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for creating all of them. It is much faster to add a quick missing article using the template for the sources when writing articles. They will also help with useful texts for interested writers with limited background. Biology of the Desmids was on my "to be added list," but not the Toomey--good thinking. There are a number of important micropaleontology texts, also, but they can wait for a while. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The assessment template and assessment categories should all be done now. The next time the assessment bot runs, it should start running the stats. If it doesn't, then you might need to ask Rkitko for advice, as I've done all that I know needs to be done. The bot has been initialized and should update the assessment statistics about every three days from this point on. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
ID request for Arizona flowers
Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Most of these were taken in the vicinity of Arizona. Any help with the IDs would be appreciated.
Photos 4 & 5 are probablyEschscholzia californica subsp. mexicana, but I'd need to see the receptacle underneath the corolla to be certain. The receptacle is "free and spreading" in E. californica. Photo 1 looks like a Phacelia to me, but I do not own the Flora of Arizona (or can't find it among the boxes) and so don't know which species it might be. Photo 3 is an Opuntia, but I don't know the species. Photo 6 is a DYC. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The DYC appears to be Berlandiera lyrata. Are all the photos of cultivated plants? Melburnian (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
1 and 2 were shot in the wild. I can't remember if the others were or not, some of them may have been from a botanical garden in Pheonix. Kaldari (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Photo 2 appears to be an Echinocereus. Do you have any more specific location info for 1 & 2? Melburnian (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Photos 4 & 5 are definitely ssp. californica; too many stamens for mexicana, and the receptacles are clearly visible in the enlarged #5. Photo #1 is a Phacelia; for some reason P. cicutaria comes to mind, but don't quote me on it. The diagnostic features are the exserted stamens and entire leaves, but my flora is also in a box somewhere.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks like photo 2 might be a Echinocereus rigidissimus or Echinocereus pseudopectinatus although there are a lot of Echinocereus species. Any second opinions? Kaldari (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
E. pseudopectinatus seems plausible - E. rigidissimus is said not to have central spines, but they are clearly visible in the photo. The large number of ribs (>20? could have used a photo from above) eliminates quite a few candidates. Exact location is crucial, you don't mention where you took the picture. Stan (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
That's why I'm cautious with USDA PLANTS - the map for E. pseudopectinatus shows New Mexico and Texas, but further down it's noted as a protected species of Arizona, plus FNA and Anderson both characterize as Arizona and Mexico. Central AZ is probably too far north, it seems like more of an on-the-border species. Stan (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, E. pseudopectinatus seems to be ruled out based on FNA's distribution map [1]Melburnian (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Algae
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Algae was started as a meeting space on Wikipedia for improving the taxonomic representations of the groups of organisms called algae. Please join other editors at the talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae) to discuss a higher level taxonomy for algae to be used on Wikipedia.
The taxonomies used on Wikipedia algae articles are a mixture of ancient to modern random phyla/classes that are often inconsistent from one article to the next (and sometimes within the same sentence of an article). Editors have adopted hypothesized taxonomies from single articles in the literature, taxonomies that have been out of favor for over 100 years, and some taxoboxes use taxonomies from two different sources.
I think that a taxonomy that is supported in tertiary sources (textbooks), with added insight from the technical literature (review articles, well-cited research), could create some order to allow editors with a wide range of knowledge to edit these articles. Please discuss the proposed taxonomy at the project talk page.
Input from botany editors is particularly needed due to the low number of algae editors on Wikipedia. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
I propose that the article Nepeta be moved to Catnip per WP:NCCN. Catnip is, after all, the common name for plants of this genus, and it's the title people would expect to find the information under. This was discussed briefly on the article talk page, and I gave my view here. Does anyone have any objections to the move? garik (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
"Catnip" is an ambiguous term, so I made catnip into a disambiguation page. Hesperian 13:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Plus Nepeta cataria is also called "catmint".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point, Hesperian, and the disambig page seems a good solution. I think the catmint point may be a bit of a red herring though, Curtis: I'm pretty sure "catnip" is more common so it would still make sense to move the page to "catnip" and have "catmint" redirect there, if it weren't for the ambiguity of the term "catnip" (which seems to be the key issue). garik (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe redirect to Catnip instead of Nepeta and have the disambig page start "Catnip or catmint...?" garik (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Catmint, rather than catnip, is the commonest name in my experience. I believe the article should stay at Nepeta. Imc (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I would encourage others to read Nepetalactone, which is one of the pages that the Catnip disambiguation page links to. In the article, it cites that Nepetalatone (the chemical that makes cats go crazy) is found in both Nepeta and a species of honeysuckle, and it is the latter that is used for cat toys. That being the case, I think it is best that "Catnip" remain a disambiguation page since it can be thought of as either an herb or the cat-attracting chemical commonly found in cat toys. --Tea with toast (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose: Causes more problems than it solves to move to "Catnip". A reasonably smart person (or even slightly dull person), can figure out that Nepeta (which is the genus for a considerable number of species), is catnip, just the common name. It states it in the first paragraph, so the seeker instantly learns this. One point of scientific names was to avoid the confusion caused by common names (which can change from region to region) in the first place. Then again, I think every common name should either be a disambiguation page, or redirect to a scientific name, or be a separate article from the scientific name. But I think every scientific name should have its own article unless its a nomenclatural synomyn, in which case it should redirect to the article it is a synonym for. Hamamelis (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
As implied above, I'm joining the oppose side! I think the fact that the term "catnip" is used both for the genus and for a specific plant in the genus (which I hadn't realised) makes the term ambiguous enough that Hesperian's solution is the best one. On catnip vs catmint: catmint is, in my experience and according to dictionaries I've checked, restricted to British usage; catnip, on the other hand, is the term used in North America, and is also common in the UK. I'm not sure what terms are common in places like Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, but I'd wager that catnip wins here too. In any case, catnip seems to be the least geographically specific term, so I think catmint should redirect to that. garik (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Lemon
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I didn't create it, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Pteridophytes has recently been created and seems like as good a place as any to fight over taxonomy (for example, whether to write taxoboxes and such based on the broad Polypodiales of Smith 2006 or a narrower one). Kingdon (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Author abbreviation "Darwin"
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Does this botanical abbreviation refer to Charles or Erasmus Darwin? The Charles Darwin FA states that it refers to him, with a citation to Authors of Plant Names, but I am skeptical. I had no idea Charles described more than a few species, but Erasmus described many. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
IPNI Author Search doesn't list anything for Erasmus Darwin. It uses "Darwin" for Charles, and "R.W.Darwin" for his great-uncle. Similarly, the Harvard University Herbarium database lists Charles as "Darwin", Robert as "R. W. Darwin" and Francis as "F. Darwin", but no Erasmus. Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Plant ID New Guinea
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can anyone help with the tree that this bird-of-paradise is sitting on? I've tentatively ID-ed it as Schefflera sp. Are the bulb-like things it is standing on fruits or inflorescences? Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It does appear to be a Schefflera species, but I'm not sure at what stage it's at in terms of budding/flowering/fruiting at that distance. There are about 50 species in Papua New Guinea, and I'm unfamilar with all except one that I have as a pot plant. Melburnian (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
WP 1.0 bot announcement
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Plant peoples 'pinions, please!
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There's a boring little edit war going on at the tree shaping article. If you go to this discussion on the COI noticeboard and read my "RECAP" you should get an immediate sense of what's going on. The neutral opinions of people who know anything about plants...or at this point anything about anything...might help to dissolve the current impasse. Thanks. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
A tricky one. Not sure what the overall name for tree shaping actually is. Am not familiar with the term tree shaping as such. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Opinions needed at Tree Shaping
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Tree shaping article has ungone a lot of editing back and forth. It is mainly about the word Arborsculpture and in what context the word should be used within the article. Blackash (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Please note that editor 208.59.93.238 and 96.233.40.199 are one and the same person. They outed themselfs in the section Recap "Please note that this IP address and 96.233.40.199 are used by the same person." Blackash (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The different aspects of the dispute are happening in these locations.
I contacted three different editors who had edited on Tree shaping talk page, including one who had criticised me. I just asked for them to come and give their opinion, I didn't lay out any of the issues.
I have contacted Andrevan to ask for editor assistance NPOV needed to check my editing and to improve my editing to ensure that I'm editing from a NPOV. (He hasn't replied yet) I listed the in and outs what editor is doing what there to date of 26 January 2010. Of couse more has happened.
Basically these three editors are attempting to give undue weight to the word Arboursculpture. They are claiming that I have COI so they don't have to give reasons or to come to a compromise for their changes. Initially I said that I didn't see we had a conflict, but then I read the ICO article and this was my reply after that.
Having read the COI I can see that now the page has been change from Arborscuplture to a neutral, generic, and descriptive name we now may come into COI. As the page is no longer about one method of shaping but the art form as a whole. Fortunately it was never my agenda to push our method of shaping. My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees. With that in mind I will continue to edit as I have always endeavoured to reach a consensus with other editors. Blackash (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
208.59.93.238 and 96.233.40.199 have implied I only edit for self promotional reasons. Check out some of my editing of related articles, I don't promote Pooktre, but try to improve Wikipedia in general. They have also accused me of micromanaging when I asked them for the reasoning for the change/s to the content. These editors plus Slowart insinuate that the original naming of the article was instigated by me. Which is not true. My reply to this was "I don't prefer Tree shaping verses Arborsculpture. Any neutral name would do. Tree shaping was changed from Arborsculpture becuse there is a method linked the word. Arborsculpture and Pooktre both have methods linked to their names and it would be inappropriate to use these as they are not neutral, generic, or descriptive. Richard Reames and now this editor keep trying to imply that we were responsible for the naming of this article. There was a consensus of quite a few different editors. Move from Arborscusculpture to Tree Shaping Blackash (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)"
I refute the point, I do research and give quotes as to why it is wrong, I contradict what I believe the issues are (as they don't say why it can be a bit confusing) and find evidence to back up what I have said.
I have repeatedly asked them to give reasons for the changes. I have attempted to work towards a compromise, between their view and mine. Any changes I make are basically undone or they change the sentence to give more weight to the word Arborsculpture. Example they asked a citation, after three days they removed the content from the page. This content was related to the usage of the word Arborsculpture. Blackash (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
What is needed
In short I like some new eyes looking at the content before this editing started to voice an opinion on which edits are improving the content and what isn't.
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Expect quite a few thread to pp up in there: I'm working though Bell and Bryan's Plant form: an illustrated guide to flowering plant morphology for botanical terms to define in en:wikt
I've been trying to figure out good definitions for abaxial and adaxial. Currently the definitions at Wiktionary are made with relation to an undefined "axis", which is a dubious choice:
All non-ensiform leaves regardless of their placement will have an adaxial and abaxial side (and possibly even ensiform leaves do)
Side shoots and branches have adaxial and abaxial sides
Even "leaves" that are parallel to the relevant axis (as are found in, IIRC many ferns) still have an ab- and adaxial side
I thought that defining the side with regard to "direction of growth" would fix the first two issues, but I find it less than ideal. Is it reasonably accurate to just call it "the side that is normally oriented upward" or something like that?
On slightly related issues (I was working on thos words before starting Bell&Bryan from the beginning):
Is plicate better defined solely with regard to ptyxis or should it also extend to merely the pleated appearance of folds/groove, as is found in e.g. Hosta (I suspect it shouldn't)?
I also seem to recall that circinate (or at least the Latin circinatus) has been used to merely mean "round/roundish" as in Acer circinatum, whose young leaves are, if I am not misaken, plicate. Am I being schizophrenic?
While on the topic, what is the distinction between vernation and ptyxis?
One problem is that some organs turn "upside down", so that what is normally orientated up - is not. :plicate is sometimes used to describe petal and sepal edges also. Hardyplants (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, at the time "plicate" is defined very generally, and you have pinted out yet another challenge with defining these words. Circéus (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments requested for proposed guideline for sensitive wildlife locations
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've proposed a guideline for excluding details of certain sensitive wildlife locations from Wikipedia: Wikipedia:sensitive wildlife locations. I was partly prompted by the inclusion of location details for an orchid, very rare in Britain, on Wikipedia; very rare wild plants are vulnerable to being dug up by collectors or trampled by careless visitors. All comments on the proposal are welcomed.Jimi 66 (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Has the egg of a Gangara thyrsis not known to use this genus as a host
1. Phacelia sp.
2. Echinocereus sp.
3. Opuntia sp.
4. Eschscholzia californica californica
5. Eschscholzia californica californica
6. Berlandiera lyrata
