# Talk:Nepenthes rajah

This is a great article and maybe you planned on getting to it, but is there more detail avaialable on the digestion mechanism? Enzyme, bacteria, etc. The general carnivorous plants and the genus article don't have any details on this one but do note that various plants have a variety of mechanisms. Thanks - Taxman Talk 19:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, great article. Props. jengod 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added a link to a detailed page on this topic to the Nepenthes article. Thanks. NepGrower 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh great, but it would be much better to cite the source directly, either by including a fact from it and footnoting it, or describing in the text what Frazier found. Some goes for this article. - Taxman Talk 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very impressed with the amount of work that has been put in to this article recently. I notice the footnoted references have not been implemented quite right. They need to be either fixed using {{ref_label}} and {{note_label}}, or switched over to the new <ref> inline footnoting scheme. For instructions on the new footnoting scheme see Meta:Cite.php. I might giv eit a try myself when I get a chance, if no one beats me to it. --Martyman-(talk) 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would happily do it, but I'm not sure how to use the tags.  Mgiganteus1 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The new ref tags are pretty easy to use. There is a description at Meta:Cite.php. An example of an article I have switched over to it is at Lake Burley Griffin the actual edit where I changed it over is here. Essentially the first time you use a reference you place the reference text inline in the document, after that you just have to refer to the reference by name. Then the reference list at the end is auto generated in the correct order with all the correct links. I will do it and you can watch what I did for next time. --Martyman-(talk) 09:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I converted it over. Please double check that the page is still displaying fine as making mistakes in teh ref tags appears to be able to blank out secitons of text. I have checked it and it looks fine though. I hope you guys don't have any trouble working out how it works and being able to build on it. I might add as a bit of a warning, wikipedia' sno original research policy means that the self refs would never get through a featured article proccess. Thanks again for all the hard work on this and related articles. --Martyman-(talk) 10:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help!  The notes section looks great and I now know how to use the new ref tags. Thanks again. :) Mgiganteus1 15:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated for Wikipedia:Good articles, but I have removed the nomination because:

The intro starts off with the somewhat weasely arguably the most famous of all pitcher plants - you could just say 'one of the most famous' and it would sound a lot better
There is a section which warns the reader about impenetrable terminology - this falls foul of the criterion which requires that articles be intelligible to the layman and that jargon is explained.
Galleries are more appropriate on the Wikimedia Commons, and quotes should not be given a section as their selection will almost inevitably express a POV.
Language like 'this statement is pure fantasy' is not very encyclopaedic.
Otherwise it's a very fine article and you should re-nominate it once these are corrected. Worldtraveller 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Mgiganteus1 13:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Great work!  I've listed it on GA now. Worldtraveller 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the {{prod}} tag from Nepenthes rajah/B. H. Danser's Monograph: Nepenthes rajah and replaced it with an {{afd}}, so the decision may be considered by more editors before anything happens.  The question of copyright seems to be an important one, since this text was written by B. H. Danser.  Please contribute to the AfD discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this article has reached FA status. Any plans to submit it any time soon?
My one critique has to do with the distribution map, which appears far too dark to me. Any way you could lighten it and re-upload it? If not, I can try to do the same when I get a chance. --NoahElhardt 00:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article might qualify as A-Class, and would probably give it that status if I was authorized to do so. I won't speak to the matter of the distribution map, because I don't know that much about graphics. If a few more reference citations could be added (2 per paragraph is the standard I've heard) and if some of the short one sentence paragraphs could be merged together, I can't myself see any reaason to withhold FA status from the article. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WHat a sensational article - well done, obviously took a great deal of time HelloMojo 20:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

whoa, yes i agree.. this is a fantastic article... a bloody good job has been done on covering all the Nepenthes species on wikipedia also - nice work. Kotare 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

mgiganteus:
As you can see above i think this is a great article - but i don't understand why my edits were so quickly dismissed and reverted! You said "introductions do not need citations" -  well i can see at least 5 citations in this articles lead. Why not just provide a citation? As for the cultivation section "not being a how to guide" there are lots of tips and instructions given on cultivation of these species:
"Purified water should be used for watering purposes, although 'hard water' is tolerated"
I think a lot of the stuff in that section should stay, expecially the environmental factor stuff but there is some stuff in that section that i really don't think should be on wikipedia as it tells people how to grow the plants and that's information that is useful but it doesn't have a place in wikipedia. I can understand that the big template at the top of the page could just be off-pissing especially as its so unspecific and I hope we can work this out  :) Kotare 09:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC):
Actually forget I said anything. Now that I look closely it's not really presented as a how-to guide and if there's a citation later on fair enough.Kotare 09:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That section certainly needs some work, but in this case I don't think slapping a big template on top of the article is the solution. I'll add the citation in a minute. Regards, Mgiganteus1 11:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here for a different reason but have to say 'Wow - what an amazing article.'  FA-worthy, surely?  Congratulations to all involved.

I'm not sure if the accompanying pic is of interest/use for the article - it shows some Nepenthes rajah plants ("a typical native pitcher plant - Naperthes Rajah" [sic] in the church guide) depicted in part of a memorial stained glass window in Sheepstor Church, Devon, England (burial place of the Brooke rajahs) dedicated to those from Sarawak who died in WW2. 
Quite quirky to find a stained glass window depicting Nipah palms, pitcher plants and Bornean deer, butterflies and moths in an tiny English country church.  The lower moth is identifed in the church guide as "the night hawk moth - Atticus Atlas" [sic] (Attacus atlas) and  the upper one is "the blue/green butterfly discovered in that land and named after Sir James - Papilio Brookiana" [sic], but I'm not sure about this one as it doesn't look much like Trogonoptera brookiana aka Rajah Brooke's birdwing to me .... Wrong colours for a start ... Jasper33 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, very interesting indeed. I've added the image to this article and James Brooke. The species depicted doesn't appear to be N. rajah but N. edwardsiana, possibly drawn from this illustration. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
How interesting ... I wonder who the stained glass artist was and where they got their info from?  The similarity between the St John Spenser illustration and the window is stiking. When I have a spare mo I'll upload photos of the rest of the window Jasper33 (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8552000/8552157.stm ParasiteNetwork (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of a show/hide section is interesting; I don't know what other editors think but I believe it could be useful in other articles. (A good application would often be detailed descriptions of the taxonomic history of the subject of the article, a topic which is rarely of much interest to general readers.) One issue which concerned me is whether the material in this section is actually quotation. If the Latin description isn't actually quoted, I'm impressed with Mgiganteus1's botanical Latin! If any of the material here is a quotation, then it should be shown as such, by quote marks or blockquote sections. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't this section belong in Interactions with animals instead of Carnivory?  --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is written in the article: One such example is the famous legend that N. rajah grows exclusively in the spray zones of waterfalls [...] It is likely this misconception was popularised by Shigeo Kurata's 1976 book Nepenthes of Mount Kinabalu, in which he states that "N. rajah is rather fond of wet places like swamps or the surroundings of a waterfall". The only given source for this information is the Kurata's book. 
I have two remarks:
1) The given information that it is fond of wet places like swamps or the surroundings of a waterfall does not mean that it grows exclusively in waterfall zones.
2) Even if there was such information in the book (which is not), there is no source stating that it was this book which popularized it.
Therefore I added the citation needed template into the article.
--Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There is a significant amount of uncited text throuhghout the article.
The lead is quite long, and should probably be trimmed or reduced.
The article uses long blockquotes: this creates copyright concerns and is more difficult to read and know the important information. I suggest that these be summarised and reduced.
The "History and popularity" has a yellow "cleanup needed" banner which should be addressed.
Is anyone interested in addressing the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)


### Nepenthes rajah