Talk:Banksia epica/Archive

message: Leads says the plant grows to 2m tall, description says the branches grow to 3.5 meters tall. Gnangarra 13:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead vs descritpion 

message: Opinions which format do you guys think is better for this article, I put the full aust version into the article but as the distribution area is so small I thought the cutting the map area down would improve its appearance.
:left WA image is 200px, the full Aust image is 200 px(current size in article), right image is 140px.  Gnangarra 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about cropping to the WA border? Then we can have a caption that reads "Distribution of B. epica within Western Australia." Hesperian 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do the crop, I think a caption reading "Distribution of B. epica within Western Australia." may create doubt especially at FAC. My first thought was "is it found out side WA and why havent you included that" Gnangarra 15:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New cropped map to SA/NT border Gnangarra 11:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not bad for a mockup. I druther the closeup extend somewhat further into the bight, leaving a big patch of ocean in the bottom right to house the Australian inset. Hesperian 11:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: By which I mean to say, start with this:
then shrink it down and stick it in the box inside this:
I don't much like the idea of doing this with . I don't think images created with superimpose can be framed and captioned like a normal image. Gnangarra's manual maps might not be as "wiki", but they look bloody good. Hesperian 12:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep. Gn's hand made maps do look better and they can be tweaked to show what you want without compromise. —Moondyne 12:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This much detail does highlight potential inaccuracies as available sources dont have this level of detail, which is the reasoning behind using fuzzy edge regions instead of solid edge regions  Gnangarra 12:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I'd like to zoom in close enough to allow the display of separate dots for the two populations. But if we zoom in too far, the dots would have to become areas, and we don't know the shape and extents of the sandpatches. Hesperian 04:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  distribution map 

message: Need a to do section to help me finish this off. Hesperian 10:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UOM on distribution section I'll be back to do tonight. Gnangarra 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, fixed. Hesperian 11:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished with that now. Hesperian 11:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: to do

message: To my mind, the only remaining tasks for this article are
#Gnangarra to take more photos at Kings Park, when he has time;
#Hesperian to go to the State Library to see a copy of Australian Plants 171, when he has time.
It could be ages before these get jobs done, yet neither are likely to change the article very much. So I'm going to go ahead and ask our friends Peta and Tony for pre-FAC reviews. Hesperian 07:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I am back. I have issue 171 of Australian Plants so will check and see if any other info can be referenced into here, however I just got home and have 300 emails to sift through.....Cas Liber 13:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! But you've written 173 in the article; which is it? Hesperian 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, it is 173. cheers Cas Liber 11:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the logic is that they don't know if it is rare until they have undertaken a thorough survey; until then they only know that it is poorly known. That makes sense to me in general, but it seems to me a bit silly in this specific case, considering the species occurs only on siliceous sand, which occurs only where there are cliff-top dunes, of which there are exactly three, all of which have been surveyed. Hesperian 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: (Dang, now why can't the description be below the taxobox on the page..)
I found another old photo I took at the Banksia Farm; Kevin Collins showed me the unusual purple follicles. Trying to work it into description section (though I suppose it will move down a little bit if the intro has a second para)
Will I have a go at a 2nd para?
cheers Cas Liber 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another image - positioning problem 

message: *B_epica_02_gnangarra.jpg
*B_epica_04_gnangarra.jpg
*B_epica_06_gnangarra.jpg
*B_epica_08_gnangarra.jpg
These are now full size and available on commons Gnangarra 09:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images - now on commons