lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Canellaceae

message: I included a link to the Dictionary of National Biography, but it should probably be eliminated as soon as somebody writes an article on Samuel Dale.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.228.254 (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary link 
Talk:Gesneriaceae

message: It would be good to have some content in the lead para about what differentiates the Gesneriaceae from other (related) families -- e.g. scrophs, bignoniaceae, etc.  I'd do it, but I don't have the necessary botanical chops.  For comparison, there is a nice definition of the common characters of Lamiales in that article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonaldP (talk • contribs) 00:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

message: Following the discussion on the project talk page, I thought I'd help with the phylogeny and draft it here.
: Could be this a place to add subtribes? The following uses the genera in Weber et al (2020) with notes on differences from POWO. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylogeny
Talk:Typhaceae

message: I think this family needs some more info.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.182.178 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

message: The given pronunciation ([tɪfaˈkɛ.ɛ]) seems highly dubious to me; can we get a source?  In particular, [a] should not appear (see Help:IPA/English), and the whole -ceae ending usually has a pronunciation in [s] (see other notanical family names on Wikipedia).–Jérôme (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation
Talk:Celastraceae

message: The genus Parnassia has been transfered from Saxifragaceae to Celastraceae.
The Wikipedia article on Parnassia verifies this change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parnassia, as does an email from the Flora of North America.
Bottomdollar (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: .....and small trees? At least Lophopetalum wightianum is a very big tree.--Vinayaraj (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

message: The circumscription of this family has changed greatly in recent years. The article should address this at least in passing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.174.100 (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumscription
Talk:George Templeton Strong

message: There is another George Templeton Strong, a composer who lived from 1856-1948.  His 2nd symphony, "Sintram", is moderately well-known and several recordings exist (see e.g. http://www.amazon.com/George-Templeton-Strong-Symphony-Sintram/dp/B00000GV5Q)  Shouldn't THIS George Templeton Strong also have an article?  When I first bought a CD of the 2nd symphony, I thought these two Georges were one and the same!
See also
http://classicalcdreview.com/gts.htm
http://www.americanmusicpreservation.com/anniversaries.htm
http://www.musicweb-international.com/film/2003/Jan03/ondine.html
152.30.160.8 (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From a quick web search, it appears likely that the composer was the Civil War diarist's son. Perhaps you can find someone in the Wikipedia musical community who would be interested in writing that bio. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other GTS?
Talk:Ulmaceae

message: I've started added distinct references for the genera of the Ulmaceae to this article, as most do not have articles on Wikipedia, and the family has been looked at phylogenetically from the perspective of its higher order relationships within the rosids, or sorting within individual genera, but little has been done on the family and its internal relationships.  Getting all the sources in one place may eventually lead to being able to create a coherent article on what is known about the family at this point.  KP Botany 17:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genera of Ulmaceae 
Talk:Casuarinaceae

message: Instead of yet another pointless article that's 90% about evolution, could someone add something about what makes the wood so famously hard? Lignin content I assume.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.204.139 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardness
Talk:Aizoaceae

message: You mention that carpobrotus edulus has become invasive. To Where? In South Africa it is endemic not invasive. Andrew massyn (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is it invasive?

message: Are citations 3 - 8 correctly located? I believe the refer to the entire tribe or subfamily, not just a single genus.User-duck (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They do apply to the tribe/subfamily. It's difficult to place them; the really only work at the end of the genus lists, or within a section header. References usually follow the material they support, so having them at the end of the genus list makes some sense (though I do see how it can be misleading). Another option might be to write for each section "Genera in the  Aizooideae:" and hang the reference at after the colon. Plantdrew (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to move the citations. Wish me luck!User-duck (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I put the citations on the "Tribe" and "Subfamily" lines. They look good to me.User-duck (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I now understand the problem. "References usually follow the material they support ...". I think the key word is usually, the citations are for the Tribes and Subfamilies. Wouldn't a citation for a table go with the heading of the table?User-duck (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. There really isn't a perfect solution in this case. Table citations may go in text introducing a table, or in individual cells within a table. Plantdrew (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it's against MOS:HEADINGS – "Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked"; "Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings". My understanding is that a particular problem is with access and the way that screen readers handle section headings with links and citations. So I'm afraid that another solution is needed. Mine is normally to introduce a sentence of the general form "As of <date>, <source> accepted the following <taxa>:<ref>". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I implemented an easy solution. The subfamilies do not need to be sections. The subfamilies and tribes were just headings for the lists.User-duck (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations
Talk:Cupressaceae

message: Between this article and the article about Cupressus nootkatensis and Cupressus × leylandii exists noncompliance. Since this article recognizes genus Xanthocyparis (which is not shared by "The Plant List") articles  about Cupressus nootkatensis and Cupressus × leylandii should be edited too. Moreover, ×Cuprocyparis will have to be added to the list of genera.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.223.32 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xanthocyparis and ×Cuprocyparis 

message: It was suggested by an IP editor in September 2017 that this page might be merged with the one entitled Cypress.  No discussion was initiated at the time.  The Cypress page is a navigational one which includes links to articles that are not Cupressaceae, but may be referred to as cypresses.  My thoughts are that it is better to keep them as separate pages.  As the page Cypress (disambiguation) points out: Cypress is a name used for many plants, including the conifer family Cupressaceae, but also other trees, vines, and small shrubs. --Bejnar (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merger with Cypress 

message: The classification of the family Cupressaceae into the order Cuprales is very weakly supported in the article. Only one sentence without any reference states that some classifications have Cuprales as a separate order. One category states "Pinales families". The article Pinales includes cypresses to Pinales. --Andres (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Order Cuprales
Talk:Sapindaceae

message: I strongly question the statement that maple syrup is a product from species in this family (Sapindaceae). It would imply that maples (Acer) are members of this family, which I doubt. In the unlikely event that this is true they should be mentioned as important examples of Sapindaceae!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.239.115.142 (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Including Acer in Sapindaceae is discussed in the third paragraph of the article and a bit more in the classification section. Kingdon (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

message: There is no page for Sapindoideae.  This seems like an oversight; the three less important subfamilies all have pages.  Jamesdowallen (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing page for Sapindoideae 

message: If you're going to define a family, it's because everything in that family has SOMETHING in common.  What is that?  This article does not define WHAT this family HAS IN COMMON that is the raison d'etre for the family!!! The impetus for the creation of the family in humanity's classification of life!  Is this true also of other families, and other classifications of life forms, on Wikipedia?  IS IT TO BE KNOWN, or not, what each family is characterized by, what each member of the family HAS IN COMMON???  Rtdrury (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  in common
Talk:Urticaceae

message: As there were only five diseases listed, and this article was short, I was bold, and merged List of foliage plant diseases (Urticaceae) into this article. --Bejnar (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Diseases

message: What percentage of the 2600 species have stinging hairs?-71.174.181.39 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  stinging -- all?
Talk:Zygophyllaceae

message: The genera Fagonia and Tetraena are listed here, and there are articles, but neither are accepted by Plants of the World Online, being treated as synonyms of Zygophyllum. Why and whether this is justified, I don't know. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genera treated as synonyms by PoWO
Talk:Apocynaceae

message: What's the point in the section entitled "The following genera used to belong to the family Asclepiadaceae :? It should be made clear that this list is only partial, or maybe just remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.85.54 (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of genera formerly in asclepiadaceae 

message: I created a subfamilies and genera lists article, then WP:Bold moved the lists to List of subfamilies and genera of Apocynaceae. If there was a reason for a long list in this otherwise narrative-paragraph-style article, please undo my edit, referenced here[ so it can be easily found and undone. FloraWilde (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists moved to list-style article 

message: This statement is unsourced and is contradicted by Plants of the World online: Pachypodium Lindl. which states "Latex present". Please find a source. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pachypodium, have clear sap and no latex"
Talk:Pinaceae

message: Hi, I'm a part of college biology class that is working to help add information to Wikipedia articles. I have chosen to add information to this article and I have found some primary resources concerning defense mechanisms that Pinaceae has. I have also found a few resources on background information of the plant family, such as its lifecycle. I will include the sources below and am open any advice concerning this information!
Resources on Defense
Cherubini, P., G. Fontanta, D. Rigling, M. Dobbertin, P. Brang, and J. L. Innes. 2002. Tree-life history prior to death: two fungal root pathogens affect tree-ring growth differently. Journal of Ecology 90:839-850.
Franceschi, V. R., P. Krokene, E. Christiansen, and T. Krekling. 2005. Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. The New Phytologist 167:353-375.
Franceschi, V. R., P. Krokene, T. Krekling, and E. Christiansen. 2000. Phloem parenchyma cells are involved in local and distance defense response to fungal inoculation or bark-beetle attack in Norway spruce (Pinaceae). American Journal of Botany 87:314-326.
Lewinsohn, E., M. Gijzen, and R. Croteau. 1990. Defense mechanisms of conifers. Plant Physiology 96:44-49.
Zulak, K. G. and J. Bohlmann. 2010. Terpenoid biosynthesis and specialized vascular cells of conifer defense. Journal of Integrative Biology 52:86-97. 
Resources on Background Information
Eckert, A. J. and B. D. Hall. 2006. Phylogeny, historical biogeography, and patterns of diversification for Pinus (Pinaceae): phylogenetic tests of fossil-based hypotheses. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 40:166-182.
Gruwez, R., O. Leroux, P. De Frenne, W. Tack, R. Viane, and K. Verheyen. 2012. Critical phases in the seed development of common juniper (Juniperus communis). Plant Biology 15:210-219.
Harcombe, P. A. 1987. Tree life tables. Bioscience 37: 557-568.
Just, T. 1948. Gymnosperms and the origin of angiosperms. Botanical Gazette 110:91-103.
Walters, D. R., D. J. Kell. 1975. Vascular plant taxonomy. Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Nicolepotter728 (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense Mechanisms and Background Information 

message: Hello, so I have decided to only add a defense mechanisms section to the Pinaceae article. I want to add information constitutive and induced defenses mechanisms that Pinaceae have. 
Nicolepotter728 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense Mechanisms 

message: I propose to merge Abietaceae into this article, (Pinaceae). The content in the Abietaceae article is minimal, but as a synonym of Pinaceae, the information should be placed here instead. Loopy30 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, proposing to merge Abietaceae to the family article (Pinaceae) would have been an immediate action taken only until such time that a better choice became available. If the subfamily article (Abietoideae) was to be written, then that would be a good target for the merged material. Loopy30 (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Salicaceae

message: Heya, Currently the genera Calantica automatically links to the barnacle. How would I go about removing that link? ShadowPuppets (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've figured out that I can use this type of coding/formatting: Celantica (plant)|Celantica to provide a link to the plant species. (Also I think I may have placed this talk attempt in the wrong part? If so I am sorry about that). ShadowPuppets (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

message: Maybe the article could list which members of this family have the floaty fuzz seeds? I saw a floaty fuzzball in my backyard, and on close inspection, thought "that thing's weird, I want to figure out what it is." I'm currently fairly confident it's a Salicaceae seed, but I'd expect this article would help point me to the right plants.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1303:80AD:0:2813:5693:BE26 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  fuzzball seeds
Talk:Brazilian Revolution of 1930

message: Why do you believe, or why did you add the template saying, that the article 1930 Brazilian coup d'état should be merged into this one, the Revolution of 1930? The leaders of both were not the same and at times contrasted with each other. Though the coup was initiated because of the outbreak of the revolution, they were, in essence, independent movements. The deposition of the President should have an article with further information, which would not be possible here. FredModulars (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: hi, because the distinction between the two events isn’t at all clear to me from reading the articles. I guess that the revolution was a longer and more general process while the coup was much more specific? I didn’t see enough distinctive content in the coup article to indicate that it needed to be separated out. I’d like to post on the WikiProject Brazil talk page to see what others views are. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The distinction might be because this page (Revolution of 1930) isn't as well-written as it should be, and that is mostly my fault. Nevertheless, the revolution and coup were not one and the same. The former was led by a heterogenous coalition of many groups while the latter was led by the Rio de Janeiro military. The coup was a brief, one day operation in Rio that wasn't planned nearly to the extent of the revolution, a large movement which lasted for a month across the entire country. Yes, the before and after is mostly the same and not so "distinctive," but that is because they happened in the same time period with similar. but not identical, context and consequence. That's all I have to say, and I hope others from WP:Brazil can share their views, too. FredModulars (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

text:   after looking at it again, you're right in saying that there isn't enough "distinctive content" that couldn't be merged into this article. If you'd like to proceed with the merge, I think it would be the best. FredModulars (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1930 Brazilian coup d'état]] merge suggestion
Talk:Republicans (Brazil)

message: I'm a Brazilian and not a supporter of PRB or Republicanos (In fact i hate them, they are making the worst municipal administration in the history of Rio de Janeiro), but this article is heavy biased against them, citing biased sources and declarations from the Bishop Crivella from more than 25 years ago, which he public regrets it.
This article need more unbiased sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5C98:4547:A8FB:BE4C:BF29:736F (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you to look at the party program and add some of the official goals of this party, because you can understand portuguese. "Christian fundamentalism" is probably not mentioned there wordly, but at least the statements about the Rio Carneval made by Mr Crivella (during Mayor) and his actions justify this classification. Many leading members (Marcos Pereira (politician), Marcelo Crivella, Edir Macedo) hold important positions in the IURD and the party, what makes them effectively a puppet party of the IURD. So Catholicism as religion is definitely wrong, though Christianity might be still ok. Here is another source confirming the links of the PRB/Republicanos to the IURD  --87.150.2.59 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to make corrections
Talk:Geraniaceae

message: http://zipcodezoo.com/Plants/D/Dirachma_socotrana/ describes a genus Dirachma which isn't listed on this page. Is this an omission? If so, there's a free image of it at http://www.plantsystematics.org/imgs/sv22/r/Dirachmaceae_Dirachma_socotrana_15409.html Pburka (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Dirachma socotrana]]''?
Talk:Ebenaceae

message: From an oldish textbook (Taxonomy of vascular plants, G.H.M.Lawrence, 1951) I observe that the family name Ebenaceae at that time had been conserved over others. there is no genus of matching name at present in the family, as far as I can tell. Ebenus seems to be something else entirely.  Given modern standards, this is confusing to the layman (me!) Could some kindly botanical taxonomist please add a section to this article, explaining the situation and its history? Much thanks if so. JonRichfield (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Section added, see what you think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Family name origin
Talk:Bignoniaceae

message: I believe that author abbreviations are an example of overcorrectness. They save little space and add nothing to the content, but create an intimidating appearance that is unnecessary except perhaps to the egos of some of the editors. Wikipedia is not a technical publication and should appeal to as wide an audience as possible. I cite A Tropical Garden Flora as a book that is technically excellent, but has replaced author abbreviations with names. I know that this has to be done carefully to avoid ambiguity. One should always check the International Plant Names Index, or Brummitt and Powell's Authors of Plant Names, or a special compilation like the one for ferns by Rodolfo Pichi-Sermolli. 98.150.181.36 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author Names 

message: The section entitled "Distribution" was a miscellaneous collection of insignificant, unsourced information, so i deleted it. In the leader, i made 2 statements about coverage in major floras. This could be a starting point for a section on details of distribution if somebody wants to write it. 98.150.181.36 (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted information 

message: This huge article never once mentions the genus Catalpa (except in phylogeny tree) or the huge ornamental trees therein. Quite a glaring oversight. Nickrz (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Catalpa? 

message: The link to [Paragonia] is currently redirecting to Mesnilius which is a species of fly (not a plant). Not sure what the right thing to do is. Mcsmom (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. More work is needed, but for now that one and a few others have some basic fixes. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragonia

message: How do the phloem arms function in the upper sections of Lianas? Does the phloem transport water upwards? Thanks Moadeeb (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lianas: Phloem arms extend downward into the xylem
Talk:Caryophyllaceae

message: The mention of petal fusion in the discussion of subfamilies is in error.  No members of Caryophyllaceae have connate petals.  Sepals are probably what is meant here, but even so the wording is confusing; all members of Caryophyllaceae (so far as I am aware) have sepals that are at least basally connate; important variation in sepal fusion is in the degree of fusion (e.g., the calyx forms a tube in Silene), not its presence or absence. Paalexan (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Chinese Brazilians

message: What a lovely article to choose! There is plenty of information that you have outline both past and present for this topic that will greatly improve this article. I'm glad to see that you have working sources and scholarly ones at that. Please make sure to reorganize the headings on the Wikipedia page to make it easier navigate the page. I'm excited to see how the article comes together with more information! 
Elaineclare (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: The text was not putting presenting brazilian history correctly, which is a problem when one argues the main factor bringing in chinese immigrants was the pull factor rather than push factors in China. Also, it focused too much on the debate on how to replace slave labor which doesn't make too much sense as the answer to that ended up NOT being chinese labor; most chinese arrived in Brazil after 1900, and I tried to at least mention that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5C70:970E:6D94:BBF9:454B:6B71 (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections, context and more precision
Talk:Aristolochiaceae

message: In APG III Lactoridaceae is accepted as a distinct family, but in DE Soltis et al. 2011 in the cladogram of the Fig. 2 A it turns Aristolochiaceae paraphyletic and at APG Website Lactoridaceae is included in Aristolochiaceae. Berton (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Lactoris]]'' position