Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive15

message: Currently being discussed, an old debate already re-listed once:
*
::--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any reason to keep it, cultivars should go under the species if they are known. Some cultivars have very complex parentage and its imposable to place them under one species, but this is not true for pot plants, a nearly cosmopolitan "weed" species now. Hardyplants 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Deletion: [[Columbian Red]] 

message: Just dropping a note to say that Cell wall is the Collaboration of the Month for the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. It's a B-Class in this wikiproject, too, and hopefully we can get both projects' members involved to improve the article. — Scientizzle 17:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added what I consider a nice little section on cell walls in the Archaea. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cell wall]] 

message: Trying to find the word (well maybe 2) for describing various forms heads have in Asteraceae. I know discoid and petaloid, but what do you call "daisy-like" heads (other than "daisy-like")? Also, what about plants like Erechtites hieracifolia (oops, see v:BCP/Erechtites hieracifolia), Senecio vulgaris, etc. where the flowers are in a tube? --SB_Johnny | PA! 12:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's disciform=Centaurea macrocephala (as opposed to discoid)? --SB_Johnny | PA! 12:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a bad connection right now- so this is coming in piece-meal.Hardyplants 13:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok (commons:Centaurea_macrocephala for link). So that would apply to most thistles as well? --SB_Johnny | PA! 13:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CirsiumItalic text have discoid heads with only tubular flowers. Disciform heads have pistillate outer flowers with a tubular, rayless corollas.Hardyplants 14:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand that... discoid heads have all perfect flowers then? (Not sure what you mean by a rayless corolla). For identification purposes, I'm guessing you can't tell the difference without a glass? --SB_Johnny | PA! 10:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related question about asters

message: Hello everyone...I am a new project member here...I intend to start a new subproject in Wikiproject: Plants under the name of Plant Evo-Devo. There is scarce material available in this field on Wiki and whatever is available is scattered and incomplete. I have posted a short list of topics that I think are relevant, and EncycloPetey has made some additions too. It would be great to have you guys join in and suggest anything else, and we can get the project going!
Gauravm1312 02:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A new subproject: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Plant Evo Devo]]

message: *
:: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Speaking as an admin for Wiktionary, this is patent nonsense and should be deleted. --EncycloPetey 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: Karr- 

message: *Sadly, we have very few articles about floristic provinces, regions and kingdoms. If they would be created, it could be much easier to define plant distribution in various articles about plant taxa in a standard way. Maybe it would be worth adding such a parameter to some infobox. Should we coordinate efforts to improve the situation? Colchicum 13:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Colchicum is being modest here, having greatly improved the North American Atlantic Region article.  I doubt there are easy answers here - in particular, when to provide a generic term, like "north american members of this genus", when to use political boundaries or some approximation (e.g. World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions), and when to use provinces (some of which are more natural groupings than others). But I'm all for more material on ranges and ecology. Kingdon 14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *The situation is rather dire.  We are even lacking some articles on world biomes, such as Deciduous forest which is currently a subsection of the article on deciduous biology. --EncycloPetey 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: those are just summaries that hopefully will link to full blown articles, a number of books exist just covering each major Biome and a number of subtypes extist for each, Oak-Elm, OR Maple-Basswood, for the Deciduous - I don't have the time to do them now- it would involve an overview of Climate, biology, soil science. etc to do them right. Hardyplants 18:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Floristic provinces

message: Greetings plant people. I've been working on mimicry and related articles lately, and I'm looking at how the article can be broken up into a set of subtopics as it grows larger. One possibility is an article about mimicry in plants, a subject on which there is much to write about. At the moment I'm tending to split it off based on non-taxonomical classifications, such as aggressive mimicry. However, plant mimicry has some cases that don't fit within some of the more standard headings, such as mimicry affecting pollination and dispersal. Would anyone be interested in such an article? If there was to be one, should the scope be mimicry by plants, or mimicry by and of plants (perhaps mimicry and plants? Richard001 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Mimicry in plants might be better, personally. --EncycloPetey 00:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: SEWilco sits in a maple and mimics a squirrel.  (SEWilco 00:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd be interested except that I'm already overextended.  I will note that plant mimicry includes both physical mimicry of form as well as biochemical mimicry of pheromones and thermal mimicry. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Mimicry in plants, and when SEWilco gets enough press we'll title that one, "Human mimicry of mammals in maples."  I wish I had time to help, you're doing a lot of good work on plant articles, Richard, but I have no time.  KP Botany 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made a start on Vavilovian mimicry, which is a form of mimicry exclusive to plants. Would mid-importance be about right for the plants project? Richard001 23:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rating sounds about right to me.  It's a nicely written article already; I wasn't aware there was a specific mimicry term for this phenomenon. --EncycloPetey 03:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mimicry in plants

message: I was wondering if anyone knows why the Viola article is going under the name Violet. As far as I can tell this violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). 
Referring to them as Violets also produces an unstated bias suggesting that the flowers should be violet in colour, when this is not the case for many Violas. 
If this was just being used as the common name for one species it may make sense, but this article is the article for the Viola genus, so it would seem to me that the biological name should be used. --jjron 15:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right- it should be changed to Viola.   Hardyplants 15:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are a number of quibbles I have with the article as it stands, the flowers are symmetrical- not asymmetrical, only a few species have scented flowers, the leaf shape is much more diverse than stated. These are minor things, but the page is heavily tilted toward European and US species.  Hardyplants 15:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly zygomorphic, as opposed to actinomorphic, was meant. Lavateraguy 15:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  if no one else gets to it, in a few days I can add some more details.  Most species have zygomorphic flowers-though some have nearly actinomorphic flowers. Hardyplants 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Viola article actually exists, but is a redirect to Violet, so I guess we'd just move the content, change the redirect, and look for links. I was going to do a bit of editing, but don't know as much about this stuff as you guys. I actually only went there to add a new high-res image, but it's of an apricot coloured viola, which is sort of where my query started. --jjron 13:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Iirc, the preferred procedure would be for an admin to delete either Viola (plant) or Viola (genus), depending on which one you want to be the ultimate home, and move Violet (plant) to the newly emptied name. That way all the history moves with it as well.--Curtis Clark 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've now moved the article to Viola (plant) --Melburnian 01:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re pansies, there is a separate pansy article, which is actually bigger than the viola article. There are links there from the viola article, and vice versa. The pansy article needs work too, for example it talks about planting in "early November for plants ready in the spring", which is pretty northern hemisphere specific given that November is already the end of spring in the southern hemisphere. --jjron 06:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viola/Violet 

message: I've nominated seed for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive.  Please vote!  
This article looks like it could turn into our project's first "Top"-rated Featured article.  I've already looked at the other language WP, and only the French and Itlaian pages have much information.  Some of the others (even for major world languages) have only stub articles.  I've also asked :User:LadyofHats if she would help with a seed diagram.  She's done some very nice illustrations in the past. 
The article on seedling could also use some work. --EncycloPetey 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACID nom 

message: Do people think the Cotton and Gossypium articles should be merged, the way that Black pepper and Piper nigrum were merged, or kept separate like Grape and Vitis? --EncycloPetey 18:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Separate is good for those. There's just a lot of stuff about cotton that isn't about the plant, so it's more efficient to keep them separate and make good articles out of each. --SB_Johnny | PA! 19:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cotton and Gossypium 

message: I'm not sure what we use as the taxonomic authority for plants on Wikipedia but the genus Triphysaria is placed in the Orobanchaceae family on Wiki while it's listed as the Scrophulariaceae family on ITIS and USDA. I'd change it myself but I'm not too keen on plant taxonomy. Calibas 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's quite a few other Orobanchaceae genera in the same boat. Calibas 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the larger changes to familial circumscriptions as a result of the explosion of DNA sequence data has been the breaking up of Scrophulariaceae. The newer conception of Scrophulariacae is a much smaller grouping, with much of the rest of the family now in an expanded Plantaginaceae (or Veronicaceae). The hemiparasitic species have ended up in Orobanchaceae. See Fremontia 30(2), and also the Angiosperm Family Website. Lavateraguy 21:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget Phrymaceae.--Curtis Clark 05:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there any single taxonomic authority we use? Calibas 22:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no single taxonomic authority, period; that has always been an issue on Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark 05:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has always been an issue in plant taxonomy, period, not just Wikipedia.  By the time any new system is published, it is usually out of date already. --EncycloPetey 12:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, EncycloPetey.  We should weigh sources for taxonomy just like any other sources, cite sources, and mention both/all classifications where appropriate. Kingdon 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triphysaria genus 

message: I hate to give people an excuse to argue policy rather than go edit plant articles, but given that this one is a bit of a perennial here on WikiProject Plants, I suppose it is worth a look at what the wider wikipedia community is saying.  There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible#Manual of style about whether that guideline is good or bad, whether it has consensus, etc.  Maybe I'm just idealistic, but I like to think we can be accessible to a general audience and sufficiently precise (including technical terminology where we need it). Kingdon 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make technical articles accessible 

message: The article for this was badly confused due to confusion between Bassia (Chenopodiaceae) and Bassia (Sapotaceae). I've had an attempt at cleaning it up but I can't be confident that I've got the correct name for the species, so if anyone knows about this group ... 
There's a more detailed article in Wikipedia Francais, as fr:Madhuca longifolia, which may well be the correct name. Lavateraguy 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Mahwa tree|Madhuca indica]]'' 

message: I am proposing to merge the plant fossil article into the article on Paleobotany, which should be the more comprehensive article. Discussion on the matter should be posted exclusively at Talk:Paleobotany#Merge_proposal, and not here. --EncycloPetey 03:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged articles. --EncycloPetey 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: :has been transwikied to Wiktionary
:: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a merge into biological type would be appropriate, or at least a link therefrom to Wiktionary. Lavateraguy 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: Clonotype 

message: :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants and :Category:Plant articles needing photos are dupes. Something needs to be done to address this issue. Richard001 07:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the problem stems from , which uses simple #if <x>|<x> language. The easiest fix would be to just change the  "needs-photo=yes" to add :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants, rather than the category it adds now (the only other alternative would be to use #switch on the reqphoto template, which would be an absolute nightmare). The line to switch is  (and by the way, changing to  would look a lot prettier on the category). --SB_Johnny | PA! 23:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with that is the category title. We have some botanist articles that request photos and are thus in the category . (That may not be the most accurate title either; perhaps ?) Regardless,  doesn't seem to fit all of our articles that can use the needs-photo=yes parameter. Agree on basepagename, though. --Rkitko (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe add a "topic=" field to ? It would be easy enough to allow it to default to "plants" if no topic is added, but then switch to "botany", "botanist", etc (). --SB_Johnny | PA! 22:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might work. This is of little consequence to the discussion, but I personally abhor the category titles such as "Wikipedia requested photographs of..." - it makes it sound as if the entity Wikipedia is requesting the photograph. And what of non-photographs? Illustrations for extinct or seldom-seen plants or botanists that lived before photographs? When I was setting up the assessment for our project, I copied the general formatting from another project. Had I been thinking of other possibilities at the time, I would have chosen the category title I proposed above since it encompases all of our articles that could be requesting images: . I'll throw this out there into discussion as well: I suggested elsewhere that perhaps we could use the categories in different ways, so there would be no overlap.  could include editor requests of photographs (e.g. an article that lacks a photo of a specific structure or plant part, perhaps, in anotherwise illustrated article), which could be done through the reqphoto template accompanied by an explanation of what's being requested. Our project's "needs image" category could be used for articles that lack any illustration whatsoever. It may be complicating things a bit, but the demarcation is not out of the question and might be rather useful, given full explanations on the category pages and elsewhere. Just a thought. --Rkitko (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo request duplication

message: Please, have a look at my peer review request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Peer_reviews#Requests. Add the page to you watchlists! Aelwyn 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review