Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive5

message: Dropping the taxoboxes is over-reacting.  The only major problem is that the Magnoliopsida-Liliopsida split we use is obsolete, so we simply have to correct that.  There are two ways we could go: we could replace them with their unranked equivalents or we could drop the information from the box.  At the moment either is an improvement, so just to get something done, perhaps we should vote on it.
There are two other things to decide that aren't quite as pressing, but it might not hurt to get a sense where people everyone stands.  That is, I'm not claiming these are formal votes, but if there's a definite consensus we may as well stick with it. Josh
Informal groups in the taxobox:
* We should include key groups even if they haven't been formalized yet.
** Josh; there's no way most non-systematists find common names more confusing.
**Brya 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solutions?

message: I have today been trying to sort out the iw-links on Swedish Wikipedia for various articles concerning mosses, and to my despair found that the existing state of iw-linking is to put it shortly a mess. The problem is of course made worse by the fact that this category of plants is undergoing reevaluation. I think that English Wikipedia is also in urgent need of attention on this matter (or soon bots will start messing up Swedish Wikipedia again *smile*), so I thought it might be appropriate if I shared my experiences here with you.
Basically what we now have on Swedish Wikipedia is three articles (though the content still needs to be shuffled around between them):
;:sv:Mossor:covering what is traditionally referred to as moss in Swedish, though it no longer has taxonomic standing, that is what is common for Bryophyta "plain" moss, Anthocerotophyta (hornwort) and Marchantiophyta (liverworts)
;:sv:Bladmossor : covering the current understanding of Bryophyta, that is excluding hornwort and liverworts
;:sv:Egentliga bladmossor : covering the class Bryopsida within Bryophyta
Apart from many articles quite simply being wrongly iw-linked, there is the additional problem of many languages choosing to treat Bryophyta and Bryopsida together, usually without mention of the six other classes of Bryophyta, as well as some languages treating hornwort and liverworts according to classic taxonomy as part of Bryophyta.
What I tried to do when cleaning up the iw-links was as follows (regardless of article name)
*if the article covers Bryophyta, Anthocerotophyta, and Marchantiophyta link it to :sv:Mossor
*if the article does cover Bryopsida, then link it to :sv:Egentliga bladmossor
*if it only covers Bryophyta, then link it to :sv:Bladmossor 
*if I cannot tell (like Japanese), then don't link it
I am not sure this was the best way, but it was the only I found feasible. Let me also note that the redirects between these various names are abundant! --Sannab 14:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki clean-up needed for [[moss]] etc 

message: Over on Apple, a couple of new users (or perhaps they are a single user) decided to remove a fair number of "superfluous" images. I called for a moratorium of any more image removals on that article until there was a clear sense among the editors of what types of images a plant article needs. I've noticed here and there some other similar disagreements, so I would like to start a discussion here of appropriate illustration of a plant article.
I'd like to start with some general principles, and then a list of the types of images an article could contain. I'm hoping that this might eventually evolve into a set of guidelines.
All of this is of course for discussion; feel free to modify the list below.--Curtis Clark 15:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations of plant articles 

message: ====By source====
* Photograph
* Illustration (classical—e.g. out-of-copyright—illustrations are used in a number of articles)
====By subject====
* Whole-plant (in some cases, such as Welwitschia, the appearance of the plant is diagnostic; in others, especially at low resolution, it "looks like just another tree")
* Organs
** Stem (not useful for many plants, but bark, armament, and branching can all be diagnostic)
** Leaf (leaf shape is useful for many plants, as is indumentum)
** Root (not usually available except for root crops)
** Reproductive structures
*** Flower (it's useful to have enough detail to be able to distinguish at least some of the individual flower parts)
*** Fruit (obviously important for fruit crops)
*** Strobilus (obviously important for conifers, especially the seed cones)
*** Seed (useful for seed crops and when seeds are distinctive)
* Habitat/Cultivated setting (these are often of little value at low resolution)
* Distribution maps 
* Unprepared and prepared agricultural products alone or in market or industrial settings (some of the photos removed from Apple were from this category; an image showing processing, comparing processed to unprocessed product, or showing unusual ways of harvest, transportation, storage, or marketing seems more useful than a generic picture)
* Pests and predators
* Chemical formulae of active principles
* Iconography (a number of these were removed from Apple)
# All seems sensible to me, codifies some of the rules I had been using informally. I would strengthen the first general principle into saying that each picture beyond the "main" one *must* have something unique about it, and this unique contribution must be mentioned in caption or running text. Stan 20:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of images

message: * Whole-plant (in some cases, such as Welwitschia, the appearance of the plant is diagnostic; in others, especially at low resolution, it "looks like just another tree")
* Organs
** Stem (not useful for many plants, but bark, armament, and branching can all be diagnostic)
** Leaf (leaf shape is useful for many plants, as is indumentum)
** Root (not usually available except for root crops)
** Reproductive structures
*** Flower (it's useful to have enough detail to be able to distinguish at least some of the individual flower parts)
*** Fruit (obviously important for fruit crops)
*** Strobilus (obviously important for conifers, especially the seed cones)
*** Seed (useful for seed crops and when seeds are distinctive)
* Habitat/Cultivated setting (these are often of little value at low resolution)
* Distribution maps 
* Unprepared and prepared agricultural products alone or in market or industrial settings (some of the photos removed from Apple were from this category; an image showing processing, comparing processed to unprocessed product, or showing unusual ways of harvest, transportation, storage, or marketing seems more useful than a generic picture)
* Pests and predators
* Chemical formulae of active principles
* Iconography (a number of these were removed from Apple)
# All seems sensible to me, codifies some of the rules I had been using informally. I would strengthen the first general principle into saying that each picture beyond the "main" one *must* have something unique about it, and this unique contribution must be mentioned in caption or running text. Stan 20:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: By subject

message: I've left a message here for the user who created Anacharis as a redirect to what I believe is an unrelated plant.  Input from someone with a reliable reference would be much appreciated.  Thanks, Tomertalk 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to ipni.org, Anacharis Rich. is a synonym of Elodea Michx., so that's where it should redirect. APNI states, 'Remarks: See comments by C.A.Weatherby "On the Nomenclature of Elodea" in Rhodora 34 (1932) 114-116, & Voss, Rhodora 68 (1966) 437 who state "Continued use of Anacharis instead of Elodea is incorrect."'--Curtis Clark 23:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for looking that up, and for fixing it all in one fell swoop.  I've grown up calling it "Anacharis" and was unaware that the binomial had been changed to Elodea canadensis...but I knew instantly that the Brazilian plant was not where the redirect should be pointing.  Tomertalk 06:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert needed:  [[Anacharis]] 

message: I intend to work on the wikipedia coverage of maples soon, starting with that page, and specifically with a copy at User:Circeus/Maple. It's been a long while since I've made content contributions, but finding Pirc's book (which apparenly does not have an English translation) rekindled my interest. My college library has Maples of the World (which looks fantastically good from its Amazon.com extract), and I am open to know of any other sources I should have a look at. I am not very good at searching journals, so suggestions in this domain are especially appreciated. Circeus 02:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon a more 'mapley' image in the taxobox would be a good lead and to sprinkle images thru the pages near relevant text rather than galleries. Am in Australia so far from any natural maple habitat. Will let you know if I have any ideas. cheers Cas Liber 03:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not aware of anything that changes the classification post-APG; inclusion of Acer in Sapindaceae seems to be gaining widespread acceptance. The van Gelderen subdivisions are widely used, though they're not based on genetic analysis, only morphology, so they may well become superseeded. Their classification is also very conservative, with several species accepted by most other authors reduced to subspecies (e.g. A. ginnala, A. grandidentatum); for these I'd think we should retain them as species. Note for the refs, there's a sci style template at  (avoids the humanities style of having article titles in quote marks) - MPF 01:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, they treat A. tataricum and A. saccharum as cryptic species complex on the basis (at least for A. saccharum) that there are so many morphologically intermediate individuals that would impossible to classify without biochemical analysis as to make tehse divisions useless. However, I am not familiar with the precise work these are based and the divergences are worthy of mentionning anyway. Besides, we usually keep separate articles for notable subspecies. Circeus 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A. tataricum and A. ginnala at least are very readily distinguishable, they certainly don't fit the 'cryptic species complex' criteria! - MPF 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: While I'm at it, within Sapidaceae, Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae are joind into subfamily Hippocastanoideae, is that correct? Circeus 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - MPF 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, the dipteronia sources mentions aceroideae (see also  and , more stuff I must read). will have to mention both classifications. I'm considering using Aceraceae for the taxobox, though, at least as long as we'll keep a separate Aceraceae article, with, of course, mention ofthe sapindaceae reclassification, any opinions? Circeus 19:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Maple]]s 

message: While looking on comons this link http://plants.usda.gov/gallery.html was in a discussion page about plants. Its a US targeted data base so unless the plant has been introduced into the US it wont be there. that aside there is about 11,000 PD images all with and searchable by scientific names. Gnangarra 11:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very nice. But beware, when you click on a species name, you get a mixed bag of free and nonfree. For instance, Phacela bipinnitafida has four photos and a drawing, but only the drawing is free, it being a scan from an old book. Stan 15:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a filter option when searching to restrict the results to PD. Gnangarra 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I used it wrong then, because I got a list of species, each of which had PD images, but not exclusively. Stan 05:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you specifically look for it , Its an obscurely placed selection box on the search page right hand column between region options Gnangarra 05:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: While translating the article Euphorbia atropurpurea (a Canary Islands shrub) from spanish, I came across the word bracteas.  I don't really have any technical botanical knowledge, and this word wasn't translatable by any of my dictionaries; I just left it untranslated.  Can anyone figure out what it means and maybe make the correction? --Erudy 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! It translated as "bracts". --NoahElhardt 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Erudy! If you do an iw link on bract on one side, please do it on the other. (I've been known to translate too, and that really helps!) -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translating a botanical term from spanish

message: Anyone able to help me improve some of the articles?? Advice is appreciated! --TheM62Manchester 12:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestions is to go from up to down, e.g. start by improving Brassicaceae, than you couldmove down into a genus, then into species article. When doing family and genera article, I find it particularly necessary to include the delimitating element from a taxonomic PoV, that is, what are the shard elements that unite all the members of the group and segregate them from other related groups? In my opinion, that should be clearly stated in genera, order and family articles. Circeus 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am taking the opposite position. There is no point in trying to improve articles if you do not have the required knowledge. In general it is much easier to take a species and look more closely into that. Unless one really knows what one is doing one should not try and describe higher level taxa: such attempts very easily lead to atrocious results. Brya 07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to make them into featured article candidates - I haven't seen plants being on the Main Page very much. --TheM62Manchester 11:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck to you. There is a reason plant articles in wikipedia mostly don't amount to much. Hope you make it. Brya 14:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cruciferae]]

message: I have about 150 WP quality plant and flower photos sitting on my computer that I was thinking of uploading to commons. Does this WikiProject provide a similar "identification" service to the Anthropod project? (Note: crossposted to en and commons). --cfp 21:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the German WP has an life ID page, where anyone can post pictures of living beings to be ID'ed. I was considering suggesting a similar page for the English WP... is there any interest? I have at least 3 dozen plant and insect pictures from my trip to Mexico that I need identification. I could post them on the talk pages of the appropriate family articles, but mightn't it be better to have a centralized ID page? --NoahElhardt 21:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or post them here - MPF 17:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Or upload them to :commons, there is an identification unit on commons, albeit not a very active one, see :commons:Category:Unknown species TeunSpaans 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant photo collection - no IDs though 

message: Once again I seem to have trespassed upon a botanical article claimed as personal property and jealously guarded by another editor, and have been having a most unpleasant time trying to get any of what I consider useful, factual, and entirely reasonable edits into it. The article is Type (botany). I will freely admit that I am capable of making mistakes, which is why I am making this appeal here: somebody please check out the article and keep me honest. The problem is that even after discussion with the other editor I absolutely cannot see where the error lies in my additions or why they keep getting reverted or deleted. MrDarwin 21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Brya is heading for a spanking by the Arbcom - the personal attacks and insults are way out of line. I don't even need to look at the article, the talk page content alone is completely unacceptable. Stan 03:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for article review 

message: I've been meaning to do that for a while. The 171 KB talk page was taking a while to load on my 'puter, so I just copied the archiving format from WP:TOL. Archive summaries in the template are a bit long--please feel free to tweak them to make them more concise and accurate.  Also, move things around if you feel the archives are too short, too expansive, etc. I tried not to archive any discussions that seemed like they might still have some active input in them. Create another archive if you think this page is still too long.  Oh, and can someone else put all the archived pages on their watchlist to watch for any changes and move them to the active talk page when/if they occur (or revert vandalism if that ever would happen). :-)  Rkitko 05:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk archives 

message: Hoping some folks here will be interested in participating there. One project started: Original Research for a bloom clock to come up with a system for discussing bloom times in a region-neutral language. Other research projects, teaching courses, etc. would be most welcome.
The school is at v:School:Plant Sciences. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiversity School of Plant Science 

message: If any of you have edited a page today and noticed the footnotes (ref tags) go a bit wonky after you edit, check out Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Help! Footnotes gone crazy! for a quick fix involving a purge of the page you just edited. Not quite sure what's going on, but I thought I'd give everyone here a head's up just in case it persists.
The fix is as follows, provided by Gimmetrow: "I'm not sure yet why it's happening, but a purge seems to fix it. In order to do that, look at the page normally, then add a ?action=purge at the end of the url. ... (I'm surmising that articles are not being "purged" currently when saved.)"  Rkitko 06:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: I see that Brya is back and still up to his/her same old tricks. Now s/he is insisting on removing any reference to the botanical concepts of nomen nudum and nomen conservandum in those articles while disparaging any such inclusion. This is even worse than the tautonym/tautonymous name fiasco a few weeks ago; at least there Brya could make the technical (if rather tenuous) case that the Botanical and Zoological codes use different terminology but the terms nomen nudum and nomen conservandum not only exist in botanical nomenclature but have virtually the identical meaning that they do in Zoological nomenclature.  Perhaps the concepts differ in some slight nuance between the two Codes, but to remove any references to botanical nomenclature in these articles (rather than highlight and clarify any differences that may exist between the Codes in these concepts]] is beyond ridiculous. MrDarwin 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a comment at wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for some wider discussion. MrDarwin 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nomen nudum]] and [[Nomen conservandum]] 

message: ::I will repeat that such edits by MrDarwin constitute vicious attacks. Apparently his presence in Wikipedia is for the sole purpose of altering my contributions, to insert his personal opinions and beliefs, without adding a single new item of information. I lately watched the movie Longitiude, where a board was assigned to award a prize and for fifty years waved away all evidence as being "anecdotal", only to avoid awarding the prize outside their own personal circle. 
::MrDarwin, get a life. If you can't at least go and do something constructive. Wikipedia is still mostly empty when it comes to plants. If you know something of plants there is plenty of scope for you to realize something that will be of use. Brya 15:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said Brya. I suggest you now start listening to your own advice. What contributions have you made lately? It looks, from your user log and the evidence brought forth by MrDarwin, that you have mainly been removing valuable information from articles, rather than actually doing anything "constructive" as you put it. Removal of info on POV technicalities is destructive, not constructive. --NoahElhardt 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been doing quite faithfully what I have always done: correcting errors in basic facts and adding new material as time allows. If correcting errors in basic facts (mostly in articles which I wrote myself and have been maintaining for almost a year) is not even allowed then there is not much else I can do, is there? Brya 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Brya. Polemize minus and contribute more. Berton 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Brya 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nomen nudum]] and [[nomen conservandum]] (continued)