Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive12

message: Someone proposed merging Tropical fruit and List of tropical fruittrees into List of fruits last year but no discussion was made about it. Please discuss. JohnnyMrNinja 08:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The list still needs some work if you have spare moments: List of culinary fruits#Tropical fruits.--Curtis Clark 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger into List of fruits 

message: I have proposed a merger between Bean, Legume, Pulse (legume) and Fabaceae. Anyone interested can talk about it here.  JohnnyMrNinja 01:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger - Bean, Legume, Pulse and Fabaceae 

message: I've just added Ailanthus altissima to the peer review request section. It was reviewed and made a GA a few weeks ago, but I think it's fairly close to being worthy of an FA nomination. If anyone has some time, please have a look through and give any suggestions or critiques on the talk page. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 14:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't pull out my fine-toothed comb, but a quick glance seemed to put it in the featured article ballpark (roughly the right level of detail, references, etc) I didn't notice any obviously missing topics, but I didn't think too hard about that.  It could probably use some work making it flow from one paragraph to the next and generally read as a single, engaging article, not just a collection of facts (I know this is a bit vague, so feel free to disregard if you think it is taken care of). Kingdon 02:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Ailanthus altissima]] 

message: This whole article reeks of copyvio, particularly if one goes back to the early versions  where only one person had contributed (also this editor's sole contribution). The source can't be located by google; my suspicion is a newspaper report that is no longer online. That does not however invalidate the copyright. I reckon the page should be deleted to remove the copyvio from the page's history, and re-started with only the GFDL text added by subsequent editors (primarily User:Hardyplants' addition of a taxobox, etc). Thoughts, anyone? - MPF 13:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to locate the source text here through web archive but had no luck, but I may have missed it. However, I agree that it does look like a copyvio, especially the sentence "The paper will be published in this journal", and I therefore support your proposal. --Melburnian 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like the best course of action at this point, MPF.  KP Botany 14:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice digging, thanks! I'll proceed as above soon - MPF 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - MPF 20:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sabatia arkansana]]

message: I thought I'd already mentioned this here, but apparently not -- my bad.  There's a huge number of very short stubs on diseases of plants, the majority of them fungi of some sort, and several discussions over at WP:WSS/P as to what to do with them.  There seems to me to be two obvious ways to split these up:  by taxonomy of the infectee, or by taxonomy of the infector.  The latter would be fairly straightforward to do, as there's generally some existing categorisation or infoboxing, and it would cut down on double-stubbing.  The former, OTOH, might be more useful from a plant perspective, but in most cases the information seems to be missing from the article.  Thoughts?  Alai 15:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess what I find easiest to get my mind around is not the stub categories but sub-categories of :Category:Plant pathogens and diseases.  I'll agree that categorizing by pathogen taxonomy is probably easy and categorizing by victim is perhaps more useful (for many purposes).  I would think both should co-exist in this context (that is, each pathogen would typically be listed once according to its taxonomy and once in a category like :Category:Canola diseases). As for stub sorting, the question is what would encourage people to expand (or otherwise deal with) those articles.  I don't really know. It is hard for me to see them getting much attention with or without sorting, so maybe someone who is more of an optimist needs to think about this one. Kingdon 18:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the "permanent" categories, it'd be perfectly possible to do both at once, since there's no issues with size criteria or having many such on the one article.  Indeed, work on permcats would itself be a huge help for stub sorting, as they could then essentially just follow them.  So if people were to add such categories, or indeed "host" infoboxes, that'd be an excellent start.  Alai 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{cl|Plant disease stubs}}, sub-types 

message: Yup, people. I couldn't help myself and nominated it for FA. feel free to come and chip in. Circeus 22:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to restate Circeus' invitation to come and have a look through the article. It's my first going through FAC and I appreciate the suggestions we've gotten so far. More are certainly welcome. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 01:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Ailanthus altissima]]'' out to the wolves 

message: I took the liberty of archiving the month of May. Circeus 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: May archived

message: I was wondering what people think about linking all species in lists within new genus articles, in the case say where either no species articles have yet been created or where the genus article has been created to link with one new species article, but there is a list of, say, a dozen or more other species without articles. In the past I've tended to link all the species, but then the genus article often sits there with a visually jarring mass of red links for months on end, as no new articles are forthcoming. As a result, lately I've tended to only put in the blue links. Of course the red links have an advantage in that they automatically pick up new articles as they are created and are an encouragement to others to start articles for those species. Any thoughts? Melburnian 22:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Circeus. Putting only blue links in makes it less likely that newly created species articles will be linked to from that list. --Rkitko (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Melburnian kindly invited me to comment, a query arose as a consequence of clicking a red link in an article, creating a page and then trying to find the links.  Also searching is not my strong point, on these two points red wins the day. But they shout. And sometimes they shout to the reader, why haven't these wikipedians got the 6 million odd species linked yet! I think a 2 red to 5 blue is good in articles as a rule of thumb. Less than 1 in 5 bluelinks on a list and it should be sub paged on the project, with a big bold pointer to the main lists or genus of the new link (for new users, and me).  ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍  contributions 00:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I favour linking everything that is notable enough to eventually warrant an article - species, botanists, journals, books, organisations.... Hesperian 00:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My experience on Wikipedia has generally been that redlinks are not an especially strong inducement to write articles.  So I'm more in the "only link species which have pages" camp (especially in the case of long lists of species which are not well-known or in some cases even well-studied). Kingdon 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Hesparian on this one.  If the article is on the genus, and all the species are listed, or can reasonably be listed, they should be red-linked.  I don't think the red-links are incentives to write articles, but sometimes I do write one just because it is red-linked, and one of our two hard-core details folks does that also.  Red link away, I say.  KP Botany 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, what's wrong with lots of red links. This ain't so ugly :-D Hesperian 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's sad.  I know enough of some of those to do some writing. Not that I have a minute of time.  KP Botany 02:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Think I'm swaying back to red links based on the above discussion (in terms of species lists at least) even if (or because) they taunt us graphically with all the articles that still need to be done. Thanks for all your comments --Melburnian 06:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlinks for list of species in a new genus article

message: The Wikiversity Bloom Clock began its third solstice-to-solstice run on June 21. I'm announcing it a bit late because at that time we were waiting for a wikimedia extension (DynamicPageList) to be enabled so that we could generate some "results" pages, which are regional lists by month (see, for example, v:Bloom Clock/Purple flowers seen in July in Southeastern Pennsylvania). The hope is to get more contributors from outside Southeastern Pennsylvania in order to create similar lists for other regions, and eventually be able to search for recognizable global patterns in order to come up with a "region-neutral" language for discussing bloom times on Wikipedia articles, Commons galleries, and Wikibooks chapters. In the shorter term, the regional lists (such as the example above) will at least be helpful for those who are looking for the identity of a particular plant. The latest template version for bloom log pages also includes an embedded template for written identifications of the plant, linking to similar plants to avoid confusion, and several other navigational tools intended to bolster the educational value of the clock. 
The clock will also be the subject of several outreach projects now being planned for Wikimedia Pennsylvania, and will be incorporated into the curriculum of a small school (PPK-6th grade, or ages 3-12 yrs) in early August. Help is needed to work out any remaining kinks and problems.
Aside from helping with data accumulation, adding identifying information, and generating visual regional lists, Wikipedians can help in 2 other ways. First, checking the links from the clock to make sure there are indeed Wikipedia articles about the plants being logged. In most cases, the logs have photos (uploaded on commons, so they're useable here), so stub articles could be easily created using the image for a taxobox, and PD sources such as old florae. Second, linking the articles back to the clock using  can help readers be aware of the seasonal data being collected. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 09:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on the [[v:Bloom Clock|Wikiversity Bloom Clock]]

message: I study biology and have a question concerning plant physiology (my textbook is Taiz & Zeiger). As you might know, the meristem is composed of the L1, L2 and L3 stem cells and beyond that is a "quiescent zone" with lower rate of cell devision. So my question is, where do these cells of the quiescent zone come from, from the L1, the L2 or from the L3 stemcells? I would be very glad if somebody could answer my questions. Thank you --hroest 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are your layers numbered from in the outside to the inside?  Each layer is only a few cells thick, after production the cells or initials form long chains that differentiate into tissue depending on there location.  The quiescent area forms before the layers since at the top were the formation begins, it normally  is only a few cells clustered together that as they divide separate out into different layers.  The cells in the quiescent area divide infrequently and remain small, if the apical region is damaged the cells from the quiescent region can form new meristematic cells. Hardyplants 03:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the quiescent zone in the meristem come from during plant development? 

message: Several of the plant stub types have grown rather dramatically recently, and I've proposed splitting them up by taxon.  As usual, see WP:WSS/P for the gory details.  Alai 16:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More plant-related stub types 

message: User:Wiki skylace has made a series of edits to this article variously claiming (most recently) that the sources are unreliable (which is wrong) and that calling a plant "noxious" and mentioning its allelopathic chemicals is a matter of NPOV. These is stalling the FAC process as I can't make improvements in the middle of an editing war. If any of you have time,  please have a look at the article and at the talk page. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't be including subjective, unverifiable claims in articles about plants. There is no scientific way to determine whether a plant is invasive or not, and even if it has been labeled invasive there is no way to determine whether or not it has caused harm to people, or to the environment. And much of the references that are being cited are to opinion pieces, and not to credible scientific studies.Wiki skylace 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I object to the use of words like very, extremely, devastatingly, amazingly, in describing the properties of plants. These are magical properties. They are not properties that any particular plant possesses. Furthermore the claims that such and such a plant out competes other plants because of xyz is magical, because the same xyz is always claimed for every plant, and it is not true. Some plants grow well in some microenvironments for one set of reasons. That same plant grows well in a different microenvironment for a different reason. And other plants do well or poorly in any particular microenvironment for a whole host of reasons that are never documented in the opinion articles published by governments and land managers. Any particular invasive plant or animal only does well in a limited microenviroment, it does not ravage the whole countryside.Wiki skylace 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And have you ever noticed that it is only for the so called invasive plants that data is presented about how many seeds are produced per plant??? And that only non-native plants engage in competition or create alleopathic chemicals? Wiki skylace 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Black walnut produces allelopathic chemicals and the article for red maple has data on seeds per plant per year. Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 23:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And that it is only introduced species that grow in monocultures? Wikipedia claims to be an 
encyclopedia, it aught to read like one. 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone claimed that only introduced species grow in monocultures... Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 23:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Stop contributing unsubstantiated claims, and stop citing opinions as if they were facts, and you will never hear from me again. Wiki skylace 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "unsubstained claims" are reliable sources. You have provided none for your edits. If you did, then it would be helpful towards the project, but at the moment they are simply expressing your point of view despite loads of consensus on the opposite end. I'm not trying to be hurtful, but if users don't abide by the principles of Wikipedia it makes it difficult to make any progress. Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove the religion and the subjectivity from your articles and you will be able to make all the progress in the world without ever hearing from me again... Publications of the national park service are not reliable in regards to invasive plants because their budget depends on making claims that invasive species are harming the park. The nature conservancy has a similar conflict of interest, as do many pest control boards which are funded in part by contributions from herbicide manufacturers.  Start using neutral words like naturalised rather than biased words like invasive and I will go away and never contribute again. Even if the whole rest of the world agrees I will continue to point out non-neutrality whenever it appears in wikipedia. Wiki skylace 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Wiki skylace at [[Ailanthus altissima]] 

message: I don't have much time to do anything else than basic edits to it. Can somebody review Solidago shortii, which will probably go on DYK within a few days? Circeus 18:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked over it, and it seems to be well done to me.  I didn't have any knowledge of this species, but the cited references seem to be pretty comprensive. I spot-checked a few facts against the references, or against my rather general knowledge of goldenrods, and they seemed fine.   I guess the biggest problem I found was that some of the references were web pages which may or may not be around long-term.  I tried improving that with a little google scholar searching.  I didn't try to use everything I found, so if someone wants to work more on this, there is more material which could be tapped. Kingdon 00:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs converting from archaic to modern measures - MPF 00:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, I can't find them in :Category:Obsolete units of measure... Circeus 01:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're in one of its subcategories - MPF 01:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one? U.S. customary units is not in any children or grandchildren the cat. Sorry to disappoint you. Circeus 04:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be in :Category:Customary units of measure - look at the top of the cat., where it is cited. - MPF 11:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article located. 

message: Anyone who has the time, could you please edit some article's on this editor's list of contributions?  Thanks.  I'll do what I can, also.  KP Botany 04:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a quick first check, the Echinodorus article is copyvio from Fl. N. Amer.; I'd not be surprised if others are too - MPF 10:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although quotes were used in the article I edited, it was an inappropriate length for quotes, the rest appeared copied without any knowledge of what was being said.  KP Botany 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I tried to check one, Sagittaria latifolia, or Broadleaf arrowhead as it is currently named. Being in widespread use, the articles name is in common usage. However, the plant is widespread and has many local names. Should it be moved over the redirect? It is an administrative task, in this case it seems.  Fred ☻  16:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be moved, by asking an administrator to do so on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page under uncontroversial moves, noting that this is WikiPlants policy to list plants under scientific names, unless they are known economically under their common name (most every plant that is an exception already has an article), using this template: .  After the move remember to check for double redirects.  Thanks for looking, Fred. KP Botany 18:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in desperate need of clean-up 

message: Is there a short cut to this page? Just a trivial concern.  Fred ☻  17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: enter WP:Plants, then click on "discussion."  Thanks for correcting my signature.  KP Botany 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's WP:PLANTS, in all-caps. The discussion page doeshave a shortcut: WT:PLANTS. I originally created it for my own use. Circeus 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was not one of the combinations I tried typing, I gave up and came back to the project page to find one. I eventually just pasted the page name. The signature thing had me puzzled for a minute, I forgot to date it too. Thanks again for the help.   Fred ☻  18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can never find it, either.  I keep thinking I'll make all my futile attempts redirects, but often forget.  I'll edit my signature, I didn't notice it was undated.  KP Botany 18:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was going to propose WP:P! Such a shame.  Fred ☻  19:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shortcut 

message: Following our previous conversations regarding cultivars, subgenera, sections, hybrids, etc., please see the talk page at the flora naming convention for the discussion. Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still looking for input on this discussion if you missed the notice! --Rkitko (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed additions to flora naming convention 

message: A plant article with public domain material is an example at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Why quotation marks are not the real issue.  Discuss there whether the style of Aralia spinosa  needs significant alteration, other than rephrasing to prose.  (SEWilco 20:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the clown car 

message: As far as I can tell, this article is little more than an advertisement for a commercial nursery.  Anybody care to try to either clean it up or nominate it for deletion? MrDarwin 13:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks that way to me.  It might (just) cross the line from "nursery" to "tourist attraction" (listed for example here), but that doesn't really change the issue of whether you can write a good, neutral article.  A few web searches didn't find many sources (although this was a bit hard because "bamboo" and "giant" or even "bamboo giant" are common words).  The Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process might work here. (Putting this comment both here and on Talk:Bamboo Giant). Kingdon 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we are going to keep it, we should take out all the stuff about how nice it is and the regional POV stuff :/ --SB_Johnny | PA! 17:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the time you take the POV stuff out there won't me much left, and of the remainder virtually all of it either repeats or could be moved to the main Bamboo article.  I would vote to delete. MrDarwin 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think this should be nominated for deletion.  I would, but I don't seem to be able to do the technical details of the AfD.  Still, I think it should go.  KP Botany 17:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I didn't say we should keep it, just that it would need serious modification (KP Botany's edits very nearly converted the lump of coal to a diamond here!) --SB_Johnny | PA! 09:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nominated for WP:PROD.  The process seems to have been streamlined (at least for prod, don't know about AfD) since the last time I did this.  As I understand the current procedures, it should automatically show up on WP:PRODSUM within a day or so and should get deleted in 5 days if no one contests the deletion. Kingdon 18:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might work, as the editor may not notice the prod.  Still, I removed most of the obvious blatant advertising.  Anyway, it's an accurate addition of the prod tag, because it is blatanat advertising.  I can't wait to go visit, though.  KP Botany 18:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (outdenting) I put a note on the author's talk page, but I don't know if they are logging in regularly.  My goal is not to surprise them, but if they read the relevant policies, they may figure the article wouldn't pass AfD and decide not to contest the matter. Kingdon 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bamboo Giant]]

message: I put a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve for a diagram to properly illustrate plant stem. Ideas and further suggestions welcome. Circeus 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither the diagram nor the text particularly explain what the difference is between a petiole and a stem (I guess we call it a side stem?  The one at the upper right between the petiole and the main stem).  It looks a bit clearer in the tomato photo.  Also, on :Image:Stem_nodes.svg (and the photo it is taken from), the word "internode" on the lower left side branch seems confusing.  The reader is asked to assume/understand that there is a node outside the frame of the drawing. Also, would it be easier to see the nodes if we modeled the diagram more on something like bamboo or Polygonaceae (as in :Image:Ocreae_of_a_Persicaria_maculosa_2006-aug-10_Gothenburg_Sweden.jpg), which have very visible nodes?  has done a nice job of SVG-izing the existing photo, but us plant people need to help out on the botany aspects of this task (well, plus the obvious things like putting the words in the caption for translations). Kingdon 14:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping that "internode" would be matched with a bracket. I'm quite surprised they didn't realize that, further proof that the original images do not do their work properly. Circeus 17:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I happened to be looking at these images tonight.  Is :Image:Stem-cross-section.jpg one any better? [I mean, to have something like it] Fred ☻  18:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have any slices at nodes.  KP Botany 18:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stem definitions diagram request