Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive6

message: After our spat regarding the Vinca minor article I've had some discussion with MPF and several other editors regarding common names. I continue to believe that as an international encyclopedia, Wikipedia's plant articles should include all common names of at least somewhat common usage in the various English-speaking regions of the world, regardless of where they are used; it is not Wikipedia's place to promote one common name above another as the "correct" one.  Like it or not, "myrtle" is fairly commonly used as a name for Vinca minor in the USA. I think a reasonable compromise is to discuss which names are in use in which regions of the world; in most cases, but especially those where there are numerous common names for a single species (or genus), common names should probably have their own paragraph and discussion within the article.  I have no idea why the name "myrtle" is used for Vinca minor (or for Lagerstroemia or for Myrica) but it would be interesting to know why; the history of common names is as fascinating as the history of botanical names and a discussion of why certain names are used in certain regions would be informative in its own right (although in some cases the reasons are quite straightforward; for example, Sinningia speciosa is commonly known as "gloxinia"--the valid name of another genus entirely--simply because the species was originally, and quite validly at the time, named and introduced as Gloxinia speciosa, and became immensely popular under that name). I hope Wikipedia can include this kind of information but that's probably far in the future. In the meantime, Wikipedia should simply record the facts of usage in the hope that somebody will expand the article later. MrDarwin 13:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any common name used for a number of different taxa should have its own article, somewhat like a disambiguation page, but with enough content that the reader can either a) get directed to the right taxon article, or b) realize that he/she needs to get more information. Sardine is an example I created long ago for fish; the article is a simpler and more useful solution than any redirect could be. Stan 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I definitely agree... common name disambig pages would be much better with thumbnails, assuming we have pix of all the plants being referred to. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If there are several common names for a species, I see no objection in listing those we know about. TeunSpaans 19:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Common names

message: # Uniformity of article names
# NPOV - Common names are regional, while scientific names are recognized worldwide. Using scientific names eliminates arguments over which name is "most common", "unique", "most widely used", etc.
# Both lay and non-lay persons can locate articles easily.
I've drafted a naming convention above. Please edit it or post comments below so we can work this into a usable proposal. --NoahElhardt 16:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to do this, Noah! It really helped get the process and discussion going. --Rkitko 05:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantages of this proposal

message: As I was looking today at the pages on plant classfication, and some of the other pages for higher ranked taxa within angiosperms, I noted a huge number of redlinked family names I had never heard of (e.g., see the APG II system article). I am supposing - maybe incorrectly - that some of these are fossil taxa, which would explain why they are red, why I haven't heard of them, and why their placement in the classification is so uncertain. However, I am curious as to why, if these are fossils, there is no use of the dagger, which traditionally indicates fossil taxa, and is easy enough to insert in WP articles. Is there no perceived value among botanists of knowing extinct from extant taxa? If there is, why not insert a clause into the Project guidelines asking editors to clearly indicate fossil taxa? Dyanega 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The APG system only treats extant taxa; the redlinked families are simply those for which no article exists (yet). Many of them are new families, or old and long-synonymized families that have been resurrected, as molecular phylogenies show that many of the traditionally recognized plant families are paraphyletic or polyphyletic.  Angiosperm classification is in a state of rapid flux right now, and the dust probably won't settle for several more years. Unfortunately there are relatively few botanical editors at Wikipedia, and even fewer with access to the relevant literature. MrDarwin 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think some of the reds are monogeneric, and could just be redirected to the appropriate genus, with a note in the genus article, but as MrDarwin sez, one needs the right literature as authority. I haven't been to the library myself in ages... Stan 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I took a look at one of the red links, and this seems to be a small but normal APG-family, the french wiki had a stub on it which I partially translated. TeunSpaans 08:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Teun, that was very helpful. As it turns out this family has only existed since 1985 (although the genus itself was described in 1840). I just spent about an hour doing a relatively minor rewrite of the article, primarily providing additional information, references, and links.  And that was starting with an article that somebody else had already written. This is a good example of why there are so many redlinked families in Wikipedia; actually it's amazing how few there are, considering the short time that Wikipedia has existed, and the limited number of editors available for writing or editing articles. MrDarwin 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like good work, MrDarwin! TeunSpaans 20:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagging of fossil taxa? 

message: Three years after its publication, the APG II system is already gathering cobwebs. In addition to APG II, the Missouri Botanical Garden's Angiosperm Phylogeny website is cited and linked in numerous plant articles although in most cases its author (Peter F. Stevens) is not mentioned. As this is apparently the work of a single individual and the AP website is not the work of, or directly affiliated with, the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (the website and the APG have been confused in some articles) I would recommend that it be cited as the website itself suggests it be cited (while including a link to the website), e.g.: 
:Stevens, P. F. (2001 onwards). Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 7, May 2006. 
Because the website is continuously updated, including the version and date will alert readers of an article that a particular version was referenced, and that the link may take them to a version updated since then.  For the most part it follows the APG II system, but is much more up-to-date, incorporates the results of many recent references published since 2003, and is much more informative. It also differs from the APG II system in several respects, largely on the basis of this more recent research. Particularly because many botanical articles use the APG II classification, which is already out of date, for many groups it's critical to reference something more recent. I would also suggest that anybody using or citing this website read its introduction carefully.
I'm not sure how this new (post 2003) data might be incorporated into the Taxoboxes, as those apparently reflect the APG II classification. In general I have not added or edited taxoboxes, in part because they represent a particular POV and may not reflect up-to-date information. MrDarwin 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Angiosperm Phyologeny website, recommended citation

message: User:Brya has been blocked from editing and there is a discussion going on here as to whether this should be a temporary or indefinite block or ban.  If you have an opinion on whether Brya should be blocked from further editing indefinitely, I have started a separate poll here. MrDarwin 19:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Community ban of Brya?

message: Could both a UK and a US expert please comment on that discussion? Perhaps experts from other countries  could help too. Thanks! --Espoo 07:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts needed: [[Talk:Vaccinium vitis-idaea]] 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I took this ptotos in Turkey this year, :tr:Kullanıcı:Ugur Basak/galeri, but don't know their species name. Can anyone help on this? Thanks --Ugur Basak 11:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: tr:Resim:Resim15.jpg appears to be fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium). --Rkitko 18:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  help on species name 

message: I've proposed a further order-level stub type for the plants, as the parent is oversized again:  please see the proposal, here.  Alai 05:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another plant-stub sub-type proposed: Ranunculales-stub 

message: Can someone look over the Zoysia matrella article.  I tried to include everything, basic article, categories, references all in one fell swoop, for once, even finding a not particularly good copyright free image, and even finally learning how to do the footnoted references.  However, as many already know, my writing style is a bit heavy; and I couldn't find the Wikipedia reference on the style for how to do the references to distinguish between specific footnotes and a general reference.  Also, I'm a bit lame in the grasses, so it wouldn't hurt to have a grass person look at it.  Thanks.  KP Botany 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left some comment on the articles talk page Gnangarra 09:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a note on the talk page too; will have a go at looking out some info some time - MPF 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help, anyone who wants to change the dialect to Commonwealth English is welcome to.  KP Botany 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit request 

message: Project paranormal has recently added a page for a cryptozoological plant called the Umdhlebi, which may or may not exist (probably the latter). How does this fit in with project plant (if at all) and what infobox should it have (if any)?
perfectblue 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Plenty of paranormal and cryptozoological articles (what's the general name for a plant or anmila cryptic species?) on Wikipedia.  Only thing is, does it say it was found in a jungle?  Zululand is not jungle territory.  I don't know that it really fits in with plants, so much as with hoaxes and similar items, but I think the black infobox you created looks fine.  KP Botany 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this belong?

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Can somebody has a closer look at the attribution for :commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg, :commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg and :commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus bgiu.jpg? The V. thapsus I know (I have never been faced with other Verbacum species) have leaves that are not cuneate, and way less large than these. The second image's flowers seems way too large for V. thapsus. Could they be V. densiflorum (=V. thapsiforme)? And the third is obviously something else: not only would you be unlikely to find so many flowers at once on a V. thapsus, but the stamen are far too prominent. Circeus 14:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these are V. thapsus as I understand the plant from its introduced range in North America, but neither do they appear to be the other two introductions in California, V. blattaria or V. virgatum.--Curtis Clark 05:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed :commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg does not look like verbascum thapsu. :commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg is some wild visitor in our garden. By incident, I was wondering about its identification last night. An error is very well possible, its from the first year when I idnetified plants. I'll try to have a second look somewhere next week. Perhaps someone can ask Bogdan about his image? TeunSpaans 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For :commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg, I had a closeup of its flower, one of the sysops on commons was kind enough to restore it. Its :commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus bloem.jpg. TeunSpaans 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a beautiful image (alas, definitely not V. thapsus). I'm not so sure anymore that it's not V. thapsus. Why did you have it deleted? Circeus 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It had been deleted because I had forgotten to add the license. My fault ;-) TeunSpaans 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, I suspect that :Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg might be Verbascum nigra. TeunSpaans 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be surprised in the slightest. Compare: Circeus 23:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doublecheck for ''Verbascum thapsus'' image attribution 

message: The article starts with 
is it certain vascular plants or most vascular plants or all vascular plants ?
The topic appears to have been discussed in the talk page, but it seems to have been gone astray with arguments over what constitute a generation. Would be more comfortable to see cited definitions at the introduction since I have been told that all plants show AoG, but I am not confident enough of my botany to do anything more about this... Hope someone can make the introduction more unquestionable with citations. thanks Shyamal 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look the article over.  I'm a bit limited on time, but you've made valid points.  Thanks for the catch.  KP Botany 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Alternation of generations]]