Talk:Prunus mahaleb

message: Hello Bogdan. You must be taking time out from your working to read this, whenever that might be. I never saw the previous article and do not know what it contains. I do notice that some of these articles are not too good quality. I hope that will not prove to be the case with this one, which is entirely de novo. It think it is time to get on with this botany business. Everything is in red. You'd think it was Botany Bay, and yet the set-up is here for a great botanical encyclopedia. Is that beyond us? Anyway if you get any urges to run slashing through Botany Bay, let me know, will you? Thanks.Dave 18:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re previously deleted article

message: I took a look again having written it de novo and having found it rated as a good article.Dave 04:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Later. After I wrote this I took a look at the Plants Project page. It does endorse the References idea. In that case it appears as though MPF was implementing that. I notice he changed P. maacki also. Well, about the best I can say is, are we sure that template is the way we want it now? However, to change it would be to have to change a lot of articles. Since this is a project decision it appears for the time being I will be going along. Thanks for your detailed work MPF. My role for now is get this thing going with initial articles for plants with pictures. You seem to do better with something already there. Many may NOT be of the greatest importance but if you are going to do them, do them; otherwise, don't put in the links. By the way, there are a lot more Prunus than what are listed.Dave 11:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Yep, the refs style is what is general among (recent) plant pages (there's also an awful lot which have older styles, or even no refs at all, back from the days when refs weren't a requirement . . . they're on the huge 'to do' list!). I guess my own personal preference is for Harvard style refs ["(Bloggs 1999)", + bulleted alphabetical ref list at the end], but the general consensus has been to use numbered inline refs so I've been changing to that. Of the TOC, I didn't actively 'get rid of it', they are only generated when there are 4 or more headers, and currently, I don't think the article is long enough for that many (too many headers per amount of text looks awful; I generally reckon on average about one header per 15-20 lines or so of text is best). No doubt as the article grows the paras will be divided up with new headers such as ===Ecology=== (actually, looking again, I think that can reasonably go in here now, I'll do that). Of external links, if they have useful, reliable info which is cited, they are best treated as refs; if they don't have anything additional to say (or are commercial, like 'zipcodezoo' or plant nursery websites), then they're best not included at all (guidelines at WP:NOT#LINK, WP:EL). Hope this helps! - MPF 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisit

message: MPF went back to a previous Wikipedia system on this. The way it is being done now is to separate notes from Bibliography. That way you have a separate bibliography and you can use the notes for notes as well as references.
I'm not sure how I feel about the changes. In general, NO, but for this article, maybe. He got rid of the TOC but I'm not sure we have all that much to say about the plant. Also he did not use or got rid of the template specifications for biblio items. Instead he did what many people do, handtype the format. Well. What a lot of work. You can use those templates in a numbered note you know.
I don't know what to think about it. Our Northumbrian friend is an editor of some experience with a barnstar (like me) and has great interest in plants. He put a lot of work into this. His additional detail adds a lot to the article. I'm inclined not to revert the end sections (just for this article). My main objection would be, the changes limit the article because if you add one more section you get the TOC. I like TOCs anyway. There's no place to expand the bibliography also because there is no bibliography. And there are no external links. I feel this old style cramps expansion. But I do not know what to think for this one article. I guess MPF that you wanted to condense. True?
What do you think Gross Point? Let's have some feedback.
PS I'm going to do a bunch of these articles to keep things going. You plant people do step in with the detail. My interest is as an adjunct to archaeology. Someone might like to know, if pollen or seeds of a plant were found, what that plant is, the range, the characteristics, uses, cultural history, etc. This is especially true of plants that have been domesticated, such as much of Prunus.
:Later. After I wrote this I took a look at the Plants Project page. It does endorse the References idea. In that case it appears as though MPF was implementing that. I notice he changed P. maacki also. Well, about the best I can say is, are we sure that template is the way we want it now? However, to change it would be to have to change a lot of articles. Since this is a project decision it appears for the time being I will be going along. Thanks for your detailed work MPF. My role for now is get this thing going with initial articles for plants with pictures. You seem to do better with something already there. Many may NOT be of the greatest importance but if you are going to do them, do them; otherwise, don't put in the links. By the way, there are a lot more Prunus than what are listed.Dave 11:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Yep, the refs style is what is general among (recent) plant pages (there's also an awful lot which have older styles, or even no refs at all, back from the days when refs weren't a requirement . . . they're on the huge 'to do' list!). I guess my own personal preference is for Harvard style refs ["(Bloggs 1999)", + bulleted alphabetical ref list at the end], but the general consensus has been to use numbered inline refs so I've been changing to that. Of the TOC, I didn't actively 'get rid of it', they are only generated when there are 4 or more headers, and currently, I don't think the article is long enough for that many (too many headers per amount of text looks awful; I generally reckon on average about one header per 15-20 lines or so of text is best). No doubt as the article grows the paras will be divided up with new headers such as ===Ecology=== (actually, looking again, I think that can reasonably go in here now, I'll do that). Of external links, if they have useful, reliable info which is cited, they are best treated as refs; if they don't have anything additional to say (or are commercial, like 'zipcodezoo' or plant nursery websites), then they're best not included at all (guidelines at WP:NOT#LINK, WP:EL). Hope this helps! - MPF 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorg of notes

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging