Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive16

message: Organisms Wiki was recently started as a wikia to educate on all types of organisms and their biological counterparts. This wiki will aim to provide free, excellence-quality and concise articles dealing with organisms and habitats. Organisms Wiki is a wikia, and is also very small and new, which is why I would like to leave a note here that we appreciate any helpful contributions.
I have had people criticizing the sense of making a wiki on this topic when indeed Wikipedia covers just about anything related to organisms. Sure, this may be true - but a major advantage of having Organisms Wiki hosted at wikia is to cover the topics in broader depth. Thank you. Organisms Wiki
Paul Davey 07:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organisms Wiki - a wikia on Organisms

message: I had mentioned earlier that I would be making a lot of stubs to rectify "deadlinks" from Wikiversity and Wikibooks, so just a heads up that they're rolling in now. 
I also noticed that a lot of these are linked from various "article wanted" lists, and thought folks might want to make use of the template I'm making these articles with: User:SBJ/ps. That template is specifically designed for transitioning from wikiversity pages, but a similar one could be made with more #switch fields... let me know if I can help make one. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance that you could first generate a list of the articles to be created, in case some of them exist under other names already? --EncycloPetey 13:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really: using the template is actually more efficient than making a list. I do search for plants before making the stubs, of course, but even for the old "common named" articles that haven't been picked up by the NC-sweepers, there is almost always a redirect (and hence no "hidden redlink" on with wikiversity side). At least thus far the only search results have been from either the genus article (for a species), or one of the various "wanted article" lists (flora of x, wanted gardening articles, and so on). I more or less assume (or at least hope) that the people who watch those lists will see the new blue links and expand them in regards to native range, horticultural uses, etc. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The stubs are marching in 

message: Hi, all. I'm planning a trip in the very near future up to the University of Michigan libraries. I've already created a pretty hefty list of articles to photocopy for myself - journals I couldn't find elsewhere and where interlibrary loan had let me down. The library is quite extensive, so chances are they have what you might be looking for. (How many US institutions have all the volumes of the Australian journal Austrobaileya?) I'll take requests for your hard-to-find articles. Search their library here for the journal you seek. If they have it, check their holdings to see if they have the volume you need. Post the citation on my talk page and I will photocopy, then scan and deliver your article in pdf form. I thought I'd make the most of this trip and help out anyone here at the same time. I'll probably make the trip early next week, so make your requests! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've received one request so far. I'll probably be making the trip this coming Monday, November 12. Requests aren't limited to journals or WP:PLANTS-related material. Old monographs (they have a lot of F.Muell. material, among many others) and books are welcome as well. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research trip 

message: Fraxinus mandschurica  or Fraxinus mandshurica ? Does anyone have access to the original publication to check, please?: Ruprecht, Bull. Phys. Math. Acad. Sci. Saint Petersburg. 15: 371 (1857). Thanks - MPF 11:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IPNI has mandshurica. The same spelling was used for Tilia mandshurica in the same publication. Lavateraguy 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Mabberley's Plant Book has mandschurica. --EncycloPetey 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: other botanic gardens/herbarium with the sh spelling are:
1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh    
2 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens and Arboretum    
1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from the Royal Horticultural Society    
1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University    
1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The New York Botanical Garden    
2 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from Denver Botanic Gardens (also have 1 specimen wt sch spelling)    
3 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from WCMC's Plant Conservation Bibliography    
1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from Botanic Garden of the University of Copenhagen    
There is a synonym for this species Fraxinus nigra subsp. mandschurica (Rupr.) S.S.Sun - which may have added to the confusion.
Sepilok2007 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks all! Looks a little unresolved so far - the problem is that if there's an error in Index Kewensis (far from unknown), that would have been taken up by IPNI as it is based on IK. Lavateraguy's evidence is very strong, but not conclusive, but then again when someone with the high reputation that Mabberley has goes the other way . . . I'm left stuck! I fear this one will have to wait until someone can get a copy of Ruprecht's original. - MPF (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spellcheck

message: Hey, I just wanted to thank all of everyone on this wikiproject, all the biology data has really been a help with my Bio homework! Thanks! Wikilost 02:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: I've recently noticed a lot of articles that I've contributed to having an IPA pronunciation added. I believe that this should not be done due to the fact that nearly everyone tends to pronounce scientific names differently, not only from country to country, but also within the English speaking world and within its individual countries. If we were to list them all, in some plants with longer names there would probably be well over 5 possibilities, which wouldn't be helpful to anyone. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find where and what was decided. Anyone have an opinion? Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 22:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember discussing IPA but we did discuss another aspect of pronunciation, which syllable is accented, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive12#Scientific name accents, which led to the creation of Syllable stress of Botanical Latin and a moderate amount of usage of the accute accent convention described there.  It seems like IPA would be rather more problematic than accents.  I'm skeptical of either, largely on the grounds of the difficulty of finding reliable sources, although I haven't seen articles which enter the ridiculous zone of edit warring over pronunciation, lists of zillions of alternate pronunciations, etc. Just a matter of time, I fear. Kingdon (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd favour not having them, but if we do, I reckon they should follow the best practice suggested by Stearn's Botanical Latin "How they are pronounced matters little provided they sound pleasant and are understood by all concerned. This is most likely to be attained by pronouncing them in accordance with the rules of classical Latin pronunciation." (p.53 in my 3rd ed., revised). - MPF (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that we should have pronunciations devised by Wikipedia editors based on their own interpretations of "rules", as this borders on WP:OR. However I have no particular objection to providing pronunciations of specific words referenced from reliable sources.--Melburnian (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Overall, I agree.  We don't have IPA pronunciations for scientific names over on Wiktionary because of a number of the problems mentioned above (and more).  I shouldn't think it would be helpful to try to have pronunciations for all the various genera and species.  However, I would argue that having English pronunciations for names of divisions and classes is probably a good idea.  These names, although universal, are pronounced differently in English than in other languages, and within English itself are more consistently pronounced the same way because of the high rank and correspondingly higher use.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I share your concerns, Djlayton4, but if someone is going to go to the effort of actually finding a dictionary which includes the word in question (many botanical names won't show up in dictionaries, although Ailanthus is evidently one which does, and not just in the OED), I would tend to let them have their pronunciation.  At least, that's how I tend to approach such matters.  I couldn't keep sane on wikipedia without a certain dose of "whatever". Kingdon (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The "th" in Neanderthal is pronounced as a "t" because the word is Germanic in origin.  Standard German pronounces all "th" occurrences as "t."  This same convention is not applicable to Ailanthus as this word is Latin-based, not German.  There is a standard way of pronouncing Latin, and the IPA should follow that.  Perhaps it is pronounced differently colloquially, but the standard Latin pronunciation should be given. GreenGorgon (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: On the good side : such an IPA-pronunciation gives the opportunity to non-native speakers to find out how the words sound like as spoken by native speakers (this is not always evident).  JoJan (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA Pronunciation for Scientific Names - Good or Bad? 

message: Hi,
I believe that the lily in this photo: :Image:Bouquet of flowers apr07.jpg is that of the Easter Lily. Could someone please confirm? This shot of the stigma may be of use: :Image:Large stigma.jpg Thanks, --Fir0002 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does appear to be a cultivar of Lilium longiflorum, also known as "Christmas Lily" in Australia. --Melburnian (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Easter or Christmas lily is a common flower for cut arrangements. There are forms that can be raised from seed that will flower in less than 12 months from sowing, greatly reducing the cost of production.  If stored in a cool location the cut flowering scapes can be preserved for a number of weeks.  Hardyplants (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks everyone! --Fir0002 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification of a lily 

message: I just discovered this portal.  Looks like it was created earlier this month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes i just created since i was a bit free. hey encycloPetey kindly check your talk page please. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Portal:Plants]] 

message: There is a DRV discussion here related to the Japanese citrus category that may benefit from your input. Thanks. -- Jreferee   t/c 20:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Japanese citrus]]

message: I've just created (stub) pages for all the genera of the Polygonaceae that I could find, and could use help in two ways:
# Could someone inclined to illustrate pages pop some nice images in?  None of the new genus pages have illustrations, though I set up the taxobox with the parameter names.  That way, you just have to track down an images, pop in the name and a caption.
# Does anyone know anything about the (supposed) genus Muconea?  It's listed on the Polygonaceae page, but I can't find it in any reference.  I was running along fine creating articles until I came to that one.  All the other genera listed on the page turned up nice internet resources, but Muconea seems to pull up nothing but mirror sites for Wikipedia.  Is this a real genus?  I've pulled the genus out of the list to the family's talk page for now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work; re: 2 - I think it's meant to be Mucronea.--Melburnian (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  And by the way, we now have a  if anyone wants to work on this family. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Polygonaceae]] assistance