Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive13

message: thumb|right|150px|Doe, John. (plant)
Could someone please identify this plant for me? About 1-2 foot high, seedlets or plantlets grow on the egde of the leaves, which are 1-2 inches long and dark green. I have no idea what it is. Thanks! SGGH speak! 21:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou SGGH speak! 22:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Doe (plant) 

message: I propose that we request the bot give importance ratings to at least plants with certain IUCN statuses.  Any thoughts or suggestions from someone more familiar with the IUCN ratings?  I mean the bot-created stubs, but it could do any plant articles with IUCN ratings, I suppose.  KP Botany 19:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pol bot stubs importance ratings 

message: There is a discussion about common names of faunal species on WP:MOS.  The intention appears to be to change the policy to only allowing non-capitalizatin of common names.  I realize that in WP:Plants we've decided that it is the article writer's choice, in particular because one of our editors is strongly in favor of capitilization.  I feel strongly that this is a policy change that should be done with the input of ToL and WikiProject editors, rather than a group of strong-willed editors who don't know that bird common names are standardized within regions, while other animals aren't, and that see newspapers as the guideline for how Wikipedia should stylize science article, remember that newspapers generally don't italicize binomials anymore.  See the discussion here.  Common names simply are not standardized in plants, and it seems to me excessive to standardize their usage on Wikipedia, but I could be wrong on this, and would like to know if other plant editors feel this issue should be revisited in plants, or whether we should bother to weigh in on this, as the editors discussing it don't seem to realize, yet, as usual, that plants are living things, also.  KP Botany 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common names revisited 

message: Greetings. Polbot is a bot that reads information from the IUCN and creates new stubs on plant and animal species. There is currently a request for opinions here regarding the linking of biologists' names. Any comments on that page would be welcome.Quadell (talk) (random) 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for opinions 

message: Sleepy grass.  Feel free to move it, if you like, otherwise I will, but I don't know what name, the species or subspecies?  KP Botany 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Achnatherum robustum (Vasey) Barkworth, --Curtis Clark 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I wasn't even in the ballpark, but I vaguely knew there was something about this that meant I shouldn't move it without an opinion.  Thanks.  KP Botany 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Mary Barkworth, and I know she would never forgive me if I left it as a Stipa. :-) --Curtis Clark 23:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool, her grasses manual.  I admit I know nothing about grasses, although I did learn to identify them, and researched and photographed some, I think it was like watering in volcanic soil.  Evolutionarily I'm fascinated by them, and I love them in my garden, but I can't seem to get interested in their taxonomy for some reason.  KP Botany 02:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What scientific name should this be under? 

message: Hello - didn't have time to recover my username and password today and wanted to put a quick note on a talk page about a commericially sold herb.  Then I noticed that there have been other similar complaints, not resolved (maybe deleted instead of addressed??? i don't know enough about how this site really works to understand how complaints work here.) 
see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pueraria_mirifica&action=history
The Pueraria_mirifica entry is cited as a reference on commerical sites, and other commericial sites are cited as external references on the Pueraria_mirifica page.  
Please somebody who knows more about local standards and such take a look.  -G.W.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.157.148.134 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm not sure what you're asking--can you ask a direct question that indicates what you are asking?  I deleted the advertisements from this article, though.  Thanks for the alert.  KP Botany 16:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I saw your post on the article's talk page--good posting.  I've taken care of it.  Thanks for the alert.  KP Botany 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hum... any google search for the species or compounds appears overloaded with sellers for this "miracle breast enlargement" herb, but I did find these on miroestrol: , , , . As for the plant itself... It might be, like numerous "pop remedies", marketed under a wrong name: . Circeus 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why it is safest just to delete these claims, unless tied to scientific journal.  There is a BBC article on it, though, and I'll add the various unsupported claims from the new article when I get around to it.  KP Botany 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, nice, the fda doc.  KP Botany 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbal remedy pages and commericial links 

message: The article might have been mildly dictionary-ish, but I'm pretty sure there is more relevant material that can be added. Someone has also pointed out it should probably be moved at decurrence. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decurrent. Circeus 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Decurrent is what is usually used, or another term, but I haven't heard decurrence used in general.  Still, I'll look at the article, look at some research, and save it if it seems worthy of its own rather than a merge--it's an odd choice for a solo article, though.  KP Botany 17:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its my odd choice....I would like to add descriptions for terms used to describe morphological features of plants but do not know were to put them and how to best link those terms in articles. The linking problem is a deficiency in my "wiki" skills that could probably be easily fixed if I was pointed in the right direction.
Instead of making single pages for each term, can pages be made that cover all the terms used to describe structures such as how plant parts are attached and different types of plant hairs?  I am in the process of taking  pictures for these terms but ambivalent about doing the work of creating pages that will be deleted or not used.Hardyplants 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest merging with & redirecting to phyllotaxis; meanwhile the latter article could be expanded considerably. Oops, never mind, I'm confusing my botanical terminology (shame on me!)--I was thinking of "decussate". MrDarwin 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the meantime, Mr. Darwin, can you think of the noun term that is used for decurrent?  And I don't mean decurrence, there's another word.  Hardyplants, don't worry about your articles being deleted, you don't generally write the sort that are a problem.  You can always created them in your sandbox and ask someone to look them over first, too.  There is the leaf page which shows various examples, and it could be used as a guideline for a different sort of page.  KP Botany 04:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my point was simply that such articles and terminology, rather than being split into what approaches dictionary definitions, should be combined into broader articles.  In this case "decurrent" refers to a character of a leaf and/or petiole so it may belong under one of those articles.  (Since the petiole is technically part of the leaf, maybe everything relating to this should go under leaf.)  MrDarwin 12:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this approach (and decurrent would also be in the tree crown article), but it won't be easy. If no one has done it by the time I retire, I'll add it to my list.--Curtis Clark 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I generally think this is best.  Decurrent is interesting in crown formation, though, because of questions about evolution of crown habits, and its dominance in Angiosperm trees.  But, probably best as a dab and redirect to various articles.  I think, though, it has some major prominence in liverwort taxonomy, but really don't know a liverwort from that green crap that gets in with my overwatered plants.  KP Botany 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speciesist! ;)  You're thinking only of the thallose liverworts; the term decurrent is used for distinguishing genera and families of leafy liverworts.  The problem with combining decurrent with articles on phyllotaxis or with any leaf-related article, is that liverworts have no vascular tissue or true leaves.  So any such merge would fundamentally change the scope of the article that acquired the information.  Unfortunately, there isn't any general term I'm aware of that would cover the various issues pertaining to liverwort "leaf" attachment/arrangement/morphology.  I'm also not certain whether the term applies to moss "leaves" as well, but it might.  (Bryologists tend to specialize in either mosses or liverworts and largely ignore the other group).  About the only possible solution that comes to mind is to start a Plant Morphology book on Wikibooks, and include an illustrated glossary.  --EncycloPetey 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Decurrent]] up for deletion

message: I have made a start on a proper separate article for this important botanical subdiscipline.  I have finished all I plan to do on that article for a while, so others are encouraged to have a go at it without worry of edit conflicts (at least from me). --EncycloPetey 03:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do people think this is at "B" status yet? The article does need more illustrations. --EncycloPetey 03:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations! You've made a great deal of progress quickly here. Kingdon 02:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Plant morphology]]

message: What is with the huge agriculture box and the horticulture and gardening box on the weed article page?  They're hideous and completely detract from the article.  What is going on?  How many articles are these being added to and since when? I'm trying to look at an article on a smaller screen than I usually use and the article is 100% unreadable because of these tags. KP Botany 04:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the boxes be made wholly or partially collapsible? More importantly, when did Botany become a sub-discipline of "Gardening"?--EncycloPetey 04:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really a subdiscipline of agriculture, either.  They can be collapsed wholly by deleting them, then discussing with others their appropriateness for articles.  They're just a series of links, not all necessarily related to the article in question.  Articles should link usefully, not spamfully.  KP Botany 04:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like the user that created it, Wassupwestcoast, also created the project banner by copying what they saw at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism. This template box is a modified copy of . To be honest, I don't think WikiProject Hort and Garden needs such a template. It's useful for large WikiProjects that have core philosophies, beliefs, or or articles that deal with the broad topics within a WikiProject (another example would be  for WP:LGBT). --Rkitko (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is certainly odd collection of links.  The link for Horticulture is listed under "Gardening" (not "Horticulture"), and Thanksgiving seems to be a major topic for "Gardening Customs", while garden isn't listed at all. --EncycloPetey 04:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Project banners go on talk pages, though, not on article pages.  I posted a note on the template itself, but server is locked, we'll see.  KP Botany 04:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not locked now.  I've made a few changes to the template, adding garden and arboretum, removing weed and insect as too non-specific for the subject. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I re-compacted it, with an image wider than tall. Circeus 13:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge boxes on article pages 

message: Could someone check the name on this plant?  Thanks.  KP Botany 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S. lanata is an old name for a form of Stachys byzantina, the name is still used in some horticulture areas but is being replaced slowly with the correct name.Hardyplants 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardy, is the issue settled enough that S. lanata should only be a note in the S. byzantina article?  Do you have a solid reference for this, and can you deal with the matter?  I know that horticulturists retain old names, but I don't know that we should on Wikipedia.  KP Botany 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Likewise, these need some help identifying: Gugulu, Kaulim, and Uyot. --Rkitko (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look these up.  KP Botany 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gugulu I moved and made a redirect to its scientific name, an article that already existed.  I can't find anything about the Kaulim, and because it's an Indian name maybe transliteraterated the article is useless without a scientific name. I think it should be deleted, unless someone although someone might see if they can find a similar sounding scientific name in the Flora of Pakistan, one of the on-line e-floras.  I still think it should be deleted.  Uyot seeds are used to make rattles in parts of West Africa, but I don't know what the plant is.  Can someone search this to find out?  Thanks for posting Rkitko.  KP Botany 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, KP Botany! I'd agree on deletion. I did another search and couldn't find anything. Not sure on Uyot. I can't identify either with google searches. We may have to delete both--we've done this in the past with unidentifiable plant articles where we couldn't find out which species the common name relates to. --Rkitko (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't be the first time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homaid. If they are extant, then we can always ask the recreator for sources. Circeus 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stachys lanata]] 

message: How do people feel about this template appearing at the bottom of the listed pages? 
I based the list of articles on those current listed as Top priority, with some editing. --EncycloPetey 06:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea. I would put Botanical nomenclature as the bottom heading and move Botanical name into the listing to the right of it. --Melburnian 07:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I like it, too. Go for it :-) Rkitko (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK; it's on all listed pages now, and I added cell wall as well. --EncycloPetey 23:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Botany]] 

message: # Discussion has stalled on the additions to the naming convention at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora). Everything else seems to be OK with all editors, but questions have come up on the proper naming of hybrids and cultivars. I'd like to get some more input from everyone.
# It's been a while since BotanyBot has crawled through the categories to find new plant articles that don't have the  banner on their talk pages. A few editors have been monitoring the bot-generated new article list but the bot went on vacation a while back and missed some articles. I just ran a difference count between the plant categories and the assessment categories (basically all plant-related articles vs. ones with plants-project tags on them) and found around 1200 articles! I could have BotanyBot tag them, but I found quite a few articles from the early Polbot contributions that need to be cleaned up (e.g. lightgreen taxobox instead of pink, italics, bolding, categories), so I've been going through them by hand. Feel free to join me! User:BotanyBot/sandbox2 - beware, some of those articles may not be within the scope of WP:PLANTS and shouldn't be tagged, but they show up on the list because they were in subcats of subcats of :Category:Plants.
# I created a new template for when you notice new users joining our participant list (you can watchlist it if you're one of those Wikipedian's that likes to welcome people to the project). Just add  to the new participant's talk page.
# Don't forget about our plant articles that need taxoboxes, need images, or need attention for some reason or another. Thanks! Rkitko (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phlox alyssifolia has been marked as "needs immediate attention", and has been since April, when it was added to the project.  Likewise for Fagara coco and probably others (I didn't try to look at them all).  Do we just look at these, and get rid of the "needs immediate attention" flag unless there is something really obvious like signs of a copyvio, unreverted vandalism, etc?  What is that flag for, anyway? Kingdon 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I assessed the Phlox article as needing attention, it lacked a taxobox and needed some other help. "attention=yes" should have been removed by now, yes. And honestly, I can't remember why I tagged the Fagara coco article as needing attention. Perhaps possible copyvio? By all means, remove the parameter when you find nothing wrong with the article. I've removed a couple from the needs-taxobox category because they had taxoboxes added a while ago but weren't untagged. Generally, I use it as a catch-all, but we can certainly modify it. We could add parameters for other instances. "copyvio-check=yes", "vandalism=yes" for articles that get persistent vandalism? --Rkitko (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've started going through the "needs attention" ones.  Nothing too interesting yet except aneda, which was easy once I figured out the more common spelling is annedda. Kingdon 23:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few project notices 

message: User:Stormbay has queried the identity of the photos added at Brownea coccinea. I'm not familiar enough with the genus to confirm the pics or not - can others give them a look over, please? - thanks, MPF 21:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Brownea coccinea''

message: I have proposed the demotion of List of vegetable oils as I feel it is a bad example to those looking to improve lists on Wikipedia. Plainly put it is badly formatted and inconsistent. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of vegetable oils. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of vegetable oils 

message: Is there someone here who can move Geothallus tuberosus to Geothallus (and leave behind a redirect)?  It is a monotypic genus, and policy is to put such pages under the name of the genus.  Currently the redirect works the wrong way around, and I can't make the move becuase Polbot created the Geothallus article. --EncycloPetey 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Melburnian 00:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --EncycloPetey 00:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move help 

message: Would someone familiar with this area look at Monoicous and see whether anything there is worth merging into Plant sexuality? There seems to be a lot of redirect cleanup needed in this area. Dioecious → Monoicous, but Monoecious → Plant sexuality... Circeus 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should these term be more fully described in plant sexuality and redirected to that page? it seems that some of them are used outside of plant science too. Expanding the defs of mon, di and tri-oicous would not be hard to do in plant sexuality if that is were the definitions should be that other pages link too. Right now plant sexuality just lists basic definitions for those terms, assuming that the other pages would over time expand.  Hardyplants 23:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that there are many, many more terms besides.  (See for example List of plant morphology terms#Bryophyte gametangium terms).  Also keep in mind that monoicous is not the same as monoecious, and the distinction between the two generally doesn't occur in other groups of organisms besides plants.  All sexual animals are diploid, so they are never monoicous or dioicous.  Someone at one point did try to organize all the plant sexuality pages, but he received little support, so the project fell apart.  Personally, I think the information could and should all be covered at Plant sexuality, with appropriately condensed versions in key locations (such as the pages for Bryophyte, Fern, and Seed plant).  I'm of the opinion that to make such an attempt work, we need an outline of major topics to be covered laid out in advance.  Otherwise, it will be a tangled mish-mash not much better than the current situation. --EncycloPetey 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with plant sexuality right now is that in covers mostly seed plants and ignores none seed plants, I agree that an outline would be very helpful and there is plenty of ground that needs to yet be covered in plant sexuality-  I have been adding to the page in small amounts here and there, mostly since I am clueless as to the how the page will finely be organized.  Hardyplants 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself says "monoecious or monoicous", so my confusion is an honest one. Circeus 00:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article?  I don't find the term monoicous doing a search of the Plant sexuality article. --EncycloPetey 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Monoicous. Circeus 01:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I see what you mean.  The article tries to show the similarity between the concepts before explaining the differences. --EncycloPetey 02:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fork in plant sexuality

message: I thought I'd have a go at expanding some of the stub articles since a few of them are species I'm familiar with. I've had a first go at Passiflora tarminiana (that's the "banana poka" of Hawai'i). It is probably a pretty low importance species but it is one I know and have access to most of the references so it seemed as good a place as any to start.
The expanded article is sitting in my sandbox at the moment. I'd welcome any feedback or edits to improve it. Specifically, I'm really not sure about the way I've done the references. I'm used to writing things where everything is referenced like this but it may not be appropriate here. It looks a bit messy anyway.
My worldwide distribution is a bit incomplete and I'm still working on sources for that. I'm trying to avoid adding anything where I haven't seen a reasonable original source for the presence of this species. Unfortunately, the literature is a bit of a mess for this particular species because of the previous taxonomic confusion. In many cases, references to P. mollissima actually refer to P. tarminiana, but sometimes they don't. So I'm not assuming that a reference to P. mollissima is P. tarminiana unless I see a picture associated with the name.
The original stub translates the Hawai'ian name as "offal banana" but I haven't been able to confirm this and have found sources contradicting it.
Link to the article in my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Solanum_dulcamara/Sandbox#Description
Solanum dulcamara 11:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! I think you're well and truly ready to incorporate your sandbox text into the main article space. It's probably best that others don't edit in your sandbox as the GFDL could be compromised by subsequent cutting and pasting of the work of multiple editors into the main article space. Also discussion of the article can then be centralised on the article talk page. --Melburnian 12:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks very nice.  Your level of referencing is good.  I know it may look messy, but future editors who contribute to the article will find it helpful (and wikipedia doesn't yet have a mechanism to show/hide references or the like).  My only comment is a small one: link to cultigen.  I'd say move it to the main article as soon as you want. Kingdon 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks, I've put the article on to the main page for Passiflora tarminiana so anyone with feedback or who wants to edit it can do so there. Solanum dulcamara 00:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub expansion for Passiflora tarminina 

message: Knowing how you guys like your bots ;-/ I was wondering if there was any merit in getting this page automatically archived by Miszabot? It's one less thing to worry about doing manually, and it's easy to set up, see User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo.  FWIW our settings on the Wine Project page are :
|maxarchivesize = 130K
|counter = 5
|algo = old(9d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine/Archive %(counter)d
They are probably a bit aggressive - 15 or 22 days would probably be better, and the way you guys ramble on you probably need bigger archive pages ;-/ (or do date-based archiving).  FlagSteward 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought about bringing that to this page, but the bot couldn't determine which conversations are still on-going. We can also have some dryer periods in discussion here, thus standard archiving would be quite messy. The archiving as it's currently set up also requires a short list of some of the more important discussions in that archive, so it'd require human attention anyway. --Rkitko (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reasonable intelligent, as long as people timestamp their posts and use headings - it would leave the #Top_priority_stubs thread for instance as that's had recent activity, whilst leaving the Template thread that was started afterwards but hasn't been added to since.  The one thing it doesn't do is detect activity that isn't timestamped (for instance crossing off killed stubs in that thread), but people here are fairly good about that. I just figured that even semi-automatic has to be better than completely manual ;-/ and (slightly) more frequent archiving might make the 'active' threads more apparent to everyone - me and EP are probably the only ones watching that Stubs thread for instance, as it's buried deep in the 200kb of this page. ;-/ As for the 'messy' charge, you can archive by size of archive rather than just date. FlagSteward 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a "Sinebot" [sic] that I've seen active, which auto-signs for people who forget to sign their posts.  If it's a diligent bot, then all the posts should get a time-stamp.  It might be worthwhile to have the High/Top Stub lists on a regular project page.  If we did that then archiving that discussion wouldn't present a problem. --EncycloPetey 21:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd not thought about adding Sinebot to Mizlabot, nice combo.  But in practice it doesn't seem to be a problem (in 6 months I don't think we've ever had a thread where the last post wasn't signed), and it allows you to do minor edits like just scratching out a stub. Another idea for tarting this joint up a bit - should I add the stats table to the front page, like most Projects do?  Or would that get too depressing? :-)) There's some code to transclude it, but the originals are at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Plant_articles_by_quality_statistics - you can look at the history to see how many stubs Polbot has added in the last few weeks - it was about 8000 in the week to 26th August ;-/ FlagSteward 12:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I didn't know the bot could do that. Thanks for the info. I suppose the page is a bit long, but I don't mind manually archiving it, since it does require a description in our archive navigation box. I usually waiting until near the end of a month to archive the previous month's discussions, but I suppose I could archive along the way (there are already August threads that could be cut into an archive). Instead of telling the bot how many days to place in one archive, can you tell it to archive by month? I prefer this as it makes the archive description in the navigation box above easier than dates such as 2007-08-02 - 2007-09-04. --Rkitko (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you've quite understood how it works - the 'days' thing only applies to the decision to send to the archives, it archives any thread where the last edit was >x days ago.  The way the archives are organised is a separate decision, you can have either by month or by size. So you might have "if the current archive is >200kb, set up a new one and dump in there all new threads I get sent by the thread-grabber" or whatever, and it might get labelled "March-May 2007".  I guess the one thing that might be a minor problem is the way the archive list is presented, I'm not sure how much flexibility there is on that - I suppose you could have Mizla surrender the list on this page to your manual control.FlagSteward 12:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot archiving of this page

message: Several plant stub types are oversized again (extremely so, for the main plant-stub);  usual reason.  I've proposed a number of new taxon-based types to deal with this;  some of these may need scrutiny from someone who knows what they're talking about, due to large numbers of stubs using taxonomies including orders and families that appear to be deprecated, according to the WP article on same;  usual reason.  Proposals are here and in the following three sections.  Alai 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more plant stub types 

message: A few years ago I has a series of essays deleted which were theories on hormonal action based on this site from this user. He seems to be actively editing plant hormone articles again adding material based on his synthesis of scientific literature; these articles are in pretty bad shape regardless so it would be nice if some interested editors could help make these article more reliable. The Arabidopsis book is a pretty good place to find current information on the known biological function of all the major plant hormones. Thanks --Peta 03:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is partially cleaning up some of the messes he made previously.  But totally agreed that this area could use attention and better sourcing. Kingdon 17:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hormones

message: Any opinion as to whether Nectar disk should be an independent stub or something under nectar or flower? The concept is anatomically important, but not mentioned yet anywhere in Wikipedia. Circeus 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My first reaction is that nectar is the right place (Floral Nectaries and Extrafloral Nectaries are already there), and that it is easier to split it out later, if desired, than to manage articles-in-progress when related topics are spread across many articles.  I guess the main advantage to having a separate article for every concept is that it make it easier to link to Nectar disk (as opposed to Nectar disk or Nectar disk or some such). But that has the tendency to skate close to WP:DICT and make it hard for readers to see related concepts in context with each other. I don't know, I'm not thinking of any really strong arguments one way or the other. Kingdon 22:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can just redirect Nectar disk to nectar. I would do it myself, but there's nothign about it at nectar (which is a poor article, too. I just assessed it as High Stub). Circeus 22:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nectar disk 

message: Can someone look over this article?  Could be problems.  I dont have time right now.  KP Botany 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to rewrite it in a more accessible fashion, but the FNA account and what was there were so jargonic that they could have been written in Ancient Greek, so my writeup can probably apply to just about any species of the genus. Circeus 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a bit more, with info sourced from Atlas of the Plants of British Columbia (a very good website, if anyone is ever seeking info, provided the species occurs in BC). I have also (please note!!) taken out the naturenorth.com ref/link; while the info in it is good enough, it is a commercial ext link supported by ads, and a particularly obnoxious one as its ads auto-reload every few seconds: to get out of it I had to click the 'back' button over 40 times. Nasty. I'd strongly recommend that this website be added to the list of banned ext links for this reason. - MPF 20:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sisyrinchium montanum]]