Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Banksia/Archive 1

message: Suggest
#Distribution - locations orientated North -> South
#*Sometimes the easiest way of describing distribution is to say where it is most common, then mention how far it extends in various directions. Or if there is a major population and one or more smaller outlying populations, it makes sense to describe the distribution of the first population first, regardless of orientation. Snottygobble 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some basic standards

message: Your category names are inconistent with the way everyone else names them.  Suggest you remove the "WikiProject" from them.  See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index_of_subjects. Rlevse 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. I'll change it over shortly. Snottygobble 00:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: huh? Cas Liber 01:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confused because I had already made the changes, e.g. from :Category:WikiProject Banksia articles by importance to :Category:Banksia articles by importance. Snottygobble 11:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category names

message: This person is appearing as a reference in a lot of articles for this project should we honour him with an article Gnangarra 09:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahaha (dunno what to say really...pic of me grinning) [] Cas Liber 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  C.Liber 

message: Guys, any idea what one to do next? I guess options are the genus, B. menziesii, or B. integrifolia, B. ericifolia, B. spinulosa, or is doing another species 'samey'?
For summertime, you should be able to gte some great shots of B. grandis or B attenuata and both would be good candidates.
cheers.Cas Liber 20:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep working towards getting the genus up, but in the meantime I'd like to have another species in the works. My preferred is B. menziesii. Other options I had thought of were B. integrifolia (so much to say about this one), B. serrata (type species), B. marginata (taxonomically complex), B. goodii (another well-researched endangered species). Snottygobble 00:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont have a preference, B.goodii doesnt have any images that would need to be addressed before FA nomination. I'll do distribution maps for each of these in the next couple of weeks. Gnangarra 03:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, scratch goodii. If we take the intersection of Cas's and my lists, we end up with a choice between menziesii and integrifolia. Snottygobble 04:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: since its down to two lets work both until FA, then choose Gnangarra 05:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Snottygobble 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.Cas Liber 11:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Banksia integrifolia is starting to get quite meaty now...Cas Liber 04:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  .....................Next potential FA canditate? 

message: Hi guys,
This looks like one hell of an active WikiProject, good work! I was just creating an article (Grevillea petrophiloides), and went looking for the suitable stub (finding it to be just plant-stub). I noticed that the Banksia genus is taking a large portion of the plant stubs. Have you considered creating a stub for banksias (or better yet Proteaceae)? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 09:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created stubs for Proteaceae and Banksia, and retagged the articles. Snottygobble 12:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks. --liquidGhoul 12:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New stub

message: Walking through Kings Park photographing orchids I saw a sign saying this Stirlingia latifolia species was a member of the Banksia family?.  This sign is one of a new series of signs placed along the nature walk  Gnangarra 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, um, it is a member of Proteaceae, but not closely related to banksia (odd thing to put on a sign).cheers.Cas Liber 06:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've occasionally heard Proteaceae referred to as the "banksia family" or the "protea family". Oddly enough I've never heard it referred to as the "grevillea family". Snottygobble 06:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: still very strange that such inaccurate terminology can be use by somewhere so involve in the preservation of WA native plants. Gnangarra 08:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stirlingia latifolia 

message: Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
*Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
*Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
*About the plugin
*About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
*User guide
*About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 11:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

message: http://www.anbg.gov.au/acra/acra-list-2004.html List of Australian registered Cultivars / List of Registered Cultivars derived from Australian native flora Gnangarra 13:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful location 

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 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Earlier on I enforced certain nomenclatural rules which I believed to be correct at the time. In a couple of cases I was wrong, so I owe you guys an apology for insisting on doing things my way. Here's an update on their status:
#Always include "subsp." and "var." in trinomial names. Correct; these are required for plant names, but always omitted from animal names.
#Don't include the year in author attribution. Correct; years are never included for plants, only for animals.
#Use "subsp." rather than "ssp.". I had thought that "subsp." was formally correct and "ssp." was slang. It turns out that the ICBN doesn't rule on how ranks should be abbreviated, so neither is formally correct or incorrect. However, the ICBN uses "subsp." throughout its Code, and so does IPNI. Closer to home, George, Theile, APNI, etc. all use "subsp.". So I think the convention we have settled on is best.
#Don't abbreviate species epithets. Again there is no formal ruling, but abbreviating the species in subspecies and variety names is absolutely widespread and perfectly acceptable. I have abandoned my (in hindsight) ridiculous insistence on expanding the "i." to "integrifolia", and, unless you guys object, will probably begin to use the shorter form where it is warranted.
Hesperian 12:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there no real convention that must be followed for 3,4 the current format is acceptable and as long as we remain consistant across all articles. As my taxonomical knowledge has only expanded from being associated with this project I like the expanded format, but I'll follow like a good sheep along what ever trail you guys want to take. Gnangarra 12:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always knew ssp. was OK for subsp. but it looks too similar to sp. for mine and I don't like it. Otherwise I am glad you've formalised a style. Cas Liber 12:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: May be a good time to nominate soon as the FAC commenters are supporting alot of stuff ;)Cas Liber 12:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: be more fun, to wait until they are inclined to oppose every thing then slip it in that'll throw them all off balance. Gnangarra 12:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclatural conventions, summary and apology

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 17:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards