lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Monopodial

message: There is an inconstancy here, with the text saying there is no rhizome but then going on to say how the rhizome (equated with the stem) grows. Clarification from a botanist would help. SciberDoc (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

message: A proposal over at Talk:Sympodium#Proposing merge from Sympodial to Sympodium suggested that Monopodial should be move to a noun; there, Monopodial branching was suggested, but perhaps Monopodial growth might also work. Thoughts welcome. Klbrain (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better, in my view, to have a single article on "Plant branching patterns", since the terms are often used comparatively and contrastively, e.g. to explain "pseudomonopodial" you need to explain "monopodial". Peter coxhead (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name
Talk:Cypripedioideae

message: Please discuss this merger at the talk page of Cypripedium acauleSriMesh | talk 01:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: I removed a paragraph which read
"The once thought extinct flower is now legally protected from cultivation. This variety of orchid was spotted at a golf course in Lancashire England and daily patrols are made to ensure its safety."
for many reasons.
a) It does not specify which species of lady slipper. This is patently untrue of at least some species. If it is true of some particular species it needs to specify.
b) It does not specify in what country it is legally protected. I would assume they mean the UK from the later anecdote, but the first sentence should state it as if such laws had universality. It also makes little sense that an endangered flower would be protected from cultivation; surely it would be protected from collecting or other vandalism.
c) There are no citations.
d) Frankly the level of sloppiness producing a and b give me little confidence in the reliability of the source of this information.
--Ericjs (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  thought extinct / protected...which? 
Talk:List of Dendrobium species

message: Almost all of this list is based on the Kew Monocot Checklist, which is decidedly non-authoritative, being a machine-parsed 1990s vintage list and not thoroughly reviewed since 1999 or so, at least as regards systematics. Several species are suspect as regards genus, and the present list may still contain lapsûs calami. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think is a better source to use?Chhe (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Review needed
Talk:Maxillarieae

message: Is this new stub really a typo which should become a redirect to this article, or are they genuinely different? PamD 07:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Maxillareae]] 

message: The only source given does not support the division into tribes as in the article. The source accepts only Eriopsidinae, Oncidiinae, Stanhopeinae, Coeliopsidinae, Maxillariinae, and Zygopetalinae, yet the article lists 10 subtribes. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted this on Peter's talk page, but I think I should add it here as well. I found an article that talks about Maxillarieae sensu Whitten being subsumed into Cymbidieae. Here's a quote: "Traditionally, Zygopetalinae have been placed in tribe Maxillarieae; however, as molecular data indicate that Maxillarieae sensu Whitten et al. (2000) is sister to a paraphyletic grade of cymbidioid taxa, Chase et al. (2003) lumped Maxillarieae together with Cymbidiinae, Eulophiinae, Bromheadiinae, and Catasetinae to create a broader and monophyletic Cymbidieae" (https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/443/44339808001.pdf). Whitten also has another paper which accepts Maxillariinae as a subtribe of Cymbidieae (https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3732/ajb.94.11.1860)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JadeSpire (talk • contribs) 23:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

text: It seems that several of the genera listed on this page have been updated to reflect the currently accepted taxonomy; it's just that this page hasn't caught up. JadeSpire (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now redirected the page to Maxillariinae. The detailed listing of subdivisions here is too out-of-date to be moved there. I've added some references to Maxillariinae, which now needs to be expanded. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not consistent with the only source given
Talk:Bletiinae

message: DNA analyses have resulted in the removal of Bletia (the type genus of Bletiinae) from Arethuseae to Epidendreae,C. Van den Berg "Artificial key to the subtribes of Epidendreae" in Pridgeon, Crib, Chase & Rasmussen, Eds.Genera Orchidacearum Volume 4 Epidendroideae (Part one) p. 164. Oxford University Press, 2005 with the result that Bletiinae has also moved.  However, only two other genera (Basiphyllaea and Hexalectris) moved with Bletia.  It is unclear (to me, right now) what happened to the other genera.  Until someone sorts this out on Wikipedia, it seems wise to keep Bletiinae in the categories for both tribes (ugh!).  I would recommend removing the other genera one by one to their new homes, as they are discovered in the literature, and removing the spurious category when only three genera are left. Jay L09 (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic confusion
Talk:Bulbophyllum

message: I did a very quick estimate of the unclassified Bulbophyllum articles. Out of 16540 total articles with no listed importance, between 1850 and 2000 are species of Bulbophyllum. That's like around 10-12 percent of all the articles. The vast majority of these plants are stubs, and while each single plant is likely of low importance itself, as a whole the genus Bulbophyllum seems to interest people and the huge quantity of articles makes this a special case.
I'm willing to work with someone on this project. As it is, I don't feel that I have the means to do it by myself. I've learned a little bit about botanical research in working on the plants project for the past few months, but I'm not really equipped to dig deep and get really good information.
However, I have access to my university (and will for some time) and its resources, and I think that if 2-4 people came together and developed a systematic approach to expanding these articles and cleaning them up, it would go by pretty quickly. I'd estimate it could be done in a month of good work (even on and off), and perhaps less than that.
Please throw me a line if you are at all interested in this project. I'll likely be posting in the larger plant project as well to collect more support.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus720 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bulbophyllum Project 

message: I propose to clean up this page using the headings at Plants/Template. Significantly, the lists under "extreme vegetative and floral forms" "new species ...discovered every year" and "Conservation status" are not referenced and the articles listed are all, or nearly all stubs. I suggest these lists are of little use and should be removed, especially since the List of Bulbophyllum species seems to be accurate and up to date. Also hoping  might assist.Gderrin (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, . I think that a short list of the most important species should remain, just 5 or so that are relevant. I also think that a reformatting of the page based on that template page would be good. I am busy with school ATM but I would be happy to assist in a week or so. I can write up a rough rework and we can edit it together. (From  I think. Forgot to sign?) Gderrin (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that - good suggestion. I've already done a bit of a clean up but would appreciate any help. Also with List of Bulbophyllum species - most of the common names seem to be inventions or attempted translations of the binomial and also should be lower case, except where a proper noun. Gderrin (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup time
Talk:Angraecum

message: as far as I know this species has the longest of the nectar spurs, check the book "angraecoids of madagascar" to be sure ~~Orangesquid  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangesquid (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nectar spur lengths 

message: In the lede we currently read: 
:common name Angrek (Indonesian and Malay)
Since, per the distribution section, this genus is confined natively to Africa and islands of the Indian Ocean, why is there mention of the Malay and Indonesian common name anywhere, but especially in the article's opening sentence? If the genus name is derived from a Malay word then this information may be mentioned further into the article, perhaps in an Etymology section, but self-evidently does not belong in the lede. Any other views before I edit? --Ekaterina Colclough (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malay common name for African genus?
Talk:There's the Girl

message: The Metro Lyrics linked to from this page seem to be for another song entirely. 
The video version includes the lines "She's setting you up my friend....She's gonna break your heart again" which are not on the original album version - do these feature on the original single and is this version available on any compilations ? RGCorris (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They are on the 7" remix; anyone know if this version is available on CD ? RGCorris (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song Lyrics & Versions
Talk:Epipactis

message: The article is full of unsourced statements, which must be treated as highly doubtful without sources, especially lists of accepted species and synonyms. Just one example I noticed: "Epipactis lusitanica (S. and N. Portugal)- now synonym of Epipactis tremolsii subsp. lusitanica" – says who? The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families accepts E. lusitanica. Orchid taxonomy is very varied between sources, and without sources is of little use. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced
Talk:All I Wanna Do Is Make Love to You

message: I feel the plot description language is somewhat emotive without citation or reason. Do the lyrics support "unbalanced woman", "sordid detail", "little consideration for the poor man's feeling" nor "lacked masculinity"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostWhoWoks (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the story behind the song. The source is the actual lyrics. Luckstap (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot description 

message: I have no idea what the heck some editors mean by "biased lyrics". That's the way the song was written for all those who have never heard the track. In this case, the protagonist is a mentally unstable woman who was happy to have a illegitimate child without caring about the real father or the consequences for how the child would have taken his status as a bastard (actual term meant, not insult). Luckstap (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Luckstap: What is your source that the woman is "mentally unstable"? I don't think we can read anything about her mental state from the song. We also can't speculate on what the child would be told of his...origin story. Wikipedia is not the place for original research or interpretations of the lyrics. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Obvious though isn't it. A stable woman would bite the bullet that her husband is a seedless fruit, and might adopt a child. But to go out and act like a whore and discard another human being's feelings by abandoning him in the night and leaving all that "you are the seed" cryptic trash in a note is not what a normal person would call sane. Luckstap (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not obvious. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time, listen to the lyrics and don't fall for a "catchy" tune. Luckstap (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listened to the lyrics, and I don't see anything for an interpretation on the woman's mental state. What is more telling about the song is that the band doesn't play it live any more. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something I wouldn't know. I am someone who has knowledge in music and who is by profession involved in music - it is my livelihood. So that's how I know about various things I edit on but don't necessarily like. But for the record, I am as you can see not a fan of Heart. As for the interpretation of the lyrics, see my talk page reply where it is all laid out. Luckstap (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased? 

message: I remember a VJ (pretty sure it was Downtown Julie Brown) giving a "Holy crap.  Kids, don't do this at home" disclaimer to the video before playing it.  Can't find a copy of that, though.  It would be a good way to add context. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  VJ Intro
Talk:Mexipedium

message: Phragmipedium xerophyticum should re-direct here, i don't know how to make that happen though
devin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.9.200 (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirected. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Oncidium

message: What kind of plant food do these species need for houseplant survival? Send help quick! 99.55.163.191 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What kind of fertilizer? 

message: This is way too many species to be a "selected" species list. Would anyone object to splitting it out into something like List of Oncidium species? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selected species
Talk:Cattleya

message: Is it CAT-LAY-A? Or CATTLE(as in cows)-YA? Jigen III (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CAT-lee-uh, after Sir Cattley — Jay L09 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: I ended up on this page while searching for the given name "Cataleya," for which there is an extant wiki page.  Is it possible to create a disambiguation page and append it to this article?  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataleya_(given_name) 216.24.45.42 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate for Disambiguation Page?
Talk:Sophronitis

message: In January 2008, the International Orchid Committee voted to reduce Sophronitis to synonymy under Cattleya.  The move made no sense whatsoever (my opinion and the opinion of many others).  Rather than simply fold this page into Cattleya, it may be well to retain it as a section of Cattleya, once the name changes have been published, simply re-naming the page as needed to remain taxonomically correct.  In any case, the information in this page should not be tossed simply because of world politics.   It might be well, also, to clarify in this page the distinction between those species which were placed in Laelia prior to 2000 and those species which were placed in Soprhonitis prior to 2000 (a move to which many have also objected). Jay L09 (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the World Checklist of Monocotyledons (Royal Botanic gardens, Kew), the genus Sophronitis is still an accepted name.  JoJan (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonymy
Talk:Robiquetia minimiflora

message: This name is a synonym for Robiquetia. --Zeljko (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved and attempted to update accordingly. Please let me know if I missed anything. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abdominea
Talk:Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis)

message: Sounds like a megachurch to me.  I went ahead and added that.  If anyone has any objections, let me know.   Colin 07:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comment
Talk:Pascal Mendy

message: I have reworded the article and removed the Hearts players category. The contract he has signed is with FBK Kaunas/Romanov. While it may be the plan for Mendy to move to Hearts, there is no guarantee that this will happen, as the recent example of Gogita Gogua highlights. 
Gogua didn't sign because he was refused a work permit. As Senegal is not a member of the EU, Mendy would also need to meet work permit criteria, unless he holds joint-citizenship with an EU country (most likely France through colonial history, or Lithuania through residency). Given the article doesn't state this, claiming Mendy will definitely sign falls foul of WP:Crystal imo. Caledonian Place 07:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to the above, I found an online reference to a Pascal Mendy holding a French passport. However, this Mendy played for Vittoria in Italian Serie C in 2006 and before that with Bellinzona in Switzerland. A different reference to Pascal Mendy shows he played with Dinamo Moscow during 2006. I assume this means there are TWO separate Senegalese footballers named Pascal Mendy. Caledonian Place 07:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewording
Talk:Noel Mewton-Wood

message: What on earth were the Mahler works in his repertoire?  Apart from piano accompaniments to songs, the only piano music I know of that Mahler wrote was the one movement Piano Quartet in A minor.  Did Mewton-Wood play this?  And with whom?  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a good look around the web, and found zero information about this.  I'm treating it as an error and have removed it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I used two sources to create this article. The New Grove entry, and the NYT article. That is where Mahler would have been mentioned. I no longer have access to either. Outriggr (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction to the above: it is the "Times" article, not "NYT", as cited (in-text) in this article. Outriggr (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe one of those sources referred to Mahler.  But this is one of those cases where we need to apply commonsense and question the veracity of the source.  I have since checked, and confirmed that Mahler's sole extant works involving piano are the Piano Quartet movement, which is very little played, and some songs, again very infrequently heard.  In both cases, other performers would have been involved in performances/recordings, but we say nothing about this.  Mahler wrote zero solo piano music.  Unless we can come up with a source that says otherwise, the Mahler reference will need to remain out of the article.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I just wanted to provide a bit of background as to where this bit came from. I'm sure these sources are as capable of error as we are. :) Outriggr (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: He played Mahler's 3rd Symphony as a piano duet apparently with Norman Del Mar. see http://www.buywell.com/booklets/4763390.pdf150.101.215.237 (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  However, it seems that was by way of teaching the symphony to Norman Del Mar.  It was never part of his performing repertoire, i.e. no paying audience member ever heard it.  Lots of performers play things in private that they don't expose their audiences to.  I'm still inclined to keep it out.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  07:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm inclined to agree with you and your reasoning, however, removing Mahler from the list smacks of original reasearch. We should be simply quoting (or referring) to 3rd party sources (Even if sometimes they don't seem right). Additionally NM-W would have been familiar with Mahler's songs as an accompianist and accompianists have repertoires too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschnur (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did mention those accompaniments first up. And later.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Mahler?
Talk:Ska 'n' B

message: why the crap link to the danish lager of the same name?? the bad manners song was called Special Bru and was about the singers love of all types of alcohol and mainly beer if you must have a link at least let it be to somebody's interpretation of the song  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macljotr (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee

message: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.”
In the Google News archives NWTRCC or its activities have been reported on 34 occasions in multiple independent sources.  I'm not sure how to judge how significant this coverage is, but the group seems notable enough to me. -— (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:Peacemakers

message: According to Maurice Isserman in his book If I had a hammer, he said that the group was originally called Committee for Non-Violent Revolution, then changed its name. The source cited here says that group merged into Peacemakers. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject could clear this up. Adding redirect anyway.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: — Assignment last updated by Maxlynsw (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: WRIT 015-13, Writing for Others
Talk:Voices for Creative Nonviolence

message: I don't think that this article should be deleted or merged. It should be expanded to cover world events that the organization is envolved, etc.. Many other people are associated with the organization besides Kelly.  Hundreds or thousands of references about the org appear on the Internet.  Mainstream news outlets give too little coverage to notable peace organizations like this so deleting this would, in effect, be ignoring a worthy pursuit and discriminatory. 172.130.7.57 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete or merge with Kathy Kelly ?
Talk:Miltonia

message: I hesitate to venture a query being deciedly a non-expert, but I have had trouble finding a definition of 'steath'. It is probably a technical term of which I am ignorant, but I did just wonder whether it might be a typo for 'sheath'. Dawright12 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Description
Talk:Epidendrum

message: As explained in the article, there is much disagreement about exactly what Epidendrum means.  It should come as no surprise, therefore, that there is no trivial name with exactly the same meaning as Epidendrum.  Thus, I have removed the attribution "Star Orchid" from the Taxobox and replaced it with "Epidendrum."  I have also removed the comments I made earlier in the lead sentence for the article, together with any reference to a common name—these tendentious statements belong under "discussion," not "article."Jay L09 (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial Names
Talk:Odontoglossum

message: I believe Colmanara is now Odontocidium - perhaps some way of indicating that could be added142.68.51.54 17:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the World Checklist of Monocotyledons of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, xOdontocidium is not quite the same as xColmanara.  JoJan 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colmanara no longer used