Talk:Sarracenia

message: I put up a Collaboration of the Week marker for this page. Although this page has some good information on it already, it could really use some fleshing out. Hopefully others will put some time into this page as well. A few preliminary comments:
#The intro as stands seems okay.
#I could see use for the following sections:
*Intro
*Morphology
**Leaves and trapping/digestion
**Flowers and seeds
*Distribution and Habitat
*Environmental status - threats/concerns/conservation
*Classification - species list? should that be on a seperate page? hybrids?
*Cultivation
**Propagation
*Citations, references, and small photo gallery
Any thoughts on this? 
We will be needing more photos, especially representative photos of mature pitchers from each species. I should have a few around somewhere. --NoahElhardt 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good choice to make Sarracenia the first Collaboration of the Week. The sections seem okay to me, but I'd propose to add a section concerning Botanical history, which might sum up informations as first description, etymology and similar. Concerning the classification I don't think, such a small genus should have a separate species page, but the en-standards concerning such decisions might vary from those in de. I will work parallel to you on the corresponding German page :de:Schlauchpflanzen. My first step will be to synchronize both pages, but how shall we share the work then? Shall everybody choose a section he will work on and drop a not here or just leave an Inuse at the section? Sorry in case these questions are dumb, but in de I am a lonesome rider :) and never did a collaboration before. Denisoliver 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't done one either, so I'm as new to this as you are. I think it makes the most sense for you to work on the German page, making new sections and translating ones from English. If you want to "claim" a section on the English page, that would be fine. Then you would only have to write it in German, translating it over would be easy enough for me and save a lot of work (although you can translate it as well if you want :) ). I restructured the content as above, including your suggestion. Everyone feel free to work on any section as needed. --NoahElhardt 14:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: Just about time to nom this for FAC.  We just need to switch the web references with the cite-web template and make sure Sarracenia purpurea - anatomical sketch.jpg has a current PD tag.  After that, I'm nomming it.  SunDragon34 (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd hold off on that for now. Both the classification and cultivation lack any references and the classification section needs clarification. And as an aside, the cite-web templates are not compulsory; as long as we have a standard reference style we don't need to use them (personally, I find the citation templates bulky and not very user friendly, especially when trying to edit around them). I'd be happy to help work on the article before the nom. I have lots of material here and will have time this weekend to look it over and add references where possible. I'm sure we could also get the assistance of User:Mgiganteus1. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also be all for getting this up to FAC status, but as rkitko stated, it does need some work.  Additional references are a must almost everywhere, and the section on Meadowview should be pared down to a summary sentence or two (similar to that for the NCCPG and NASC work. A separate article for Meadowview might be an option).  I'll definitely keep an eye on this page, and might even make some contributions of my own as time allows. --NoahElhardt (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Thanks for the help!  Yeah...it's really close; it justs needs one last push to get it up to FA level.  Good luck, everyone!  Let's make us an FA!   SunDragon34 (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Nice to see you, Noah! Yeah, the information on Meadowview was added mostly by  and could be moved to its own article. --Rkitko (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC time 

message: A proposal was made to merge the article on feeding mechanisms of this plant into the article on the plant.  I fully support this proposal: there is no reason for a separate article on feeding mechanisms.  A loose noose (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal