Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive7

message: Here are lists of likely notable botanists; every red link is a possible article. Please add more lists to this.--Curtis Clark 19:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How ever am I going to get caught up on pic uploads when you make me do bios!? :-) The list would be good to add to Botanical Society of America... Stan 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, there are plenty of much more notable botanists who don't have so much as a blurb.  There's also the list of botanical authors.  If you pick foreign botanists and write stubs you may get additional help.  I started an article on Hipolito Ruiz and someone with an interest in Spanish explorers of the Americas came by, translated from the Spanish Wikipedia and added pictures and a list.  Some of these botanists it's a bit inexcusable there is no information on Wikipedia about them.  What about living botanists?  I often wonder how they would feel about having a biography on Wikipedia because of the ability to readily vandalize it?  KP Botany 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The truly famous botanists are presumably so busy being famous they don't have time to worry about their WP articles. :-) In any case, vandalism is easily controlled by having articles on people's watchlists, just announce article creation here so we'll know they exist. Stan 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also somer relevant categories, including :Category:American botanists and :Category:Botanists--Curtis Clark 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never saw the categories, thanks--any objection to changing the list of botanists with articles to a list of botanists and including the red links, of course I'll ask over there first?  It would be handy to have all the redlinks in one place.  I could probably write up credible biographies on all the systematists, in the short list, and there are some on the BSA list, except for Dressler.  How important do people consider biographies of scientists versus plant articles?  KP Botany 22:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the redlinks makes the article less useful (although a category is better than a list, IMO, since it requires less maintenance). Can project pages have sub-pages? It would seem more appropriate to have the redlink list in a place like that, since adding a botanist without an article is implicitly less noteworthy than adding a botanist with an article (a real catch-22). I think plant articles are generally more important than biographies, but there are some major botanists without articles. I got an email from a Wikipedian who is working on Dressler.--Curtis Clark 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, even the talk page can have subpages, which is how the archives work. Speaking of, I should do that again since the page is getting quite large. Rkitko 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, can someone add a list of botanists subpage, then?  We can include redlinks, stubs in a separate list, and a link to the bluelink page.  Good to hear someone is writingon Dressler, he's rather important and current.  I am alphebatizing the list below and adding it to some of the redlinks from the botanists with author abbreviation pages.  I like writing the biographies, and will continue adding some, simply stunned by the botany that Hipolito Ruiz did, for instance, but want to start adding California plant pages, and am working on a special big article that needs to be added.  KP Botany 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographies needed

message: Of course we can have subpages! Some projects have *dozens* of them! Circeus 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, even the talk page can have subpages, which is how the archives work. Speaking of, I should do that again since the page is getting quite large. Rkitko 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, can someone add a list of botanists subpage, then?  We can include redlinks, stubs in a separate list, and a link to the bluelink page.  Good to hear someone is writingon Dressler, he's rather important and current.  I am alphebatizing the list below and adding it to some of the redlinks from the botanists with author abbreviation pages.  I like writing the biographies, and will continue adding some, simply stunned by the botany that Hipolito Ruiz did, for instance, but want to start adding California plant pages, and am working on a special big article that needs to be added.  KP Botany 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reset headers 

message: I would like to set up a page where botanical articles for peer review can be posted.  I think that some of the botany articles I read that are good articles or nominated for good articles, really needed to be peer reviewed by someone with a background in botany or anything somewhat related.  Is this possible?   I see scientific peer review bit the dust--too bad.  KP Botany 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a good idea to me... maybe Wikipedia:Wikiproject Plants/Peer Reviews? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm at it, KP Botany noticed it slightly, but we should keep on the lookout for User:Anlace's California rare plants article that appear on a regular basis on WP:DYK. While Anlace is a good article writer, they/he/she have problem condensing these articles without jargon and determining appropriate material (for example, they almost never include proper taxonomical information). The fact these articles are a bit out of their main fields of specialization (physics, art history and environmental science) doesn't help. Circeus 14:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, these are the articles of concern for me, their botanical descriptions are also very poorly written, often internally inconsistent, and use botanical jargon incorrectly, although also excessively.  However, because this editor has put a serious amount of effort into starting these articles, finding noteworthy species, and finding images and references, and into categorizing and locating California articles, I would like to offer him/her a specific place where the artciles can go for peer-review before going to DYN and GA nomination.  However, these are not the only problem articles, someone mentioned the life histories article, which needs a thorough going over, and something should be done about the various parts of a plant articles as a whole as SB_Johnny has pointed out.  I would very much like Wikipedia:Wikiproject Plants/Peer Reviews.  Can someone start it and add a link to it from the main page and from this page?  Starting articles is the only thing I do worse than spelling correctly. --KP Botany 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy enough... --SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyone object to setting it up with transincluded subpages and a formal set of archives, like Peer Review or FAC?  Maybe even a little template to stick on the page (like Peer review does), so that other editors can see what was said about an article in the past, etc.?  Guettarda 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could list the article in both locations and use a single subpage? With added headers to separate comments from the project? Easier maintenance and greater response potential. Circeus 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I was thinking of this as an alternative to conventional peer review, but there's no reason not to cross-post - that would allow people here to keep an eye on plant articles without having to be overwhelmed by trying to keep up with Peer Review.  Separate headers is a good idea too.  Guettarda 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer reviews for botanical articles

message: from Wikipedia:Peer Review
Topic-specific peer reviews:
*Architecture peer review deals with architecture-related topics
*Biography peer review deals with biography articles
*CVG Peer review deals with computer and video games-related topics
*Film peer review deals with film-related articles
*Military history peer review deals with military-related topics
*Paranormal peer review deals with topics relating to the paranormal.
*Rail transport peer review deals with rail transport-related topics
The peer review pages are transincluded at both the main peer review and topic peer review articles.  Guettarda 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other WikiProject peer reviews

message: Stumbled on this and tried to give it categories. I am not very happy with the result. Can somebody look for more appropriate ones? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Soil seed bank]] 

message: There has recently been created a barnstar or wikipedia award for fauna. There is as of yet no such similar barnstar for flora. I'd make one myself if my own graphic abilities extended beyond stick figures. If any members of this project would have an interest in helping to create such an award, it should be listed at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals. I hope to be seeing a proposal there shortly. Badbilltucker 16:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plants barnstar 

message: Hello at Wikiversity there is a disipline in development on palaeontology that needs help. The courses could help with te development of articles on wikipedia so it is a long term program. Interested people can go to this URL: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Topic:Paleontology#Content_summary Thanks for reading Enlil Ninlil 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Topic:Paleontology

message: I was wondering if you guys can help point out what things I need to do in order to make it an FA. I made FA's before,  but I do not know anything about trees or what is needed in a science article. Thanks in advance. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you should ask that. This summer, I tried to work on it, and my pathetic work is at User:Circeus/Maple. It does include a lengthy list of references, though, that might prove useful. Circeus 14:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You might want to take a look at Sundew as well if you're interested in bringing articles to FA status. It's very close to being a featured article. It has had a peer review and was once a featured article candidate, but was turned down. NoahElhardt completed all the suggested fixes, but further suggestions were not provided once those were completed. I don't know what it would take to get it there. If you could look it over, those of us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnivorous plants would appreciate any input. :-) --Rkitko 09:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Maple]] 

message: I noticed that each article on Trillium species have this template:
Is this against our standards? I mean, usually the navigation is done via the taxobox, as in many cases having such a template is not practical. Should I nominate it for TfD? bogdan 10:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is this fine even useful when species are moved around taxonomically though it would be unworkable for a genus like Eucalyptus with 700+ species. My only dislike is the use of common naames. Gnangarra 11:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking that it's better to make a category instead. bogdan 11:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not much different from the whole lists vs. categories discussion that is very present on Wiki. Generally, though, I'm not sure such a template is necessary, see also Template:Nepenthes. I think a category would be helpful to keep track of these. Circeus 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Templates are useful when they give a different information than the categories. For example, the categories sort the articles alphabetically, while it might be useful to have articles in a chronological order (or any other organization which would be useful for the reader). But for plants, this is simply a duplication of the categories. bogdan 09:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, while this comment applies to Template:Nepenthes, we don't  have a :category:Trillium (and quite many genera will never have categories), so this argument is moot as far as  is concerned. Circeus 13:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I was cleaning up the categories when I noticed this template. :-) bogdan 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like a uniform appearance; this is impractical for large genera like rhododendrom. There for I'd say that the taxobox-genus entry or a category is a better solution. TeunSpaans 07:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "very large genera" usually have their species listed in a "List of Fooia species", such as List of Acer species or List of Maxillaria species. Circeus 13:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...and of course, the List of Euphorbia species (over 2000 species!) bogdan 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming the template isn't too long (removing commmon names would fix that in this case), such templates can actually be useful. True, Template:Nepenthes displays the same information as :Category:Nepenthes, List of Nepenthes species and, in another form, Nepenthes classification. However, the template displays the entire list in a compact format on each species page, so that navigating to another species takes only one click, rather than the multiple that navigating to and from the other lists would require. I'm all for keeping the templates in genera where a significant number of species have their own pages.--NoahElhardt 18:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit biased toward a system closer to what WikiProject Banksia has implemented (simplified classification in all articles), but I suspect that the classification of Nepenthes is not detailed enough fro that to be practical. And there are far more Banksia species than Nepenthes. See also Template:Heliamphora.Circeus 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is nice too, but I'm not totally convinced of the need for the list of species to be so much repeated. The fact it can be hidden is a nice touch, though. Circeus 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for species 

message: An anonymous user, User:74.129.247.48, has added "Chinese herbalism" content to taxoboxes in several articles--see Juglans regia, Aralia chinensis, garlic, etc. As far as I know this addition to taxoboxes has not been discussed by other editors, and as added is rather unhelpful. MrDarwin 14:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it have an authoritative source? No? Then just delete it. Not to mention Chinese herbalism doesn't have anything to do with taxonomy, so taxobox can't possibly be the right place anyway. Stan 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a topic like this should probably be on wikibooks rather than wp... too much long-hand explanation is needed. I'll leave a note for the user, hopefully it's not a proxy. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need a book about it, just a single article, there probably is one already, and then specific references from specific works in the articles.   KP Botany 19:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chinese herbology--Curtis Clark 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese herbalism

message: I've just made a major edit to the classification section of ther fern article, as well as a few of the fern family and genus articles, to reflect the proposed classification of Smith et al. 2006. While quite new and a major departure from some other classifications, in many respects this is the fern version of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification, as it is authored by several respected pteridologists and is based on numerous molecular systematic studies supplemented by morphological data. Most importantly, it is a referenced and verifiable classification linked to a publshed paper that can be consulted for further information, unlike the rather mysterious one that was used previously. The classification section of this article still needs major work, but I hope this will provide a framework, and encourage other editors to go to the various fern articles and update their classifications. MrDarwin 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll read the AJB article.  I just got the Natural History of Ferns but am too busy with my art work right now to read much.  Good book, much funner to read than my textbooks.  KP Botany 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One additional note: the Smith et al. 2006 classification does not recognize any named taxa above the rank of class, so it may be tricky to accommodate in taxoboxes.  For the most part I've avoided editing taxoboxes, especially at the higher ranks--not my cup of tea, so I'll leave that to others. But in looking through the various fern and "pteridophyte" articles and taxoboxes I've found quite a bit of inconsistency in classification, with the text and taxoboxes in numerous articles contradicting each other. These articles need massive cleanup. MrDarwin 14:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: All the botany taxoboxes need massive cleanup.  This is why I keep trying to gain some consensus on how to go about, but continually get sidetracked.  Thanks for the warning.  KP Botany 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The only taxon above the rank of class that is routinely of concern is that of division, so if we put the ferns (and Psilotaceae?) into the Pteridophyta, the problem is moot.  The only tricky bit comes in placing the Equisetaceae and some extinct taxa, such as the Ibykales, Stauropteridales, etc., but most of these groups don't have articles here yet.  In any case, I wholly agree with following the proposed classification.  I know Smith and Pryer personally and have been eagerly awaiting the publication of a fern phylogeny based on total evidence.  Pryer and Wolfe are both amazing when it coes to molecular work and its interpretation, while Smith has long been one of the top workers in issues of fern morphology and taxonomy.  Their work will have been both careful and thorough.  Besides which, it is published as you say, rather than coming from the ether as the previous classification.  One note: I have moved the Marsileales article to Salviniales to match current priority as described in the aforementioned article, and have given the Marsileaceae page a much needed expansion from stub status. --EncycloPetey 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fern classification

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)
replies: text: Plants folks,  I would like to see some acknowledgement of Ricardo Carneiro Pires for his tireless work maintaining the hotlist of missing plants in a usable format, including redirects from common names and other detail work that makes our whole area less of a mess than it could be, a group barn star would be a good idea, also.   Comments?  KP Botany 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards