Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Josh Grosse (talk | contribs)
8,857 edits
Line 424: Line 424:
::::::::And it raises another issue that is currently not resolvable among Wikipedia botany editors: which system should we put in the taxobox, the Linnean (whether Conquist or Thorne or whomever), or the APG II? Should it be systematic which we choose, and what is the reason for choosing. My suggestion of including both, does away with this discussion or irregularity potentiality. [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::And it raises another issue that is currently not resolvable among Wikipedia botany editors: which system should we put in the taxobox, the Linnean (whether Conquist or Thorne or whomever), or the APG II? Should it be systematic which we choose, and what is the reason for choosing. My suggestion of including both, does away with this discussion or irregularity potentiality. [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::You still have to have the discussion in the text, or link to where the discussion is. One of the things that people didn't really think through back in WP prehistory is that including all the higher-order groups in *every* *single* article makes for horrendous maintenance problems - people not working in science tend to view the scheme as mostly unchanged since Linnaeus, save for the addition of some new taxa, and they didn't consider that there might be multiple competing systems that would simply not fit into the rather rigid taxobox design. Since the whole classification churn is really not of that much interest or value to general readers, we need to do two things, a) let them know there *is* churn without pushing the details into their faces (that's what a "see text" says to readers), and b) give the 1% of interested readers a link to follow to get to the full story. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::You still have to have the discussion in the text, or link to where the discussion is. One of the things that people didn't really think through back in WP prehistory is that including all the higher-order groups in *every* *single* article makes for horrendous maintenance problems - people not working in science tend to view the scheme as mostly unchanged since Linnaeus, save for the addition of some new taxa, and they didn't consider that there might be multiple competing systems that would simply not fit into the rather rigid taxobox design. Since the whole classification churn is really not of that much interest or value to general readers, we need to do two things, a) let them know there *is* churn without pushing the details into their faces (that's what a "see text" says to readers), and b) give the 1% of interested readers a link to follow to get to the full story. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

{{Taxobox
| color = lightgreen
| name = ''Trochodendron aralioides''
| image = Trochodendron-aralioides-flowers.JPG
| image_width = 240px
| regnum = [[Plant]]ae
| divisio = [[Flowering plant|Magnoliophyta]]
| unranked_classis = [[Eudicots]]
| familia = '''Trochodendraceae'''
| familia_authority = [[Karl Anton Eugen Prantl|Prantl]]
| genus = '''''Trochodendron'''''
| genus_authority = [[Philipp Franz von Siebold|Siebold]] & [[Joseph Gerhard Zuccarini|Zucc.]]
| species = '''''T. aralioides'''''
| binomial = ''Trochodendron aralioides''
| binomial_authority = Siebold & Zucc.
}}
:::::::The problem is there aren't two basically competing classifications. APG II uses orders and families, it simply doesn't recognize any of the larger clades. There are several other classifications like Cronquist, Dahlgren, Takhtajan, etc, and some of them are also meant to represent phylogeny. We've managed to choose APG II as the best option; having to pick the two best instead isn't necesarily going to make things easier, and it promotes a misleading dichotomy.

:::::::For plants, I think all we have to do is clean out the non-APG groups, as in the taxobox at right. The class and order aren't part of APG II, so they're removed. Magnoliophyta is kept as part of the general system of dividing plants; it doesn't strike me as original research any more than kingdom Plantae. Is this really so bad? [[User:Josh Grosse|Josh]]


==Topic:Paleontology==
==Topic:Paleontology==

Revision as of 18:30, 21 December 2006

Archives for WP:PLANTS (Archive index) edit

Fresh eyes needed for Head (botany)

I almost completely rewrote Head (botany) (and capitulum, but that's another thing) and would appreciate opinions, thanks. Finding references proved to be a bitch, but I think I did fine. Circeus 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading up on it. Will see if I can add anything. KP Botany 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also turns out the topic itself is HUGE, and that I've never really studied it as such and don't know WHERE to start--I got a few papers, though. I think for now that a merge is in order, and, posting a merge proposal may result in more input from knowledgable and interested parties. And what about the Proteaceae? And Araceae? Should all of this just go in the article on inflorescence, and that be greatly expanded? I need to spend some time on background research and then consider it, to see if I can get a better handle on the situation, until then, your suggestion of a merger seems like a good idea, with a lead paragraph tying these groups together. Good catch on the original need to up the quality on these, though. KP Botany 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a merger into inflorescence is best indeed (and similar to how a handful articles on parts redirect to leaf and flower). It seems to me as if quite a few articles in category:plant morphology could use merging (I merged peduncle (botany) to inflorescence and phyllode into a newly created petiole (botany), to which merging stipule might be a goot idea).
BTW, ow does a split of category:plant morphology for flower, leaf, fruit, stem and root sounds like? (see category:architectural elements for a similar split) Circeus 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't catch if you put a merge sign up or not, but I think for now just expanding the inflorescence article would be the simplest and most useful. Gee, peduncle had its own page? I'm not sure petiole deserves its own, much less phyllode. How about all 3 (plus stipule) into leaf? Leaf should really be a better article.
I'd like to get at least Curtis's imput on the morphology recategorizing, probably a couple of other folks. Shoot into stem, leaf, flower and fruit, is handy, and root looks good, but a more trained eye into reading the logistics would be good. I appreciate the organizational time and effort you put into making sense of these plant articles. KP Botany 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peduncle is a disambiguation page (as is Pedicel). A definition should still be available somewhere whatever we do with the links themselves. I created petiole (botany) because of many links that were redirected there. I'm seriously wondering about the separation of content between leaf and leaf shape right now, though.... Circeus 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(resetting tabs)

The head article needs a bit more tweaking... could also use some more photos for descoid heads and "ray flower only" heads (I forget the name for those). If someone in a non-frozen area has a razor and a digital camera, a cross section would be a major improvement (I'll fish around on commons, but I don't think there are any photos like that).

The leaf shape article might need renaming as some sort of glossary, and have terms describing margins, pubescence, glossiness/glaucousness, etc. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put any more images because that would have lengthened the article needlessly, although I did provide links to article with images.
Terms need harmonizing with leaf itself. Maybe a text-form paragraph in Leaf with a link to the list will make the thing easier to maintain? Circeus 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a gallery along the bottom would be nice, and wouldn't be excessive. More pix the better, IMO, especially when describing a complicated organ like flower heads.
Not sure what to do about leaf and the terminology. I've seen snippets here and there which make me think glossaries are now considered WP:NOT, but they are permitted on both wiktionary and wikibooks, so perhaps that page should just be transwikied? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Leaf shedding

What are currently the accepted theories over this topic? Color change in leaves and deciduous appear to disagree, and I'm not sure what to think of Ford's paper, for which I can't find more recent review off-hand. It's also 20 years old, and I can't believe there hasn't been anything pertinent written since. Circeus 17:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, it isn't a matter of "why" trees drop leaves, but rather why they do it when they do. Most of what I know about leaf-lifespan has been discussed in terms of energy budgets - species with short leaf-lifespans are more likely to be found on more fertile soils (where the replacement cost is low relative to the increased efficiency (photosynthetic and transpirational) and lower maintenance of younger leaves. On poorer soils the cost of replacement is higher (relative to the available resources), so it's better to have longer-lived leaves. If you are going to keep your leaves less than a year and you live in a seasonal environment, it makes sense to synchronise your flush and leaf drop. If you keep them more than a year, it doesn't. This is especially apparent in brevi-deciduous species, which drop their leaves at the start of the dry season, and then replace them, either immediately or a short while later.
The whole flowering/fruiting while leafless things is probably a matter of making the most of leaflessness (when your flowers are either most accessible to the wind or to pollinators), rather than a motivation for being leafless. Guettarda 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abscission would be the best place to discuss the whys of it... that article needs serious expansion. Last I read, the red and yellow pigments are antioxidants used to prevent genetic damage, but that was in an article I read several years ago. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnoliophytina

I have been recently editing taxoboxes on plants in Slovenian Wikipedia. What causes me some trouble is the choice of the classification system. For example, it is common in Slovenian taxoboxes to include the subdivision Magnoliophytina. Why is this not common here as well? --Eleassar my talk 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hereby I want to bring to attention a comment that I have found at Talk:Malvaceae
"User:Brya brings up the point that the taxoboxes are excessively rigid. Take a look at how they dealt with it in the French Wikipedia: Article on Tilia which presents both the "classical" and the "phylogenetic" classifications for the families in the taxobox. A possible way to go for disputed families until there is a clear consensus among botanists and thereby reducing the confusion of us poor laymen. This is just a suggestion which you might want to talk over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. I got here and checked out the discussion as a result of a comparision I made at Talk:Tamarack Larch. (Where some chiming in on my proposed move/rename would be appreciated). Luigizanasi 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)" --Eleassar my talk 13:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

40 000+ free images

Plants of Hawaii is the index to pictures by a pair of USGS photographers (that's {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}}). I just uploaded a bunch at commons:Verbascum thapsus, and I'm sure there will be much to be used. Circeus 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I feel some doubt about the identification of commons:verbascum thapsus.jpg. It looks entirely different from what I know. ;-)

Doublecheck for Verbascum thapsus image attribution

Can somebody has a closer look at the attribution for commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg, commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg and commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus bgiu.jpg? The V. thapsus I know (I have never been faced with other Verbacum species) have leaves that are not cuneate, and way less large than these. The second image's flowers seems way too large for V. thapsus. Could they be V. densiflorum (=V. thapsiforme)? And the third is obviously something else: not only would you be unlikely to find so many flowers at once on a V. thapsus, but the stamen are far too prominent. Circeus 14:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are V. thapsus as I understand the plant from its introduced range in North America, but neither do they appear to be the other two introductions in California, V. blattaria or V. virgatum.--Curtis Clark 05:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg does not look like verbascum thapsu. commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg is some wild visitor in our garden. By incident, I was wondering about its identification last night. An error is very well possible, its from the first year when I idnetified plants. I'll try to have a second look somewhere next week. Perhaps someone can ask Bogdan about his image? TeunSpaans 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg, I had a closeup of its flower, one of the sysops on commons was kind enough to restore it. Its commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus bloem.jpg. TeunSpaans 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a beautiful image (alas, definitely not V. thapsus). I'm not so sure anymore that it's not V. thapsus. Why did you have it deleted? Circeus 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It had been deleted because I had forgotten to add the license. My fault ;-) TeunSpaans 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I suspect that Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg might be Verbascum nigra. TeunSpaans 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised in the slightest. Compare: Circeus 23:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • V. nigrum
    V. nigrum
  • V. thapsus (??)
    V. thapsus (??)

Alternation of generations

The article starts with

Alternation of generations is a reproductive cycle of certain vascular plants, fungi, and protists.

is it certain vascular plants or most vascular plants or all vascular plants ? The topic appears to have been discussed in the talk page, but it seems to have been gone astray with arguments over what constitute a generation. Would be more comfortable to see cited definitions at the introduction since I have been told that all plants show AoG, but I am not confident enough of my botany to do anything more about this... Hope someone can make the introduction more unquestionable with citations. thanks Shyamal 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look the article over. I'm a bit limited on time, but you've made valid points. Thanks for the catch. KP Botany 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this botanist notable?

Can someone look at the Dan James Pantone article and make an assessment of Dr. Pantone's notability? He's published papers in:

  • HortTechnology
  • Biological Conservation
  • Weed Science
  • Crop Science
  • Weed Science
  • California Agriculture

Thanks, --A. B. 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have more pubs than that (even selecting the important ones) and I'm certainly not notable in the Wikipedia sense.--Curtis Clark 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty average to me; the only reason to keep him would be if he had named species and therefore could appear in taxoboxes; but IPIN has nothing on him. --Peta 04:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've named species, and I'm not notable.--Curtis Clark 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are altogether too modest. Your work is notable by the usual standards, and your web site provides a source of other information, meeting the standards of WP:BLP. It apparently is perfectly in order for me to edit such an article, but I have my own standards of privacy, and will not do so if you object. DGG 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISI

(heading added DGG 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)) Here's the full report from ISI 21 pubs, 12 first authored (not counting one correction) - first authored pubs marked with *. These are in reverse chronological order. The number of citations (in other ISI indexed pubs) is listed first. IF is the impact factor of the journal[reply]

2* (Journal of Nematology IF 0.810) - 1987 0* (Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science IF 0.759) 9* (Weed Science IF 1.536) 11* (Weed Science IF 1.536) 12* (Weed Science IF 1.536) 0* (Correction:Weed Science IF 1.536) 16* (Crop Science IF 0.925) 11* (Weed Science IF 1.536) 32* (Journal of Environmental Quality IF 2.121) 3* (Weed Technology IF 0.749) 41 (Agronomy Journal IF 1.473) 0 (Agronomy Journal IF 1.473) 7 (Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science IF 1.147) 11* (Biological Conservation IF 2.581) 1* (Fundamental and Applied Nematology) 7* (Journal of Environmental Quality IF 2.121) 8 (Transactions of the ASAE IF 0.664) 4 (Weed Technology IF 0.749) 1 (Biocontrol Science and Technology IF 0.857) 0 (Biocontrol Science and Technology IF 0.857) 0 (Pest Management Science)- 2005

Based on this I'd say he passes WP:PROF, since 21 pubs puts him above the "average" professor (since the guideline uses the American definition of Assistant Prof or better). Guettarda 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concern with ISI citations is that they are proportional to the number of publishing scientists in a discipline, something that an individual investigator has little control over.
I'm not supporting the deletion of this particular article. I am concerned, however, that the coverage of living scientists is rather hit-or-miss. It's difficult to find independent biographical information other than from the subject of the article, which strongly favors self-creation. And I know that I'm reticent to create articles for botanists I believe to be notable, and then have them deleted because others disagree. Perhaps this project should address the criteria for living botanists to be notable.--Curtis Clark 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His sole apparent reason to be in WP is MATSES, which suggests merging the small bit of info about him into that article. But if paper-counting is a WP-wide consensus, I'm not going to get into that debate. And so we're clearly overdue for Curtis Clark, whether he likes it or not. :-) Stan 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge, and link his name in the list of botanical authors to that article, imo. And, actually, Curtis is more notable than he lets on, although I'd have to go look to remember what for (gee, how notable can he be, then ;) KP Botany 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that MATSES has been nominated for deletion. Guettarda 14:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Criteria for Speedy Deletion, the Author can elect to delete the page by blanking it. I have elected to delete the MATSES page. Debate over! Matses 17:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, I wonder if you are not overly modest ;-) When I do a scholar.google.com on "Curtis Clark", it gives 131 results. TeunSpaans 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies needed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There are also somer relevant categories, including Category:American botanists and Category:Botanists--Curtis Clark 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Turns out a number of the names below have articles already, just under different variants of the name. But here's a puzzler - was the president of BSA in 1900 named Byron Halstead or Byron Halsted? Google shows plenty of reputable-looking hits for each spelling... Stan 06:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reset headers

Of course we can have subpages! Some projects have *dozens* of them! Circeus 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Past Presidents of the
Botanical Society of America

 

Peer review for Verbascum thapsus

I completed a total rewrite of the article, and I think it's pretty good. I left a request for Peer Review, as I think it has the potential to go to featured status. My main lacks are:

  • Good sources for the species' range in Canada and North Africa (My university library is especially lacking in the latter)
  • Something to fill a section on related and similar species. I couldn't locate any sources on the web about the taxonomy of Verbascum.
  • Something about the recognized subspecies of V. thapsus, I only found a small account about new proposed subspecies.

Circeus 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!!!.
Other than that, the control section is how-to... I'll transwiki it before the how-to police find it :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already use the site for the US range...
As for the "control"section, The first paragraph explains the relevance of control of the pant regarding agriculture. The second documents recommended techniques for control, as far as I'm concerned. It's definitely pertinent for a species considered a weed.
I fail to see how the entire section can be construed as how-to... Just look at Cotton thistle, Diffuse knapweed and Purple loosestrife. Compared to these, calling a single paragraph (because the first? no way this is "How") part of a broader discussion is a wee bit overreacting, in my opinion. WP:NOT goes: "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." This section contains neither instructions nor suggestions (unless documenting that X is useless or not for control of V. thapsus is a suggestion?), so the policy fails to apply in this case. Circeus 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I agree completely... I've just run afoul of the how-to people enough times that I make it a policy transwiki just in case :). I've been working on a lot of weed articles on wikibooks lately, and was going to do that one a couple weeks ago but I couldn't remember the specific epithet. The how-to fork is almost done: A Wikimanual of Gardening/Verbascum thapsus. Caught some grammar stuff while doing that. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get you better now. And BTW, it was at Common Mullein until quite recently. Hey! Wikibooks' implementation of the Cites.php is pretty cool! Circeus 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we have to steal those templates one of these days... in general, we just use < ref >, but with things being imported now, we should probably have copies the wp cites as well. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can probably do without half of them. I'm just a sucker for using {{cite encyclopedia}}. Makes quoting dictionary-type, multi-volume works easier. Circeus 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good article. I dont feel capable of a complete review, but I did add some remarks. TeunSpaans 16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews for botanical articles

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)[reply]

Sounds a good idea to me... maybe Wikipedia:Wikiproject Plants/Peer Reviews? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Easy enough... --SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Other WikiProject peer reviews

from Wikipedia:Peer Review

Topic-specific peer reviews:

The peer review pages are transincluded at both the main peer review and topic peer review articles. Guettarda 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soil seed bank

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).[reply]

Common names, yet again

This much-belabored subject is coming up again due to recent edit wars and discussions at a couple of articles, namely Cytisus scoparius and Juniperus bermudiana. (The latter case especially bothered me because User:MPF was trying to promote "Bermuda Juniper" as the "correct" common name of a plant that is widely known as as "Bermuda Cedar", and almost exclusively so on its native island of Bermuda.) I have already posted lengthy comments on the talk pages of those articles so will make only brief comments here. In a nutshell, I don't believe it's proper for a Wikipedia article to be promoting or discouraging the use of any particular common name for any particular species, as doing so will always be a matter of very subjective opinion and will vary from editor to editor. To retain a neutral POV, articles should simply reflect real-world usage, at most commenting on which common names are used in which regions, and perhaps which are the most prevalent. In my opinion any attempt to identify or promote a single "correct" name for any plant is doomed anyway, as there are too many English-speaking countries, all with their own sets of common names, and there is simply no worldwide consensus or authority on the standardization of common names. MrDarwin 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - genetic evidence may be relevant for bird common names, but not for plants. Our mission is to document the world as it is, not as we might like it to be. Stan 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even understand the issue, people have been using these common names for hundreds of years, and they tell something about the plant--but in lieu of seeking this knowledge, the etymology of the common name, what the common name tells about the plant and the people, Wikipedia has opted for a pattern of disparaging people's cultures as inferior to the cultural knowledge of one of our editor's. Acer negundo, for example, is called Box Elder because its wood resembles that of the Box, but Wikipedia users don't learn that, they simply learned the biased POV that one editor knows this common name is wrong because the plant is an Acer and not a Buxus or a Sambucus. Box isn't, by the way, a Box, but rather a plant, so, see, even the British sometimes, although rarely, slip up in a common name. Sigh. Why hide that information in preference for the POV that an editor doesn't like common names, and often appears to think that people who came up with them didn't know anything, when it turns out (Persian Walnut) they were using the common names to convey information about the plant? This is irritating, MPF. You do good work on articles and seem to really care about the quality of Wikipedia, yet you're so willing to trash other cultures with your viewpoint that you know more about plants than they did, which is what your POV comments come off as, as you opt for pointing out what is wrong about the name instead of researching how the plant got that common name in the first place, and you made assumptions in a number of articles about how the plant got its common name that proved false. Is this really necessary to be having this conversation at all? It's hard to have understanding for this anymore, it's a wasted effort discussing it, because nothing gets through, then extensive time is repeatedly wasted in edit wars over the same thing, over and over, yet thousands of articles are unwritten. Common names exist. If you don't want them in Wikipedia, make a formal policy case for banning all common names because only scientific names are correct (although this assumption just shows that maybe you don't realize how inapproprriate many scientific names are, or maybe you don't care, as only the common man should be disparaged).
Stan said it, "Our mission is to document the world as it is." And human beings are as much a part of that world as scientists. KP Botany 17:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that, rather than pile onto MPF, we can get some positive comments out of this discussion. My own suggestion is that, when there are several different common names for a plant, the the article should indicate where the various names are used (and when worded carefully this seems to be an acceptable compromise to MPF). Like KP Botany I find common names interesting and informative in their own right, so I do hope that editors will follow his suggestion to add more information on their history, meanings, and origins, rather than a simple statement that certain names are "incorrect" or "misleading". MrDarwin 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we shouldn't "pile on" as I did, but, this is frustrating. There seems to be no way of getting through. I assume I have irritating areas like this, where I just refuse to find common ground with others, and simply can't be reasoned with, but at some point, I would just like the discussion to be settled, and never come up again. MrDarwin displays far more patience than I do in all areas. KP Botany 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you don't want to be like that KP Botany guy on commons who's been flaming Franz Xaver over which categories images should be in... :-) I think part of the way to improving handling of common names is to be more precise about the sourcing of common names, so it's not just an opinionated "some people call it X", but "reference Y mentions X, X-Z, and Z-X as local names". FishBase is very organized about this, documenting language, country, and reference for each local name of a fish - some species can have a hundred local names, important to know when you're on the docks talking to fisherfolk. Stan 22:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, common names are also important, they facilitate communication about native plants and weeds in ways that scientific names don't. KP Botany 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Common names, yet again: tabs reset

Much as I hate to say it (MPF was one of the first to "welcome" me to wikipedia... not with a template, but with personal encouragement), it really is pretty much just him doing this, and everyone else reverting it. Unfortunately, something along the lines of a user-conduct RfC might be inevitable, because repeated discussions (both here and on various talk pages) seem not to get through to him.

The lack of a "set-in-stone policy" about this can't be used as an excuse, because consensus has been reached repeatedly (though of course he has not conceded the point). This is just causing silly edit warring, along the lines of the "italicization" problems involving User:Brya some months ago, and while it's certainly never escalated into flame wars as that did, it's been going on for a very long time. The fact that it's continued after being brought up here on several occaisions is even more troubling. If we really need to write a policy about it, then we should just get on with writing it... but it seems overkill to write policies addressing a single editor. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plants barnstar

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)[reply]

APG and taxoboxes

I think the current situation with using APG labels in a Linnaean hierarchial taxobox is neither tolerable nor accurate. I suggest we just add rows to the bottom, as many as necessary, for Angiosperms, giving them strict Linaean hierarchial classifications from Cronquist or whomever, clearly labelling whose systems is used, then add the APG to the bottom:

As an example, the current taxobox on the right and the suggested changes on the left, I don't know how to make it look like a taxobox, without making it one:

Trochodendron aralioides
Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Plantae
Division:
Magnoliophyta
Class:
Mangnoliopsida
Order:
Trochodendrales
Family:
Trochodendraceae Prantl
Genus:
Trochodendron Siebold & Zucc.
Species:
T. aralioides
Binomial name
Trochodendron aralioides
Siebold & Zucc.

| color = lightgreen
| name = Trochodendron aralioides
| image = Trochodendron-aralioides-flowers.JPG
| image_width = 240px | Scientific Classification (Cronquist)
| regnum = Plantae
| divisio = Magnoliophyta
| classis = Mangnoliopsida
| ordo = Trochodendrales
| familia = Trochodendraceae Prantl
| genus = Trochodendron Siebold & Zucc.
| species = T. aralioides
| binomial = Trochodendron aralioides
| binomial_authority = Siebold & Zucc.
| APG Clade 1 = Angiosperm
| Clade 2 = eudicot
| Family = Trochodendraceae
| binomial = Trochodendron aralioides
| binomial_authority = Siebold & Zucc.

All that needed to be added are enough lines to add that particular information, up to 3 (max 4 I think) containing clades, the top one always being APG Clade 1 Angiosperms, and the particular system chosen either beside or directly under the Scientific Classification. If there is an order it would be Order =, not Clade, same with Family, other APG groups are just clades. Binomial and athority could be included only once, or twice if needed. We can't keep using APG classifications mixed with the Linnaean, though. It's incorrect. KP Botany 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just ditch any part of a taxobox that is at all difficult, replace with a "see text" with the explanation. Taxobox is supposed to be a convenience and a quick summary; adding more fields makes it harder for nonspecialists to make sense of it all, and of course there is no room to explain why this link and not that one. I assume that "Trochodendron aralioides" doesn't change based on one's favored system of the day, and presumably we all still agree that it's a plant (right? right? please don't tell me there's new research showing saurians to be basal to angiosperms :-) ), so it's really a matter of moving the in-between material to the article proper, or better to the clades' articles so that the mysteries of rosacean placement can fill up the family article where people who care will read about it, while readers just interested in apples can carefully avoid clicking on those links. Stan 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is mixing the two actually incorrect? I was under the impression that APG didn't list kingdoms and divisions so that it could be used with any other system for plants, rather than because it shouldn't. I can see omitting the classes, but the clade of angiosperms is going to show up in any ranked system we adopt for plants as a whole, and I don't understand the advantage of double-lising it. This is especially true for families and orders, where the taxoboxes follow APG (or extended APG systems for a few groups like Trochodendraceae) to begin with. Josh

Brya contended that mixing them constituted original research, but as I pointed out elsewhere, there is no single reference that provides a classification of any substantial number of organisms from species to kingdom, so some combination is necessary. I only see an issue when combining APG taxa with other taxa that are necessarily incompatible, such as Magnoliopsida (dicots).--Curtis Clark 04:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is they are already mixed or confused, the APG and classical systems of plant taxonomy. This article, the one on Trochondendron implies that the APG ranking system is the current one favored (with this strong unsourced statement, but I assume APG II: "genetic research by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group has shown it to be in a less basal position (early in the eudicots), suggesting the absence of vessel elements is a secondarily evolved character, not a primitive one"). Yet the taxobox shows the Cronquist (I believe) Linnaean taxonomy, and nothing in the article clarifies that Trochodendrales is not an accepted order in APG II, and that under APG II it should be: angiosperms, eudicots, Trochondendraceae. It doesn't matter that there is no single system, one can simply use Cronquist or Reveal or Takhtajan or Thorne, and list what is used. Mixing these systems is original research, though, when not mixed by an author in print, and implying that the plant is classified in the taxobox according to APG II by strong statements in the text, when it is Cronquist is misleading to the user. All I ask is that we be able to add these bits of information:
  1. the system of classifation by author in the taxobox, and
  2. the APG II classification to the bottom.

KP Botany 04:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why is it important to make it longer by adding multiple systems, rather than shorter, by removing the ranks for which there is no consensus? Stan 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular example there are no ranks for which "there is no consensus" so there are none to remove. There is consensus for the Cronquist, in the latest Takhtajan and Reveal, and there is consensus for the APG II. KP Botany 13:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Mixing these systems is original research"—Take the Cronquist system as an example: it includes only a sampling of genera and few species. I can look up a species in a local flora and find that it is in the Verbenaceae, but that is no assurance that Cronquist would have put it there had he gone down to the level of genera or species. So some mixing of systems is implicit in almost every taxobox. Admittedly mixing APG and Cronquist is more extreme, but it's a difference in degree, not in kind.--Curtis Clark 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antirrhinum
Snapdragon
Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Plantae
Division:
Magnoliophyta
Family:
See text.
Genus:
Antirrhinum

Species

[...]

If you step away from the idea that the taxobox must present every clade or rank imaginable, this whole problem goes away, and taxoboxes get simpler. For instance, in fauna-land, the "in-between" ranks such as infraclasses are generally discouraged, because even the ones that have consensus clutter up the boxes to where it's harder to pick out the key groupings. Taxobox is supposed to be a quickie summary, and there is just no simple way to correctly describe things like the current scrophie/plantagie situation. So, take it out. I've included an example here - as you can see, the earth has not opened up and swallowed WP whole. :-) Stan 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not welded to any particular method, I'm simply against implying things that aren't so, and yes, that's a good solution of a sort and practical in many ways, just removing the unecessary. But it doesn't answer to what is going on in plant systematics today, two basically competing systems of classifications, with taxoboxes designed to only display one. It simply addressed one of the two difficulties in a way. Curtis, I see your point as it's an obvious one that escaped me in my focus on the APG versus Linnean thinking, but doesn't it just show the need to list which authority is used for any classification in the taxobox? KP Botany 16:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it raises another issue that is currently not resolvable among Wikipedia botany editors: which system should we put in the taxobox, the Linnean (whether Conquist or Thorne or whomever), or the APG II? Should it be systematic which we choose, and what is the reason for choosing. My suggestion of including both, does away with this discussion or irregularity potentiality. KP Botany 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You still have to have the discussion in the text, or link to where the discussion is. One of the things that people didn't really think through back in WP prehistory is that including all the higher-order groups in *every* *single* article makes for horrendous maintenance problems - people not working in science tend to view the scheme as mostly unchanged since Linnaeus, save for the addition of some new taxa, and they didn't consider that there might be multiple competing systems that would simply not fit into the rather rigid taxobox design. Since the whole classification churn is really not of that much interest or value to general readers, we need to do two things, a) let them know there *is* churn without pushing the details into their faces (that's what a "see text" says to readers), and b) give the 1% of interested readers a link to follow to get to the full story. Stan 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trochodendron aralioides
Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Plantae
Division:
Magnoliophyta
(unranked):
Eudicots
Family:
Trochodendraceae

Genus:
Trochodendron

Species:
T. aralioides
Binomial name
Trochodendron aralioides
Siebold & Zucc.
The problem is there aren't two basically competing classifications. APG II uses orders and families, it simply doesn't recognize any of the larger clades. There are several other classifications like Cronquist, Dahlgren, Takhtajan, etc, and some of them are also meant to represent phylogeny. We've managed to choose APG II as the best option; having to pick the two best instead isn't necesarily going to make things easier, and it promotes a misleading dichotomy.
For plants, I think all we have to do is clean out the non-APG groups, as in the taxobox at right. The class and order aren't part of APG II, so they're removed. Magnoliophyta is kept as part of the general system of dividing plants; it doesn't strike me as original research any more than kingdom Plantae. Is this really so bad? Josh

Topic:Paleontology

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)[reply]

Maple

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants&oldid=95766507"