Talk:Paeonia daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii

User:MPF insists on changing the style of the article away from WP:MOS style, without giving reasons. His edit summary now claims (belatedly) that the change is because one of the figures is "referenced" — as are the figures from which he's changing. Moreover, one figure doesn't explain the whole edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the top two online references, and Huxley; all three state the plant reaches 100 cm tall, and all are highly reputable scientific references; the first two are based on observations of the species in its native environment. Your figures give a remarkably narrow range of variation wholly atypical of any plant species, anywhere, so are probably based on an extraordinarily limited sample size. My revisions are perfectly within MOS style, except for not using the ludicrous insistence on spelling out figures, a peculiar system unique to the wikipedia style guide (compare the style in the online references!), but almost universally ignored within articles: I'd suggest that this insistence should be re-examined (if the law is an ass, as it clearly is, then change the law). - MPF 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the Wikipedia system (in line with every other style guide I've seen) is ludicrous, go to the relevant page and argue for your position. You're also changing the original chocie of measurements — and not merely changing the order, but removing one set altogether. If you want to change the range, fine; change it in inches and centimetres. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will. As to choice of measurements, what is the relevance of imperial measures to this article? This arcane nonsense is not used by scientists, and is viewed in the Caucasus (the area to which the page is relevant) as unwanted US cultural imperialism. The most authoritative references on the species (those prepared by botanists in the region) do not use them, and it is inappropriate to change them from what these authorities use. When writing science topics, you should stick to scientific usage. Leave imperial measures to imperialists and creationists.

BTW, you accuse me of only 'belatedly' providing reasons for my changes. This is not true, nor fair. Each of my edit summaries explained what I have done, from the first ('more details & refs'); it is self-evident that the more details provided are sourced from the references, which are there for checking and confirming that my edits are valid. Your own subsequent edits have all been rollbacks given without explanation, which is quite improper (and particularly so for someone in an admin position). - MPF 10:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This arcane nonsense" is used by hundreds of millions of people in the English-speaking world; Wikipedia style is to use one form in full, followed by the other form abbreviated, and that's what I did. You, on the other hand, are insisting on deleting one form altogether because of a personal prejudice (as exhibited so intemperately and sillily above; note that using imperial measurements doesn't make one an imperialist, any more than using metric measurements makes one metric. The peculiar reference to Creationism is childish, and probably inaccurate; I imagine that Creationists are keen to use SI units to convince those who think such things important that they're really scientists).
The page isn't relevant to an area; it's about a plant.
It's not on a science topic, it's on a plant. If you find it too uncomfortable to write for a general reference work, perhaps you should consider getting a job with a specialist publisher in order to get your frustrations out of your system. The idea that being scientific is a matter of sticking blindly to certain arbitary conventions might handicap you, though.
The imperial measurements are used in my sources alongside SI measurements.
"More details and refs" does not mention or explain the removing of the measurements that I'd given. The use of rollback gave more information about what I'd done than most of your edit summaries. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occurrence in Iran[edit]

I have removed additions which refer to the occurrence of this species in Iran. It may well occur there, but:

the addition appears to be based on research by the person who added it
no referenced source is given.

It may well occur in Iran, and this information can be added, based on a source acceptable under Wikipedia policies (see WP:RS). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]