Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that you put an asterisk next to your name on RickBlock's list. I would be happy to nominate you for adminship. Guettarda 22:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looks like Uther beat me to it. Guettarda 23:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh sure... spoil my announcement. ;) - UtherSRG 23:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Supported with pleasure. seglea 08:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for your help on identifying the species. I just did a quick google last night for it and I wasn't entirely sure. More pics would be great. I'll get onto that article later, although to be honest, plant species arent my specialty. Any help is more than welcome. --SilversmithHewwo 18:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it a go. I admit wrestling with boxes isn't my number 1 favourite thing but I'll try and come up with something. Richard Barlow 16:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I've managed to split the phagobox into 2 columns in the Ghost Moth article but I'm unsure how to change the text size in piped format. Do you think it is necessary to change the text size (phagoboxes for some species will be considerably bigger than this) and if so, how do I do it? Richard Barlow 30 June 2005 10:35 (UTC)
Hello JoJan. I just took two nice pics of plants in my neighborhood, but I am complete botanic amateur. Can you help me please with identifying them? You can find these pics here: [1] and [2] . Thank you. - Darwinek 09:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. In July I will be trying to take more photos of flowers in our garden. - Darwinek 15:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can you help me please with identifying this Paeonia [3] ? - Darwinek 29 June 2005 09:52 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Paphiopedilum-wolterianum.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{no source}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{gfdl}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding {{NoRightsReserved}}. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}}. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks so much, Superm401 | Talk July 4, 2005 03:12 (UTC)
I answered on his talk page. JoJan 4 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being stupid here, but I don't see any answer on Superm401's talk page (or even in the history). I'll mark the image as a CSD in a week unless acquires a copyright tag --Pak21 10:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Answer on talk page of Pak21 (license tag PD) JoJan 14:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, maar daar ligt mijn specialisme niet helemaal. Ik ben meer een biochemicus en organische synthese is een veld waarin ik niet zo sterk ben. Het is waarschijnlijk beter om om input te vragen bij het Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 18:06 (UTC)
English translation for those not fluent in Dutch:
Sorry but that (organic chemistry) isn't my specialism. I'm a biochemist and I'm afraid my knowledge of organic synthesis is lacking too much to give meaningful feedback. It's probably better to ask for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 18:06 (UTC)
Dragon's Flight pointed out a serious omission to this proposal: that the image description page of WikiCommons should include the content of the one on Wikipedia. I have reworded the proposal to include that. Because the wording changed, I have hidden your vote; please read the new version and see if you support it now, and reinstate your vote under the appropriate section depending on whether you do. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 09:35 (UTC)
Hi Jo - Sophora japonica is now Styphnolobium japonicum, so I've removed the pic from Sophora. I've also added it to the Commons|Styphnolobium japonicum page, so it comes up on the Commons link at Styphnolobium - MPF 23:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. My handbook still llist this as Sophora japonica and therefore I didn't check it any further. My available time was limited, and I had to upload a lot of tree pictures. JoJan 13:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Oncidium-longipes.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{no source}} or {{no license}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its source and/or copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{GFDL}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding {{NoRightsReserved}}. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}} but you need to substantiate your claim by explaining why you think it's fair use. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks. RedWolf 05:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I didn' fully understand the question you posed me, but I will try to give you some information anyway! You cannot "cut-and-paste" images into Wikipedia pages: you must upload the image file and then link to it from the wiki-code. The file can be uploaded in any format which wikipedia supports (including .jpg and .gif) but we find that .png images work best for chemical diagrams, even if they are somewhat more complicated to produce. Once your diagram is finished, select the Export item in the File menu: this will give you a choice of file formats to choose from. ACD/ChemSketch allows you to export the image directly as a .gif file, or as a .tif file which can be converted into a .png file by most image processing software. If you cannot produce a .png file, do not worry! A .gif image is far far better than no image at all. Once you have saved the image on your hard disk in the chosen file format, you can upload it to wikipedia in the usual way, by clicking on the Upload file link and following the instructions there. Please do not forget to include a copyright tag: chemical diagrams are usually considered copyrightable, and so a tag such as {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}} should be used. Hope this answers your problem, en goede teken! Physchim62 11:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies. I was going through Category:WikiProjects and making sure they displayed in alphabetical order and I noticed a lot of projects which were inactive, and in some cases consisted of one line. I drew an admittedly very arbitrary line and decided any project that hadn't been edited since before June I would mark as inactive. I had meant to place a message on each talk page once I had done so, but my computer crashed around 5pm BST and I've only just got back online. I did not mean to cause offence, and please feel free to remove the template, or let me know and I will do so. Steve block 21:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Image:Betulapendula2web.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Betulapendula2web.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I only listed this because it isn't used anywhere and Category:Betula pendula have similar photos. Regards, Thuresson 23:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I see you edited that page but did not answer my query on the discussion page. Could you please clarify that? Are there 32 or 36 diploid chromosomes, or is in numbers 32 or 26, and what is the "of" doing please? Pdn 00:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed on the talk page of Anacamptis. JoJan 05:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Answer on discussion page of User:Nv8200p JoJan 14:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else uploaded the same image Image:Assorted living corals.jpg, named it slightly different and attached it to the Corals article. I figured it was the same uploader, but now I see it was someone else. Unfortunately, it does not have a source either so no telling how long it will stay on Wikipedia. Thanks. Nv8200p 16:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo - I took out the links to Acoraceae and Acorales, as they are just redirects back to Acorus (the sole genus in the order). On an aside, the Sweet Flag (Acorus calamus) page needs either some heavy editing or merging with Acorus, as (with the new breakup of Acorus calamus into two or more species), the Sweet Flag page is now no longer about a single species, it is nearly the same as the genus page - MPF 20:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply on talk page of MPF ++++
Hi Jo - many thanks for checking over! (I've been out all day to see a Booted Warbler, a major rarity here) - MPF 20:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JoJan, can you maybe translate the things I wrote here. It would be really nice, because I don't know if Ed understands English. Thank you very much in advance, --Flominator 20:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done + some comments JoJan 07:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain on what grounds you deleted this article? --Tony SidawayTalk 21:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
answer on the discussion page of Tony Sidaway. JoJan 08:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me about a particular institution, although two people are mentioned in connection with it. It could be deletable as an ad (via VfD) but I haven't made my mind up on that. Someone has recreated it so I'll have a go at expanding it and I'll list on VfD if I think it's not suitable for Wikipedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I notice from the deletion log that you deleted Whatsername. The page is up on VfU, and I can't tell from the deletion log entry which of the crieteria for deletion it fulfilled. Could you please tell me exactly why you deleted this, or perhaps indicate as much on WP:VFU? DES(talk) 13:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
answer on discussion page of User:DES JoJan 16:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on this article. I have copied them to the relevant VfU section. I don't think the contnet you quoted id nonsense in the sense used by WP:CSD, nor does it seem to me to fit any of the other speedy deletion criteria. Mind you, i might well vote to delte it on a VfD, but that is a quite different standard IMO. I have voted to undelete this page. I tend to interpret the CSD rather strictly. DES(talk) 05:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Me again. Can you please take a look at these flowers [5], [6], [7], [8] and help with identyfying. Thanks a lot. -- Darwinek 09:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a splendid job you've done! --Wetman 04:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JoJan 05:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Turk an authentic replica of HMS Blandford?[edit]
You wrote in the article Grand Turk (frigate) that she was built as an authentic replica of HMS Blandford.
I followed the career of this vessel, since before the first HH miniseries. And this is not my recollection at all. My recollection is that construction of the Grand Turk began when she was going to be used in a big budget film about the Crusades, that was to star Arnold Schwarznegger. The film was cancelled. The vessel was half-built. The vessel remained half-built until the producers of the HH films acquired it, and completed it, trying to adapt it to look more like a frigate than like a 12 century vessel suitable for a film about the Crusades. If you look at the Grand Turk in the first HH film she doesn't really look like a frigate. The producers could have rented the reproduction of HMS Rose, which is based on a real frigate, as the producers of "Master and Commander" did. Presumably using it would have been too expensive. Do you know where you got the info that she was authentically based on HMS Blandford? -- Geo Swan 13:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting. A crew member confirmed to me that the Grand Turk was indeed an authentic replica of the HMS Blandford. This is equally confirmed by internet sites dating before I wrote the text of the Wikipedia article. Just type in Google : "Grand Turk" + Blandford and you'll get 85 hits confirming this statement. On the other hand, if your information is reliable, then there is no reason why shouldn't mention this in the article, but I cannot find any confirmation of this story. JoJan 15:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dry "Period" or Dry "Season" for Pachypodia.[edit]
JoJan,
I have a question that maybe you could help figure out.
Stoive has suggested that the term "dry" when used to modify a period of time be linked to the Wiki:dry season for Pachypodia. I think it is a strong intuitive move because, as Stoive has observed that the Wiki: dry is meaningless as it is written; whereas the Wiki: dry season is not. Certainly this prolonged period for which Pachypodium species experience without rain could synchronize with a notion of a "Dry Season." See the Wiki: dry season. Apparently (a) there is an oscillating "belt" of both a "Wet" and "Dry" season around the equator that cycles North and South from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn. The Wiki: Tropic of Capricorndemonstrates that the Tropic of Capricorn bisects Southern Africa and Madagascar. Also the Wiki states that (b) "local geographical" conditions have a significant affect upon this oscillating belt, which might explain how a "Wet Season" could occur in a xeric, geological landscape. Local conditions are probably influenced by the Oceans (South Atlantic and Indian) and topography (Mountain ranges). The "Wet Season" could be indeed "wet" but slight given this influence. That is, the oceans and the topography minimalize the amount of rainfall, but rainfall occurs nonetheless. Where I am unclear is about a "dry season" as part of this more global explanation of wet/dry cycles. I am clear about the geography of South Africa and Madagascar. It is a xeric landscape for large areas. I am pretty sure without looking at my notes that the shortest dry period or "season" for Pachypodium is about 5-6 months. All and all, this hypothesis that the dry "periods" mentioned in the literature I have read be part a global cycle of wet/dry seasons seems tempting.
There is also a pragmatic reason to define "dry" as "dry season." The Wiki: Dryness is not informative; so Stoieve switched it to "[[[dry season | Dry Season]]" so as to give the link meaning. I think that instinct is good too. This way the term "dry" carries a lot more meaning to the reader.
Nevertheless, I have some reservations about making this inference: Is this prolonged period that Pachypodia have to endure without rain a "Dry Season" or rather a "Dry period. . . ? (1) Why does none of the literature I have read not make mention of this tropical wave of "dry/wet" seasons. . . ? Its omission in a book like Rapanarivo et al. has me wondering because the authors specifically address a larger context to the habitats of Pachypodium. Yet, this omission might not be such a big deal; too, because I know that Southern Africa is divided into, I believe, an Easterly Winter Wet Season and a Westerly Summer Wet season. I know this climatic geography from studying Haworthia and members of the Mesembryantheum family (e.g. Lithop, Conophytum, etc.) that inhabit the Horn of Africa. Rapanarivo et al. do not mention this large scale continental climatic geography either so, maybe, as authors, they choose not to go that far with the larger context of Pachypodium. (2) Having stated that this "East-Winter-Wet" and "West-Summer-Wet" prevailing continental, climatic geography already exists to my knowledge, the question becomes: "How does this tropical oscillating Wet/Dry cycle from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn fit together with the aforementioned known continental pattern, which seems to be more dependent upon the Oceans and Topography than a macro global cycle. Yes it is a "Continental" cycle but not one that effects the whole globe like the el Nino effect off the West coast of South America. I can not answer this question either. (3) Without an explicit reference stating that this tropical "wet/dry" seasonal cycle plays a decided role in Madagascar and Southern Africa, are we not acting presumptively. I mean I am uncomfortable with making a statement that I cannot point to research or documents that state clearly what I am suggesting. I mean, the global, tropical oscillating "wet/dry" season is a compelling conjecture, one that I would like to make, but do we have the authority to make such a claim. . . ? (4) Lastly the amount of wetness and dryness varies greatly for Pachypodium. In Madagascar, the East Central coast is a jungle. Yet to the North, it is xeric. But the South of the island, by far, receives the lest amount of rain. This rainfall pattern is clearly documented. As I spoke earlier, Southern Africa has three zones of overall climate: (a) Easterly Wet Winter; (b) Westerly Wet Summer; and (c) a zone in between the two where rain occurs naturally all year. Pachypodium inhabit all three zones as well as all of Madagascar except the Jungle (hydric) and the more mesic areas.
I do not know really what to do here. It is compelling to think of the dry period for Pachypodium as a global phenomenon. It enriches the article with a larger context. But without any direct reference is it not just speculation . . . ?. And if it is speculation, that does not seem not to be proper for Wikipedia. One might might allude to the possibility of this tropical global "wet/dry" seasonal phenomenon as a possibility, but I would not hasten to claim it for truth and fact without a rigorous source.
So I am not sure what is best . . .I thought you might have an answer. I have been discussing this subject with Stoive a while ago but forgot to follow up on it. I am doing so now, as I suggested an Administrator might know what is better to conclude.
tdwin476 Tim Winchester 19:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Luckily, Pachypodium is confined to Madagascar. Tnis means, that, when defining the word dry you don't have to take into account global weather patterns. It should be sufficient if you define just the climactic conditions of Madagascar. There is no need to turn a botanical article into a meteorological article about global climatic conditions. As you point out in point 4, here above, that Pachypodium grows in different climatic conditions, it should be enough to document these conditions. Of course, you can always apply some fine-tuning and try to articulate your ideas more clearly where you deem it necessary. But as always, try to be brief and to the point. JoJan 08:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unclear apparently. I am sorry. Five species of Pachypodium do reside on the continent of Africa--Pachypodium bispinosum. P. leallii, P. namaquanum, P. saundersii, and P. succulentum--the Type species for the Genus. But your implication is correct; in that the other 20 species are residents of Madagacar. They sufficiently inhabit diverse habitats that vary geographically. I think, but can not be certain, that a contributing factor to the moisture regime is the typhoon season in the Indian Ocean. I wish I had the book that I think that reference is in currently. For Madagascar, I have a pattern but no real marco-climatic cycle that explains the island's weather. As I state above, and I believe I have the geography correct, Southern CONTINENTAL Africa is dicvided into the aforementioned three zones--(a) East-Wet-Winter; (b) West-Wet-Summer; and (c) and intermediate zone. Pachypodia are found in all three locations, I believe.
At this point, the more I think about it, it seems more rigorous, despite the loss of richness, to stick with what can be documented. It might be pointed out that a possible "Wet/Dry" Cycle does occurr between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn that could possibly explain the wet/dry "period" that Pachypodium experience. Without a reference; however, it remains a conjecture--a very compelling one.
So guess I am with you on the part of staying to the individual habitats and not venturing into a global explanation. Simply the Wiki for "dry" needs to be deleted, unless it can perhaps point to "xeric," rather than link to Dry Season or Dryness. I will inform [[User: Stoive | Stoive] about this correction I plan to make to the afffected articles that link dry months and dry period to dry season.
Also, today I did some minor clean-up on the von Siebold article. Nothing major. I am proud of that article, as collaboration turned out for the best.
tdwin476 Tim Winchester 21:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know that a picture you uploaded, Image:Daisy1web.jpg, is up for Pic of the Day on the 4th September. As this will be a weekend, it will probably also appear on the MainPage. You look like you may be an editor who knows more about this flower than most, so could I ask you to check the associated caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 4, 2005. -- Solipsist 11:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference in the Acineta genera that there are 15 species contained therein; however, there are actually 16 species listed in the Species section. So, would you happen to know if one the species should not be contained... or if the number should simply state the genera contains 16 species? Also in the Aerides genera there is a 25 vs. 27 mismatch similar to the Acineta numbering mismatch.
Thanks for pointing this out. Every year about 800 new orchid species are being discovered. I have edited the article in this sense. JoJan 15:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the latest revision of the Laelia orchid genus "Lindley = abbr. Lindl.: Linnaeus = abbr. L. - already mentioned in the taxobox" I think there is a bit of a disconnect. I was trying to to include both the botanist's abbreviation Lindl.and the actual genus' abbreviation L..
I agree the text-based Lindl. reference should be removed and left in the taxobox... my miss for Laelia. Once some of the other genera stubs get taxoboxes I will move text-based botanist references to the taxobox to be consistent with this practice.
Beyond the botanist reference, what I was actually trying to improve was that none of the genera had a reference to the actual genus abbreviations... hence my addition of (abbreviation L.) for Laelia. Do you have a suggestion of where an orchid genus' abbreviation might be placed? Maybe we could start something we could be consistent with, then we could both attack this minor but valuable addition to the multitude of orchid genera.
Maybe the orchid genus abbreviation should go in the taxobox, too?... or, Maybe a whole new "List of Orchid Genus Abbreviations" page? Maybe these abbreviations should all be on the Orchid Genera List page? What do you think? {Brett Francis 07:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
There is not much to be gained by adding genera abbreviations in the text. I know these abbreviations are being used by orchid growers (see here : [9]). I don't think these abbreviations are in use in botany. Ascocentrum miniatum can be written as A. miniatum but NOT as Asctm. miniatum (Asctm. being proposed as the abbreviation in this list). It would only add to the confusion of the reader. Thus L. can only mean the taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus and not the genus Laelia. But, on the other hand, it could be mentioned in the text that in trade journals Laelia is being abbreviated as L. This would be a more clear-cut description than Laelia (abbreviation L.). As to the Orchid Genera List, I wouldn't add genera abbreviations, for the same reason : added confusion. As I go along describing orchid genera, I add the official abbreviation of the author(s) in this list. Two abbreviations wouldn't do. If you really want to add those genera abbreviations, do it then in the text, always mentioning that this is being used in trade journals. And to conclude, I appreciate any help in describing the orchid genera. The orchid family is the largest family in the Plant Kingdom and there are certainly many years of hard work ahead, even for a team of contributors. JoJan 08:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The deeper detail on this idea is about thinking in terms of someone using a search engine to find a Wikipedia article. Having the abbreviation L. in the same article as the species names would allow someone to find the proper Wikipedia article by either pair of keywords "L. albida" or "Laelia albida" when all that person might have is the abbreviated name from a plant they possess. I have reviewed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage again and do agree that it doesn't seem to have a place to fit trade-pub related abbreviations, so if the only tools available are the taxobox and the actual article text then I think the idea for a text-based "in trade journals Laelia is being abbreviated as L" style entry would work the best. But before running off and using this approach, maybe an improvement would be to have a more formal opening template for orchid genera? This template could be used to capture and explicitly show the absence of "place of origin", "trade abbreviation", "epiphytic... lithophytic... etc", "name history", etc. Such a template would be significantly better than a purely text-based solution since a text-based approach for these items seems destined to have inconsistencies in how they will be captured across the orchid genera entries for at least the next few years of improvements. :) Brett Francis 16:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right when you state that anyone using the search engine should easily find the object of the search. However using abbreviations in the search engine can complicate the search. A quick search in Google delivers for 'L. albida' the following results, besides Laelia albida : Luzula albida (synonym of Luzula luzuloides), the North African species Lavatera albida and a bacterium Longispora albida. Therefore I shun abbreviations, unless I have already stated the full name in the article. Thus, when composing a list of species, I always use the full name. And then, as with Laelia albida, I can use the abbreviated name L. albida in the text. This way, someone searching for Laelia albida will always get the right result, while searching for L. albida in Wikipedia delivers 50,686 results, unless you put the name between double quotation marks. As to the proposed templates, yes, it would alleviate our task describing plants. But there are already more than 11,000 botany articles, all text-based. Changing them all into a template-based article would be an enormous task, nobody is inclined to begin. All we can do, is trying to give an as complete text as possible. JoJan 09:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's keep things in the text, but possibly with another template. We can start with the orchids. :) as this is a smaller set and over time could be an example for the other plant articles that would migrate over a larger amount of time. Relatively there are not as many orchid genera that are actually filled out, so starting now with a template would at least catch those that are added from now on. I look at the Orchid Genera List and see all the red links that could be setup with stubs that could point toward a template approach for orchids. This really feels like an opportunity as I was going to go through them and start setting up stubs anyway. I just don't know how to create a template and would rather not simply dive in without some consensus on doing so; I am not up for a mass-revert if there's eventual disagreement. Brett Francis 15:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As to your proposal for templates : you can put this forward on the talk page of the Tree of Life (TOL). But I'm afraid you won't find an enthusiastic welcome. All articles about flora and fauna are being written in the same way. It has taken a lot of time and many lengthy discussions to come to a common point of view. Nevertheless, you can always try.Thanks.
I'll look into floating the idea once I have an example. Brett Francis
And as to creating stubs : I'm against it for the following reason : stubs create BLUE hyperlinks and give to a contributor the false idea that the article has already been been written. I follow this method : I create a new article for genera with one or more photos available. A photo gives a much better look to the article. Each new article may take a lot of time and a lot of research. But in my opinion, this is much better than creating stubs one after another. Furthermore, stubs downgrade the value of Wikipedia. People wouldn't take it seriously any more. JoJan 18:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was planning on starting stubs with some valuable information only after some research in order to make them valuable BLUE items; so some stubs, but valuable stubs. However, if I am going to do this repeatedly for a few months I want to explore the consistency template idea first. I'll be heading to the ToL once I have an example to use in the conversation. Brett Francis 04:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just found the {todo} tag and think it fills the intent I had for a template that would explicitly state what is missing in an orchid article. I'll put a couple on some existing genus stubs. Brett Francis 07:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have you come across any guidelines for adding Orchid Hybrids to the genus pages? Some genera have naturally occurring hybrids only and others have man-made hybrids. Brett Francis 16:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are no such guidelines, as far as I know. However there templates for taxoboxes of hybrid SPECIES and cultivars. But I don't think we're already ready to describe hybrid orchid species, when there is so much work left describing orchid genera. Where necessary, I add a LIST of hybrid GENERA, such as in Ascocentrum or Vanda. But it is not always easy to know which hybrid genus is man-made or naturally occurring without deeper research. I'll look into it as soon as I can find the time. Or otherwise, you're welcome to do it yourself. Any help is appreciated.
The idea on the hybrid side is that I have a growing list of species images that capture species, natural hybrid species and man-made hybrid species. I'd like to post, donate, and setup some links to these images in the proper genera, and I am again looking for guidance before I dive in. Brett Francis 16:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please sign your mail by four tildes ~~~~. I like to know whom I'm talking to. JoJan 08:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added my sig above and continue to appreciate this flurry of help JoJan. Brett Francis
A growing list ? Hmm, very well. We need lots of pictures of orchids. Copyright-free photos are hard to get. I've uploaded a few hundred, essentially from a Danish website. You can upload your images to Wikipedia Commons. First make sure that you possess the copyright or have the written autorisation from the owner of the copyright. On the Commons, this lesson Commons:First steps should be helpful. In the box on the upload page, give a description of the species this way : start with a semi colon like this ;Species : Laelia albida - on the next line : ;Family : Orchidaceae - then you give the source or the url and the name of the photographer. In the next box, tick the appropriate license (for your own pictures : take the one with the double license). After uploading, find out (with the search box) if there already exists a page for the genus Laelia. Then add your picture to the article page in the same way as others have done it before you. If there is no such article yet, then create one. This is all very easy, just look to other articles (such as Laelia) how others have done it before you. Create a gallery. Add [[Category:Orchidaceae]]. If an article about the genus (or about the species) has already been written in the English Wikipedia, then add [[en:name of article]]. It's really easy, you just have to try it. JoJan 19:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the picture path, I have since added my first hi-res picture (which ended up not to be a hybrid). Does this one and the cropped other version linked to it seem to be good examples to your eye?
I started chatting with BerndH about the possible incosistency that the Greenhood genus entry simply should be an alias to an actual Pterostylis genus entry that doesn't exist yet. Any thoughts? I don't know much about moving pages. Regardless, with your exposure to more Wiki-history than I, have other genera been moved to their more scientific names? (Brett Francis 07:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
I agree. I prefer the scientific name as the title, while, if there is a commonly accepted English name, I put this English on top of the taxobox. I'll move Greenhood to Pterostylis, while keeping a redirect at Greenhood. This way, any one searching for Greenhood or Pterostylis, will end up at Pterostylis. This has also the advantage of avoiding piped links. JoJan 08:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the List of Orchidaceae genera page is a long page, I was thinking of splitting this List page into multiple indexed pages. First, I don't know how to do this; second I wanted to chat about it first to see if other long pages like this one get split in similar ways. I'd also like to learn about a more public place a change like this should be floated beyond your talk page. Example: The List of Orchidaceae genera page would contain the same overview text but have links to alphebatized orchid links:
List of Orchidaceae genera/A-F
List of Orchidaceae genera/G-M
List of Orchidaceae genera/N-T
List of Orchidaceae genera/U-Z
...which then possess the appropriately divided genera list.
Another idea was that the division could be as follows... the page List of Orchidaceae genera would contain the same overview but simply have links to the following pages:
...and these pages would then contain appropriately divided ==List of genera== subsections. Of course this would take some more time and possibly even might be organized as a project... but the existing information would be more logically divided and categorized appropriately.
My last thought is... why does this page exist when the Taxonomy_of_the_orchid_family page exists and with a little help checking all the genera in the List page we could reduce redundant entry of genera data in Wikipedia by moving any missing genera from the List page to the Taxonomy page. Thereby reducing the need for any synchronization or mismatches.
Thoughts, or other ideas? (Brett Francis 05:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
You're proposing quite an undertaking ! Let's discuss your proposal :
A list can be a long, even a very long, page. This can't be helped. See List of biologists. But we could, just as in this list, use the template _NOTOC__
{{compactTOC2}} to add a table of content. This would be much preferable than splitting up the list alphabetically. A split-up list is no longer, in my opninion, a useful list.
Splitting up according to the subfamily names is neither a good idea, since a few are rather short and others are very long.
Merging with Taxonomy of the orchid family is neither a good idea. When I wrote this page, I relied heavily on the taxonomy proposed by Louis Dressler (first published in 1981; last change in 1993). In the following years there has been a gradual move from traditional taxonomy, based on morphology, to a taxonomy based on genetic characteristics. This has produced a large number of changes. I've tried to keep abreast of all these changes, but it is hard to keep up. You cannot rely on orchid sites on the internet, because most are hopelessly behind in taxonomy. Therefore one has to read the latest scientific papers dealing with each change. And that's even more difficult to get your hands on. Even then, it would take years to complete the revision. And once done, you would have to start all over again, because of the new changes. This page is therefore no longer to be seen as a reference, but as a (very) good indication. I deal with the changes as I go along describing new genera. This flux in taxonomy will go on for another couple of decades. Furthermore some new genera are refuted by other taxonomists. 'Taxonomy is absolute anarchy' is a (bit too) strong statement of the eminent Danish orchid taxonomist Finn N Rasmussen. This elaboration has been a bit long, but all I wanted to state is : merging the List article with the Taxonomy article isn't such a good idea. Let's keep the two articles as they are
Conclusion : I agree if you add a table of content to the List of Orchidaceae genera. It would give a nicer look to it. JoJan 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It never hurts to think big... only to do big. :) Maybe an interesting half-way would be to keep this list on the same page but to create a TOC that would contain the 5 sub-families? I envision this as similar to the Taxonomy page but with all genera under their respective sub-family instead of burdening us with the anarchic detail of the tribes and sub-tribes. This might be a nice balance between the taxonomic anarchy you point out is still occurring at the tribe-level and lower (and subsequent "perpetual revisions" aspect that you mention) versus just the big ol' list that currently exists. If the sub-family TOC approach wouldn't work, then the alphabetic TOC you propose would at least address my original idea's intent. (Brett Francis 01:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The orchid family is simply the largest family in the Plant Kingdom. Therefore it is only too normal that one has to go in detail as far as tribes and subtribes. These are based on morphological characteristics that are, most of the time, confirmed by genetic research. I've just finished the description of Odontoglossum, another genus that has been split up. Other recent ones are Epidendrum and Pleurothallis. This revolution in taxonomy is not just confined to orchids. Look at my description of the taxonomy of Acacia in List of Acacia species - enough for a headache. You're well-intentioned, but in the end your well-meaning propositions aren't so practical. Therefore let's keep it simple and put an alphabetical TOC to the List-article. It is easy to add new genera and it won't give you a headache. Agreed ? JoJan 09:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Betulapendula1web.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
I only list this photo because it doesn't seem to be used anywhere. Thuresson 13:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JoJan- Thanks for speedy deleting the Sunrise Medical article. Earlier this afternoon I tagged a few others but one of them has been overlooked; Magistra Bush is still a living and breathing attack page, can you please nuke it when you have a spare moment? Thanks-- [edit] 05:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JoJan,
I write you because I think you are interested in the Belgium article. If you are please participate in the currently open peer review. Why not voting in the future poll for getting it featured! Thanks Vb14:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some editing. JoJan 18:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image you uploaded, Image:Bufo.punctatus.web.jpg, has no source information. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be marked for deletion on 24 October 2005.
JoJan, I am creating the species list for the List of Bulbophyllum species page. Since it is pretty huge... Once, or before, I post it I wanted to get another set of eyes to review it. Would you be up for doing this?
(Brett Francis 02:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Hoi, ik heb jouw naam gekregen van Uther SRG, ik had hem een aantal vragen gesteld m.b.t. het editen van Engelstalige artikelen als Engels niet je moedertaal is. Hij vertelde me dat ik niet bang moest zijn en gewoon moest editen, maar dat ik bij jou moest zijn als ik meer informatie wilde. Ik wil nu dus aan jou vragen hoe je het beste engelstalige artikelen kunt aanpassen. Is het heel erg als er spelling- of grammaticale fouten inzitten? Ik heb nog maar weinig toegevoegd aan Wikipedia, mijn belangrijkste bijdrage is over het artikel Carnivora, waar ik de paragraaf Phylogeny heb toegevoegd. Dat stuk lezen geeft je een beeld van mijn kennis van de Engelse taal. Zou je me wat adviesen willen/kunnen geven?
Dank je! DaMatriX 12:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Het is altijd aangenaam om een nieuwe medewerker te kunnen verwelkomen. Ik raad je aan je als medewerker toe te voegen aan Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life, zodat ook de andere medewerkers weten wie je bent en waar je interesses liggen. Geef ook een korte beschrijving van jezelf of je user page. Je toevoeging aan Carnivora is interessant en goed geschreven. Ik heb de inhoud niet nagezien, omdat ik meer met orchideeën bezig ben dan met roofdieren. Ik heb enkele kleine foutjes verbeterd, maar je tekst is op het eerste zicht in goed Engels geschreven. Heb je enkele problemen met de grammatica of de woordkeuze, dan zullen andere medewerkers van de Tree of Life, als je het hen vraagt, bereid zijn om je teksten te editen. Ik heb dit ook al verschillende malen gedaan zonder enig probleem. Zelf beschik ik over veel Engelse woordenboeken, maar ik stel vast dat ik ze minder en minder gebruik (tenzij mijn Engels synoniemenwoordenboek die soms heel nuttig is als ik niet op het juiste woord kan komen). Het is gewoon een kwestie van durven ("be bold") en niet aarzelen om hulp te vragen. Nog één advies : je paragrafen zijn te lang. Breek ze op in korte stukken. Maak ook liefst korte zinnen. Je moet in de eerste plaats de lezer kunnen boeien op een begrijpelijke wijze, zodat hij/zij verder leest in het artikel en niet doorklikt naar iets anders. Zo dit is een eerste reactie. Moest je verdere vragen hebben, stel ze gerust. Ik zal ook aanwezig zijn op de komende Wikimeeting in Brussel. Misschien kom je ook. Dan kunnen we eens hierover een gesprekje hebben. JoJan 14:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ik zal me zeker aanmelden bij Project Tree of Life. Ik heb m'n artikel verbeterd met de suggesties die je me gegeven hebt. Ik zal niet op de meeting zijn, ik heb mijn rijbewijs nog niet - ik ben nog maar 18! DaMatriX 12:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As you'll see, I'm going to end the history piece about Pisa. I'm simply translating from the Italian article, plus using some books I have and a bit of Encyclopaedia Britannica. What I could ask you is to check at the end of the process my article and correct my grammar (I'm good English speaker but I doubt about my writing qualities), and also improve it the way you want.
Thanks for uploading Image:Cypripedium.reginae1.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Nv8200p(talk) 18:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Answer on the talk page of User:Nv8200p JoJan 09:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I made a note to myself a while ago to have a look at that article as I felt a lot more could be made of this wonderful cathedral, mainly as I saw it didn't even mention the Pope's heads which is of if its most notable aspects. I see you have made a huge improvement to it, thank you! --TimPope 20:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put a lot of work and research into this article. It's nice to be appreciated. JoJan 21:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you violated the rules for speedy deletion in deleting the Rocky Mountain Pizza article. At the time of deletion it was not 'patent nonsense.' It is a real place, with a website, and in addition I have been there. I do not know the history of the place, so it may not be notable enough to be in Wikipedia. However, this requires a WP:AFD vote, does it not? -SCEhardT 19:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll put it in WP:AFD JoJan 19:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And it has been speedied again by another admin JoJan 19:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have turned this article into a schools stub. I believe that there is enough verifiable material to turn it into a school stub. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my vote to a "weak keep" JoJan 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
De gebruiker User:Jorgenpfhartogs werd hiervan verwittigd op 7 october 2005, maar heeft niet gereageerd. De termijn van 7 dagen is verstreken en trouwens ruimschoots vertsreken. Ik zal al deze afbeeldingen verwijderen. JoJan 09:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When you delete an article you are supposed to provide a reason. Please stick to your duties as administrator, and avoid quick deletions with no justification, without offering possibility for discussion.Hektor 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you deleted Brian Brolly yet again as I wikified it, being the second person to speedy the article in about two hours. However the article clearly states that he founded Classic FM and he's a former CEO of Really Useful. He isn't even remotely speedy material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings - I saw that you had kindly deleted the Kremlin-Bicêtre Talk page, but it was actually the article itself that needed deleting - There is another Le Kremlin-Bicêtre page in existence (the correct one) and I have already moved all information there. Perhaps I did something wrong or wasn't clear, but thank you for your help. Happy holidays! ThePromenader 22:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done - The article was not marked for speedy deletion. JoJan 14:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the organisers of The Modern Times Club, the article on which you deleted. We found the original article to be the most accurate representation so far of what the club is, whether on the internet or other media, as befits wikipedia, and as such would request that it be reinstated. I hope this is the correct way to go about this; I have created this wiki account for this sole purpose.
As for the comments about not enough context - I'm not sure I understand exactly what more you want, but would be happy to supply any supplementary information to the article.
Many thanks,
David Piper Wyndham Piper 15:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I've restored the article. However, the comment wasn't mine but I can concur with it. In my opinion, it falls under CSD A 7 ( a club of which the importance or significance has not been asserted). There are millions of clubs in the world and too many pr-people trying to push their own club into Wikipedia. Only if you can establish the encyclopedic importance of this club, this article will stand a chance of surviving. BTW it is convenient to sign your message with four tildes, such as ~~~~. JoJan 15:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found your and others' replies to this, many thanks. Although I guess in fact the presence of this article on wikipedia is not of life-or-death importance, it was a very good and precise description (the initial reaction was one of delight at seeing it, completely by surprise, and then chagrin at having it taken away). However, the article makes no claims for the club's importance or significance - and unless this is of specific meaning to wikipedia (I don't understand the phrase 'encyclopedic importance') I don't see why it is particularly relevant. A quick google for "modern times club" should, I would have thought, be enough to satisfy at the very least anyone's doubts as to its existence. And if it exists, shouldn't it be on wikipedia?
Hello, I'm a bit confused about the deltion of this. Can you explain why it was speedied and why there is voting going on at Talk:The Llama Song? There are also pages that redirect to the deleted page. Thanks, -- JJay 20:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted under the provision of CSD G4 : the article had already been deleted on 19 March 2005 under a vfd consensus (See Special:Log/Delete 23:57, 19 March 2005 Joy Stovall deleted "The Llama Song" (vfd consensus). Now FYI I had never heard about this song, so I looked at the Flash animation. It may seem funny to some, but whatever, that isn't the point : it is totally unencyclopedic as a separate topic. It is however fleetingly mentioned in the article Llamas and that is giving it already more credit for what it is worth. Who will ever mention this song again in a couple of years ? If however, you're willing to stand the test of another Vfd, then I'm quite willing to restore the article and bring it up as a candidate for deletion. As to the talk page : this voting should have happened on the Vfd page. You may express disagreement with the speedy deletion and it is always better to mention this also in the reason for the speedy deletion. In such case, an administrator will usually bring the article to Vfd and let the community decide. JoJan 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Plant_0030.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flower_0071.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Paeonia_19.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flower_206.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flower_208.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flower_226.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flower_228.jpg){kind=link}
