Talk:Sarracenia

Overhaul
I put up a Collaboration of the Week marker for this page. Although this page has some good information on it already, it could really use some fleshing out. Hopefully others will put some time into this page as well. A few preliminary comments:


 * 1) The intro as stands seems okay.
 * 2) I could see use for the following sections:
 * Intro
 * Morphology
 * Leaves and trapping/digestion
 * Flowers and seeds
 * Distribution and Habitat
 * Environmental status - threats/concerns/conservation
 * Classification - species list? should that be on a seperate page? hybrids?
 * Cultivation
 * Propagation
 * Citations, references, and small photo gallery

Any thoughts on this?

We will be needing more photos, especially representative photos of mature pitchers from each species. I should have a few around somewhere. --NoahElhardt 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good choice to make Sarracenia the first Collaboration of the Week. The sections seem okay to me, but I'd propose to add a section concerning Botanical history, which might sum up informations as first description, etymology and similar. Concerning the classification I don't think, such a small genus should have a separate species page, but the en-standards concerning such decisions might vary from those in de. I will work parallel to you on the corresponding German page de:Schlauchpflanzen. My first step will be to synchronize both pages, but how shall we share the work then? Shall everybody choose a section he will work on and drop a not here or just leave an Inuse at the section? Sorry in case these questions are dumb, but in de I am a lonesome rider :) and never did a collaboration before. Denisoliver 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't done one either, so I'm as new to this as you are. I think it makes the most sense for you to work on the German page, making new sections and translating ones from English. If you want to "claim" a section on the English page, that would be fine. Then you would only have to write it in German, translating it over would be easy enough for me and save a lot of work (although you can translate it as well if you want :) ). I restructured the content as above, including your suggestion. Everyone feel free to work on any section as needed. --NoahElhardt 14:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A good schema. I agree about putting the species list on a separate page, but it will mean removing the example cultivars &mdash; including just a couple doesn't make sense except in the context of the article. Perhaps a fragment of the list with the species, ssp, and the example cultivars could remain in the article, with a link like: For the complete species list, see List of Sarracenia species, and the separate list would just show the species. ~ Veledan • Talk 13:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "Under Construction" tag and the "Collaboration of the Week" tag. I finished up the leaf morphology section, although I'm not sure that the morphology/carnivorous_function section flows well. If also filled in the Cultivation section a bit. Anyone see anything else that needs to be done still? Thank-you to all involved for turning this into quite a nice article!! --NoahElhardt 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultivation & propagation section
I've added the first bit on propagation &mdash; is that the kind of content that's needed, or should it focus less on practical advice? This article is coming on something splendid by the way :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 16:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how a section on cultivation could not focus on practical advice. :-) Maybe word it as "Sarracenias are grown in peat moss" rather than "Sarracenias can be grown in peat moss", giving the same information as a description of current cultivation practices rather than in an instruction manual style. Does this make sense? I think that way the information could be relayed while still maintaining the encyclopedic language style.


 * How much does Wikipedia allow the repetition of info in different sections of the same article? We'll need to be careful about that, as info in the "flowers and seeds" section is the same as some of the info in the propagation section. If we word it right it should be okay I think. Your thoughts?


 * Thanks for getting started on this section! I, too, am liking what this article is becoming. --NoahElhardt 16:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers, yes I'll go back through later (if you haven't done it already) and adjust the tone to be as consistently detatched as possible. As for repetition, I'd think passing references to the same material in another context are alright, but not direct re-statement of facts. Probably a subjective judgment is called for: would you find it jarring as a reader? I was vaguely aware while drafting the above that I was likely repeating odd bits I'd just read, so feel free to prune what you know you've written already. I'll re-read the rest of the article and do the same when I come back to it later. ~ Veledan • Talk 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I cut out nearly all the duplicated information and changed the voice to something more observational. I left in the statement about plants taking 4-5 years to mature because it seemed more appropriate in the propagation section than in the description section, but I haven't removed it from the above because I'll let you make the editorial decision.
 * Your cutaway flower is truly outstanding by the way. Talk about a picture being worth a thousand words! ~ Veledan • Talk 19:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good! I reworded the time to maturity sentence in the flower section to be less horticultural, but I think it needs to be stated somewhere in the top of the article as well and duplication of that info shouldn't hurt. Thanks for the comments on the picture! I had fun with that one :-) Do you want pictures of seedlings or rhizomes for the cultivation section? I have some that should do. --NoahElhardt 21:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes please! I live in the largely sunless UK and right now I have no place for a greenhouse and therefore no Sarras so I can't provide any myself :-( I occasionally get to visit my old ones in friends' greenhouses but it isn't the same ~ Veledan • Talk 22:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here they are: Image:Sarracenia alata seedling.JPG, and Image:Sarracenia rhizome.JPG . Hope they work. --NoahElhardt 04:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

FAC time
Just about time to nom this for FAC. We just need to switch the web references with the cite-web template and make sure Sarracenia purpurea - anatomical sketch.jpg has a current PD tag. After that, I'm nomming it. SunDragon34 (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


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


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

Oops, sorry I disappeared there for a while on this article. From my overhaul of the classification section last weekend, I've come to the conclusion that this article is very far from FA status. (See WP:FACR for the criteria.) I have some references for the cultivation section, which I can add. Anyone know where the info came from for the morphology section?

Oh, and I wanted to ask everyone about my revision of the species list. Barry Rice is a proponent of using S. alabamensis and S. jonesii. From what I can tell, they're accepted about as much as S. rosea, which we do include. So we have to decide to pick an authority and stick to it, since making up our own system might be original research. Any thoughts on that? --Rkitko (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I have now performed this merge myself. Apparently the original article on feeding mechanisms was a classwork assignment. I have notified its original author of what I have done and explained why it was merged into this article (as a content fork), then deleted the content as it was entirely redundant to what was already here. A loose noose (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)