User talk:Mmcknight4/Archive 1

I realize that it's a little late, but ...

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Newyorkbrad 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

images of Bromeliads
Hello! Just letting you know that I have uploaded several images of different varieties of bromeliads from the Philippines in Commons. You may find this in my gallery in my userpage. Feel free to use the images, but also feedback if there is a way these images can be identified up to any taxonomic level possible. Thank you...--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 03:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pineapple
Gosh, that was a while ago. That section is highly technical and needs sourcing big-time, and it also sounded like it had been written by a Del Monte employee. I was hoping it would achieve some balance either through substantiating the claims with neutral sources or cleaning up the language to it doesn't sound so pro-Del Monte. Chubbles 18:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bromelioideae
I noticed your question on Newyorkbrad's talkpage. I've moved the page to the correct name and corrected the spelling in all the articles that link to it. Its probably worth keeping the old page name as a redirect as it is clearly a common mispelling. WjBscribe 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Navia
OK, I suggest moving the present content of Navia to Navia (Spain). Navia can then become a disambiguation page that links to both that article and an article on the bromeliad genera. Perhaps under the title Navia (bromeliad) or similar? WjBscribe 04:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If that works for you I'll move the page and write the disambiguation page, you can create the bromeliad article. WjBscribe 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Benidorm
Fixed, I think – Qxz 20:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Planning
Good to hear from you! That's cool you're interested in planning too. I am a computer scientist by trade, but I have gotten very interested in urban planning lately. I think of urban planning a bit like usability for society :-) Have you checked out the work of www.sightline.org?  I really like the work they do on urban sprawl.  I have a bunch of friends who are urban planners so I talk to them a lot and that led me to start editing wikipedia articles on the topic.  I grew up in Topeka, Kansas which was really messed up by a completely lack of urban planning.  I'd enjoy collaborating on an article so let me know if something jumps out at you that could use editing.  Look forward to working together! Midwestmax 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: 199.216.163.206's vandalism to Louis Riel
Hello. I'm in agreement with the recent revert you made. You may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned.

This user has vandalized this article numerous times over the course of the past week. In many cases, no warning was placed on the user's talk page. At this point, the user needs a block for excessive vandalism. Please place a level four warning on his talk page, and report his vandalism to an administrator. Thanks. ---Charles 15:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Parkia Edit
Your change to Parkia made the image to big. I take it that this was an accident and not vandalism.

Oysterguitarist 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it after I noticed it. Thanks for the heads up.Mmcknight4 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mmcknight4.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mmcknight4.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

2 cents
Hey I wanted to get your opinion on a couple things. First, on the Roystonea page, I added brackets around a couple of the species, hoping to turn them into red links so I could write stubs for the species. Doing so turned them into blue links which redirect to the genus page. How is this mended? Also, with so many of these articles they have a common name and the binomial. To ensure ease of use and consistency on the site it seems we should have re-directs made for the common name to the species page. How do you do that? For example I made a stub for Phoenix reclinata but when you search Wikipedia for Senegal Date Palm it doesn't go right to the page (and isnt even first on the list of hits). Similarly, when the consensus is to list the species on the genus page, it seems redirects should be made for each species to the genus page. An example is Boswellia where the species are listed but searching for them by name does not bring up the page. I hope Ive been clear, let me know what you think. I can ask the same stuff at the Plant Project page if an obvious answer isnt available.Mmcknight4 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there! I'm never sure why species redirect to the genus article, but it could happen for a lot of good reasons. Generally, though, every taxa is notable and should have its own article. The redirects, I assume, are temporary or the result of multiple page moves, etc. Don't worry about that. When you click on a redirect, there should be a little blue link at the top of the page that says "Redirected from ...". If you click on the redirect name, it should send you directly to the redirect page, where you can edit it and create the stub you wished to creat. Alternatively, you could type the following into your browser window to get to the redirect page to edit it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roystonea_altissima&redirect=no
 * You've got it exactly right. You always want to create as many (reasonable) redirects as possible to the species page per the flora naming convention. It's rather easy. Do a search for the term "Puerto Rico Royal Palm". The search result will say "No page with that title exists. You can create this page". Click on the red link that says "You can create this page" which will take you to an edit screen. On the edit bar above the edit window, there should be a #R symbol. Click that once and it should show the following in the edit screen: #REDIRECT Insert text - Insert the binomial in between the brackets and save the page; that's your redirect! May I suggest using lowercase letters, though, in your redirects? So instead of creating a redirect at "Peurto Rico Royal Palm", I would create one at "Puerto Rico royal palm". I believe Wiki software will transfer all searchers for capitalized versions and route them through the lowercase redirect, but not the other way around. In other words, if you create the capitalized redirect and someone searches for a lowercase version of the common name, it won't redirect them. Searches are quasi-case sensitive. At least that's been my experience with them.
 * Redirects of the species name to the genus page if the individual species article doesn't exist is a little controversial. It sometimes gives the appearance that an article already exists and discourages some from creating the page. Red links, however, encourage people to edit. That's my opinion, though, and there's some disagreement. We've chatted about this before in the WT:PLANTS archives. Actually, it was just last month: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants
 * Oh, one more thing. I really liked the idea that WP:BANKSIA had so I stole it ;-) If you'd like, you could create a category at Category:Roystonea species by common name and include the redirects in that category so someone could browse by common name or scientific name (Category:Roystonea).
 * Let me know if any of that wasn't clear or if you need any help at all. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Manythanks.Mmcknight4 01:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Oh, and I fixed the page at Boswellia. I split off the species that had information on that page. Easy way to create a few more species articles! --Rkitko (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I occasionally find plant or animal groups which have several pictures in commons but not on the page. How do you label a page with the "Wikimedia Commons has media related to 'subject'" tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmcknight4 (talk • contribs) 02:05, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent question. You can place the Commons template on the page in the appropriate spot (usually near the references or external links). automatically links to the page at Wikimedia Commons with the same name as the article, but in cases where you want to link to a page with a different name, then you would use a piped link in the template. Say, for example, a species is located at its common name on Wikipedia and the gallery with the photos on Commons is at the binomial, you would input  . Likewise if no gallery article exists but the photos are in a category, you can link to that by inputing  . Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Inflorescence
Sorry for undoing your wikilink, but rachis could never become more than a stub. I'm going to merge its sections to the relative articles and make it a disambiguation page, I think. Aelwyn 08:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Palm species
Hi Mmcknight4 - nice work on starting a number of articles on palms; couple of points, it isn't worth linking numbers, and also, please remember to use spellings relevant to the origin of the species (e.g., for Phoenix sylvestris, native to India and Pakistan, use Commonwealth English spellings, such as metre and colour) - thanks, MPF 10:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

txbxes
Ok I went through the 'needing taxoboxes' list and there have been some hangers-on over there which haven't gotten sorted out yet. Some of them are hybrids and I thought I came across a 'needing hybrid taxoboxes' list a while back. Im not sure about the status of that list but Amandine potato, Angel wing begonia, Aprium, Olallieberry, and maybe Mission fig could be reassessed. The Kaulim and Uyot articles dont give you anything to go on so I would vote to delete them or remove the PlantProject tag and release them from our purview. Rest-harrow lists 2 species which this common name might apply to, Pearl onion is more like a food article than a plant article and, again, I think it just isnt enough to do anything with. Cocktail onion doesnt have a taxobox, maybe pearl onion can remain a plant article but without a box.Mmcknight4 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And on the talk page of Huerteales an editor wrote that the taxon is unclassified and Haptanthus is one of the "this name has been rarely recognized by taxonomists" articles which is hard to classify.Mmcknight4 21:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work! There is indeed a "needs-cultivar-infobox=yes" parameter that I created not long ago that places those articles in . Most hybrids will also fit into that category since they're typically cultivars, too. There still doesn't seem to be a good way to deal with natural hybrids that aren't cultivated, taxobox-wise. -- Most of those you listed can be reassessed to the cultivar infobox parameter. I agree Kaulim and Uyot need to be deleted. They're too vague and we can't discover which species they refer to. Shall we PROD them? Rest-harrow should become a disambiguation page. Cocktail onion is more suitable for the Food and Drink WikiProject. I wonder if pearl onion might be a cultivar of the suggested Allium cepa. If so, it would need a cultivar box, but I think you're right that it's more a food wikiproject thing. Coincidentally, tree onion requires a cultivar infobox and not the taxobox it has now. But I have no idea where to get the information necessary to fill out the cultivar infobox, or if it even exists.
 * I think Huerteales may not need a taxobox. Most of the "this name has been rarely recognized" articles don't have taxoboxes. I have been mulling around in my mind, though, discussing with the taxobox template people, about including another parameter. Underneath "scientific classification", there could be another line that let's the reader know which classification is being used in the box. In that case, Huerteales could be given a taxobox with the parameter filled in for which classification is being used. But I think that's been tried before and has often failed to persuade people that it might be necessary to include that information, especially since taxonomy is so often intermingled (as it is now, most of our taxoboxes jumble Cronquist higher taxonomy and APG lower taxonomy - I personally don't care for the higher clades of APG but think their lower taxonomy work is invaluable. I digress...). Haptanthus should probably be given a taxobox. For ordo and familia parameters, "unplaced" can be used. Thanks again for your work on that. I'll go through and take care of the cocktail onion article and PROD those two unknown articles. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Paurotis palm
Hi Mmcknight - yes, it probably should be, but has been held up by the discrepancy in the spelling of the name. I'll look further into it, to see if I can find out which spelling is correct. It won't be easy with both spellings having authoritative backings. - MPF 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! "OK well contrary to what I said above I think it is Acoelorrhaphe (with the additional h). The other genera with the same greek root Rhapidophyllum and Rhapis have the h after r so I'd bet thats what the author intended" - that's the same conclusion I came to too, and is the spelling used by the two sources I trust the most (USDA GRIN [who are more careful than USDA NRCS] and Kew); I'll move it to that. Seems to be specified by ICBN Art. 60, that the Greek spiritus asper (here in ῤαφίς, "needle") should be transcribed as an 'h'. - MPF 10:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Kaulim and Uyot
Hi there! I finally decided to take those two pesky articles to AfD debate: Articles for deletion/Kaulim and Articles for deletion/Uyot. Oh, and good news! I found more Category:Plant articles needing taxoboxes and Category:Plant articles needing a cultivar infobox. Happy day! More are always rolling in through new plant contributions. Since you were so good at it before, would you like to give me a hand sorting them out and reducing those categories to nil? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Following your suggestion I added delete tags to Kaulim and Uyot and whomever reviewed them decided they were worth keeping. It was probably my fault for being vague about the reason but even now, the Articles for deletion/Kaulim and Articles for deletion/Uyot which you started have some people suggesting they be kept.  I will add commentary there if you think it will help the process but the bottom line in my mind is that you and myself and other plant editors have looked at these and made an effort to do something with them and we have decided we cant make a plant article with the sparse info provided.  Itseems to be the case that some folks think Google hits make for a de facto keep but Ive googled kaulim and uyot getting a hundred results per page and scrolled through many such pages (as others probably have) to conclude these are a certain 'delete'.  My point is I dont think its practical to invest any more time and effort on these things.  If the delete is successful, great, if not I say remove the plant project tags and forget about them, no sense in pouring more time/effort/conversation into these dead-ends when editors could be focusing on valid material (like articles needing taxoboxes).Mmcknight4 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the prod tags and subsequent removal. I did leave a note on that editor's talk page (User:Until(1 == 2)) and it appears as if, at least from their comment on Kaulim's deletion discussion, that the user has changed his/her opinion. I think the closing admin might decide to delete - the keep comments didn't address the concern. Regardless, I think you're right that these have taken up too much time on our end and if they're not deleted we can abandon them. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Gloxinia
I removed the image you added to the Gloxinia (genus) article as the species in the photo is now classified as Seemannia sylvatica. (An image of Gloxinia perennis would be ideal if you can find one, as it is the type species of Gloxinia.) However, it would be a good image for the Seemannia article as the image of Seemannia sylvatica that's already there is of a yellow-flowered form of the species, which is fairly atypical for this species (which usually has red flowers). MrDarwin (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Gonophyllum
Answered on my talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going through all the genus articles for palms and adding the subfamily and tribe. Subtribes don't seem worth including (except maybe for Areceae).  In any case, I am putting this ranks ony on the genus page.  That information isn't as relevant for the species as for the genera, so I'm not pautting it on those pages.  If you create a new genus stub or article, then please do include the subfamily and tribe.  I don't expect to maintain that information; I am adding it because I am sorting the palm stub category, which has become large and so I proposed three subcategories to help balance the load.  Since the palms constitute one of the largest angiosperm families, and the subfamily and tribe information for such large families is useful, I decided I'd add it to the pages as long as I was sorting all the stubs anyway.


 * I may also cleanup / expand a few pages eventually, bu my biggest focus right now is helping with the Latin verb cleanup on Wikationary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Hey, you stole my idea for an article!! Heh heh, looks like we have a book or two in common.  Nice job.  William I of Schenectady (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm local. I got that Burnett book you used and several others at Haslan's Book Store in St. Pete.  One of the biggest used book stores in the southeast (or at least they claim something along those lines).  In case you were serious, I hardly think being a g-g-g-...-son of someone creates a COI.  Otherwise I wouldn't be allowed to edit distant relatives like Bing Crosby.  Feel free to take a crack at Hamilton Disston.  I have faraway dreams of that one day becoming a WP:FA but I'm not sure there's much more content to be found.  William I of Schenectady (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you've ever seen a picture of George Gandy? I never found one for the article I started.  William I of Schenectady (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, look at that! You're good.  Actually, Gandy lived until 1946 and public domain is only definite for 1922 and earlier.  Bridge construction hadn't even begun at that point.  As old as those pictures look, they may still be copyrighted.  William I of Schenectady (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Moves
Done except for Nypa which is a dab page. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

P roebelinii pix
Didn't mean to offend you by removing your gallery off the P. roebelinii page. What I did before that was create a gallery on Wikimedia Commons that is accessible from the commons link I added. That is kind of the preferred way of doing it, since galleries are kind of regarded as unencyclopaedic on Wikipedia. Anyway, no big deal. Reminds me, maybe I should take some pix of the roebelenii that are growing outside here... Cheers and greets from New Zealand. Kahuroa (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave them, its fine, not a worry. Be nice to expand the article so they could be included in text tho, the inflorescences are pretty nice pix and informative too. Kahuroa (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)