User talk:Rkitko/Archive12

Thanks for the invite, and a quick question
I'd love to join the carnivorous coalition! I'm still new to Wikipedia though, so I do have one question: to join a project, is there some "join group" button I have to press, or do I just edit my name into the list of wikipedians on the project's group page? I figure its probably the latter but I thought I should check first. Thanks.Nepenthologist (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The latter is correct. WikiProjects are relatively informal groups of editors with occasional collaborations, peer review, copyedit help, etc. Put the talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Carnivorous plants, on your watchlist and ask anything you need regarding carnivorous plant article development there. Welcome to the 'pedia; if you have any other questions, let me know. There are a lot of policies and guidelines that you'll bump into and sometimes it's easier to ask than to sift through them all. Cheers! --Rkitko (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks! My name will be there in just a sec! :) Nepenthologist (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pagus editus goofus
I must admit, I wasn't certain about that, but I saw more similar articles where the titles weren't italicized than ones that were, so I assumed that was the preferred way. Sorry! WQUlrich (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll be concentrating on dead-end pages for the foreseeable future.WQUlrich (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries! If you come across it again, you'll know now :-) Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Drosera species numbers
Interesting.. McPherson's Pitcher Plants of the Old World states there are "at least 209" species in the genus (page 23). Any idea why the number might have jumped so much within the space of a year? mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea. I can shoot him an e-mail and find out. I don't have Pitcher Plants of the Old World to compare. It's certainly not due to a glut of new species being described, so I assume his research turned up more species he didn't know of? Or taxonomic opinion (subspecies recognized as species)? My count of Barry Rice's list comes out to 185 and his is pretty up-to-date. Don't know where the 209 figure comes from. --Rkitko (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Barthlott et al. (2007), The Curious World of Carnivorous Plants, which is an excellent, authoritative source if you don't already have it, says approximately 160 in the genus Drosera. The 2007 date is from the English translation of the German version, the date of which I don't know, so that could be new species discovery. --Rkitko (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Years in Science
Have moved all the pages from 1979 (I think) back to 1900 into the appropriate Year in science rather than the Decade so the 20th century is now uniform and all by year; don't know if it would be useful to do the same for the 19th century? It does mean that going from 19XX to "19XX in science" shows all the happenings for that year without having to go to the Decade category. Hugo999 (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

N. lowii - correction of 'abberant'
Hey Ryan, just noticed this one as it came up on my watch list; do you really think that the misspelling is worth preserving given that it is likely to have been introduced during the translation by Lauffenburger? Cheers, Alastair Attenboroughii (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a decent point. I didn't delve that deep into it, I just noticed the sic template in a quote and knew that those spellings aren't normally corrected, especially when the corrected spelling remained associated with the sic template. I'd say that we should strive to faithfully reproduce quoted material as is, though. Might be a better question to ask Mgiganteus1 about, since I assume he put most of the article together, including that section. Nice to hear from you - I love seeing all the attention N. attenboroughii has been getting in the news. --Rkitko (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree about quoting correctly, but where transcription (not translation in this case, apologies!) takes place, propagating and perpetuating obvious errors can be problematic (the bible is an extreme case in point, with a whole subset of society victimised by the wilful mistranslation of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah from the oldest known texts). It could only be accurate as-is were Lauffenburger's transcription referred to as the source, but the reference is simply to Danser's work. This error is not present in the original work or its 2006 reprint, so I think a correction would be appropriate.


 * Thanks, it's certainly a novel experience, having media folk get in touch, but I've grown tired of trying to debunk the rat-eating myth; Stew's casual comment that it was large enough to contain a rodent (coupled with the picture of N. northiana with a mouse in it) now has the media convinced that it's a meat-feasting Audrey III, probably with a similarly magnificent IQ. The species is impressive enough without all the hyperbole; the popular media are not on my friends-list just now!  Take care,  Attenboroughii (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged! Didn't realise this was a transcription error. I've changed it to the correct spelling per this discussion. Thanks, mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Greystone Park1.jpg
File:Greystone Park1.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Greystone Park1.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

please avoid personal remarks; primary topics
Personal remarks, such as, "I'll now refrain from feeding the troll. It was a mistake to even begin to respond." (link), much less those that are personal attacks (which referring to someone as a troll arguably is) really do not belong on article talk pages. See WP:APR and WP:NPA. Thanks.

By the way, since you wrote, "Simply creating a redirect says nothing, absolutely nothing about the article's primary topic. ", you might also review WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Articles have topics, not primary topics; names have primary topics. To say "the article's primary topic" is nonsensical. I suppose a given article might have more than one topic, and one of those topics might be considered primary relatively to the others, but that is not the meaning of the term "primary topic" in Wikipedia. Many names refer to more than one topic. For example "rose" might refer to a flower or someone's surname ("Pete Rose"). "Primary topic" refers to the topic that a given name or term most commonly refers to. Again, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

For any given article, the topic of the article is the primary topic of the name of that article, and is also the primary topic for any name that redirects to that article (otherwise, it should not be the name of the article or redirect). That's why I said the existence of a redirect necessarily implies that the topic of the article referenced by a redirect is the primary topic for the name of that redirect. That's about as close to a truism as you can get in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, call 'em as I see 'em. And I have no time for people with such a thin skin. Your persistence is quite remarkable, but not admirable. --Rkitko (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Call me a troll all you want. I'm just pointing out that that's a personal remark, in case you cared.  Apparently, you don't.  Whatev... --Born2cycle (talk)


 * Not when it's true and irritating as hell. --Rkitko (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you now understand what is meant by "primary topic" in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Already did. But I think you already knew I disagree with your interpretations. --Rkitko (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hesperian 01:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right. --Rkitko (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Be sure and read that entire discussion, not just one side of it. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't need to. One can anticipate your reply. And I read it back when it was fresh. --Rkitko (talk) 02:05, 27 August

2009 (UTC)

Sunscald, etc.
Just to draw a line under the above. Thanks for getting rid of Sun.. I wasn't sure how to, seeing as it's a duplicate anyway. I will need to reword more extensively it seems. Your a botanist then - useful contact. I prefer Elves to Trolls anyway. Diolch yn fawr. Rosser Gruffydd 11:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Drosera cuneifolia
Hi,

I saw you added the stub to the D. cuneifolia again. I am wondering how much more information you require for the stub thing to be removed. The plant is solely found on the Cape, so there is pretty limited information available about it. I think i covered about everything which there is to know about the plant. But i am open to other parts of info you might be missing there Thanks anyways, Pim van der Most (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! I tend to have a more rigorous definition of stub than most, but by most accounts, this article is still a stub. It's a good beginning, though. I'd have to say at least three good paragraphs constitute a "start"-class article. You can read the general project definitions of what a stub is at WikiProject Carnivorous plants/Assessment. There's plenty to say about this plant, though! It's had a long, rich taxonomic history. Much could be said about when it was discovered, described, when synonyms were described (see this link for a good resource on that), when those taxa were reduced to synonymy, etc. You can use the suggestions found at WikiProject Plants/Template for what to include. Some sections won't apply, of course. I've been going through and creating stub articles for many Drosera species. See the List of Drosera species and look at subgenus Ergaleium. I've filled in the red links for two of the three sections and I'm working on the last. I did the same for all of the Utricularia. One thing I will ask is that you please include your sources. Follow my example with the tags in the other articles I mentioned. It's quick and easy and will help other editors expand on your work. Thanks and let me know if I can help in any way. I'm sure I'll get to that article sometime. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Drosera adelae
Hey Ryan, Great to hear from you again! The second meeting was good, but I thought the first was the best. Sorry for being a pain in the arse ;). Thanks for explaining everything in detail. I read through those pages, but it still seemed my situation didn't apply. All the info I'm providing is based on my personal "research" with these plants, so now that you mention that, I could see why it wouldn't be allowed either. For example, my D. adelae plants, when subjected to 80 degrees F started to slow in growth and look less healthy. When I moved them to 65 F temps, they started growing like crazy. Same goes for the low range. I understand that the information on wiki is supposed to be mostly factual, such as location, phylogeny, etc. But it seems that wikipedia is the first place people go when they want to learn how to grow a plant. I figured it would be great if I was able to make it easier to find cultivation instructions (since that info isn't recommended for an encyclopedia) rather than having to search for hours like I did when I first started. But that's unfortunate that there are so many restrictions. I guess I'll just have to let everyone find the pages on their own then. Thanks again for the clarification and hope to see you again in the near future. Take care, Aaron Sundewman (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology
Hello - you are one of the folks that my apology is meant for --- Alice (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Botanical authorities don't include the date
Hi. You recently removed a date from the "authority" variable of a taxobox in an article I have been watching. You stated in the description of your edit: "Botanical authorities don't include the date."

That's news to me. (Not that there aren't many things that are news to me...) I frequently find the year included in the authority, especially in the Kew monocot checklist. It has always appeared to be a matter of the author's preference.

Is this non-inclusion of the date a Wikipedia standard? Or someone else's standard? I frequently find the year useful and would prefer to include it, but am willing to avoid the year if there is a good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay L09 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot to sign. Jay L09 (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's common botanical nomenclature, as opposed to the ICZN, which requires dates. The ICBN does not specifically prohibit dates in botanical authorities, but nearly all peer-reviewed journals don't accept that format. See the archived discussion we had on this topic a while ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive15 You'll notice I used to advocate for the use of dates, but Hesperian's arguments convinced me that if we include them, we'll look like we don't know what we're doing or we'll look foolish for formatting our entries in a way that's not accepted in most serious publications. I think that's a good enough reason to avoid including dates. Since that discussion, I now include a brief statement on when the species or taxon was described, by whom, and sometimes where. I take great care in describing the history of a particular species, especially if it has included multiple rank moves. Hope that helps. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I took away from the past discussion that it would be OK if we linked to the reference itself. See Buxbaumia, where the publication is linked to a reference in this way. The FNA includes a full citation after genus and species name, which is too much for a Taxobox, but isn't much different. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't want to rehash the arguments of the past, but the reason I wanted to include the date in the articles I created was to provide information on the date of authorship. Now I just include a short paragraph on that subject and provide only the author citation in the taxobox. I now agree with Hesperian, Curtis, etc. that we should either include just the author abbreviations or a full citation. If you put dates in there without the full citation, you run into formatting issues, such as whether you use a comma or parenthesis and there's really no set standard for that, the FNA aside. Then again, this is small potatoes, so I'm not a strong advocate of my position. --Rkitko (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing me to the policy discussion. I will refrain from including dates in the taxobox. Jay L09 (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well... I'd be an awful editor if I let you think that's policy or that there was consensus generated from that discussion. I was just informing you of past debate. As you can see above, EncycloPetey disagrees with me and I respect his opinions. I think there's an argument for each side, but it needs wider discussion before we claim it as policy or even a guideline! I prefer it now as simple botanical convention in most publications. If you think we should revisit that linked discussion, we can open a new discussion at WP:PLANTS. --Rkitko (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Daikon
Hello, Rkitko. Since you have been working on plant-related articles, I'm writing this to ask for your input. I'm not sure whether you're active or not, but if you are around, would you care to look into these? And following discussion could be found at Talk:Daikon. As far as I've known, terms that become English do not render "its original term in the language other than English" in the intro, but the newbie insists otherwise. So I think WP:3O would be necessary. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mimosa Pudica
Hi Rkitko (talk) I want to reach consensus. TickleMe Plant is the most used name in science and educational catalogs. Mimosa pudica is sold under the trademarked name TickleMe Plant. It is helpful to all that know the plant by TickleMe Plant to be able to find it easily under Wikipedia. What source is more reliable than the National Gardening Associations link to show that TickleMe Plant is one of the most important names of choice when searching for information about this plant. Please let me know what I can provide to reach consensus. I will not revert the edit as you suggested, at this time, as I am more interested in a solution that will reach consensus. Thank you. LegumeLegume (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rkitko Here is some additional information from my research. The book, Sprout Your Own Leafy Wonders: Complete Mini Garden Kit With Seeds, Peat Pellets, and Planters, March 2009 use the name tickle-me-plant as indicated at the following link In addition there were numerous newspaper and magazine articlse using the tickleme plant such as in the Baltimore Sun I placed this new information on the discussion page to support my reverted edit by adding additional sources as requested. LegumeLegume (talk) 7:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Subfamilia line in taxobox
Hi,

I notice that you removed the subfamilia line from the Crataegus scabrida page. There are hundreds of those on species pages in Rosaceae, would your bot be able to cleanly remove them all? That would be neat. Best wishes, Nadiatalent (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I wish I knew enough coding to safely remove that info from all the taxoboxen you refer to, but I don't really have the time to learn. I usually just do simple tasks with BotanyBot that AWB can do automatically without much code input from me. It's not a huge disaster if it the subfamilia line sits in the other taxoboxen for a while; the guideline for taxobox usage only suggests keeping the higher taxonomy to a minimum for genera and species articles to avoid the potential creep of other innumerable ranks from showing up. Sorry to disappoint. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

quercus libani
Hi, thanks for the move, i wasn't sure what to call the article, this is my second clumsy venture into botany, i was planning to do some more research about the two articles (this and orchis tridentata) but i have loads to do already. shouldn't we move Lebanon cedar too to Cedrus libani? Eli +  19:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. The article you created looks pretty good. I went ahead and moved Lebanon Cedar to Cedrus libani. Thanks for point it out. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again mate, would you take a look at Atlas Cedar, I'm sorry i did not move it myself, the last time i moved a page i did not contribute to (that was yesterday) hell broke loose. One more thing, my browser flashes this reference in red so don't go there and maybe remove it for the sake of other ppls PCs Sorry for the inconvenience Eli  +  21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)