User talk:Rkitko/Archive21

Plumcot, Apriplum, Pluot, or Aprium
Hi, I agree that the title of this page is clunky. The reason that I didn't go with something about interspecific prunus or IS plum, is that the fruit of these three (or four, since two of the names are synonymous) have become agriculturally important and are often confused with one another, but there are potentially many many more hybrids, including completely inedible ones. There are already wikipedia pages for peacotum and nectaplum, hybrids involving peach. I'd been trying for some time to improve those three separate pages, but it was difficult to get away from the hard distinction between plumcot and pluot that I find unattractive (as a botanist with the bias that later generations get the same name as the first-generation hybrid). Nadiatalent (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Color-related merger discussions
Hello! I've seen you commenting on various color-related AfD's and merger discussions, and thought that you might be interested in taking a look at some of the current discussions for mergers and redirects of color articles. The discussions are located at Talk:Redwood (color), Talk:Lion (color), Talk:Camel (color), Talk:Wine (color), Talk:Redwood (color), Talk:Flame (color), Talk:Brandeis blue, Talk:Byzantium (color), Talk:Amethyst (color), and Talk:Robin egg blue.--Slon02 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Image problem
Hello again, I've moved an image from Gallery to Taxobox, to replace one deleted because of licencing problems. Alas, in doing so, the image has rotated 90° of its own volition, leaving it horribly distorted, and there's nothing I can do to remedy it. Any ideas? See: Regards Ptelea (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's a good one. I can't easily figure it out. I wonder if it's something to do with this image in particular or a software glitch. I asked for more advice here: Template talk:Taxobox. It seems like a technical issue to me and might be best to take it to WP:Village pump (technical). Sorry I couldn't help. We'll see what the other folks have to say. Rkitko (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Chamaebatus
Hi Ryan,

I noticed that you deleted Chamaebatus, stating that it was an improper redirect. I do not see what is improper about it; it seems very useful to me. Would you mind if I recreated it?

Neelix (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Neelix. Sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, that redirect may have been a casualty of my cleaning up and moving a bunch of improperly titled infrageneric articles. Per WP:FLORA, subgenera and sections, etc. should be titled at their Genus abbr. Infrageneric-name title, e.g. Rubus subg. Chamaebatus. The rationale behind this is that many times the bald name without the genus can be shared among many different taxa. But you're right, it should be a redirect for now (a disambiguation page later if another taxon shares the name) and I'll reinstate it. My apologies. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rita Milla
Rkitko, I had a Wikipedia page and have noticed that you deleted it. I did not create the page but since it was about me I would like to know why you deleted it. it was deleted 4 years ago but I just became aware of it now. Thank you, Rita Milla Rita Milla (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Rita. The page was deleted under the speedy deletion criterion regarding unambiguous copyright infringement. The article was clearly copied and pasted from other sources that did not license their text so that Wikipedia could use it (e.g. Creative Commons license) or release it into the public domain. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, so the appropriate action to take was to delete the article. There was no non-infringing content, otherwise the infringing content would have just been removed. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Marionberry
Hi, I see that you removed the taxobox from Marionberry. Is there some other template that can be used for a cultivar? I can't find such a thing. I'd hope that it could list the higher taxa to which it belongs. (There is a template for cultivar group, but that isn't really appropriate.) Nadiatalent (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Nadia. Yes, as far as I could tell, the subject of the article is more of a cultivar and not a taxon, so the taxobox shouldn't be present on that article, especially since it just displayed the higher taxa. The only infobox that exists for cultivars that I know of is Infobox cultivar. It has parameters for cultivar group, yes, but you don't need to use that. Since this is a hybrid cultivar, use the hybrid parameter. Personally, I don't think cultivars need an infobox that displays all the higher taxa. The rationale behind including higher taxa on species articles is that it put them into the hierarchical context, whereas the context necessary to understand a cultivar is the hybrid origin and the genus or genera involved. However, if you feel strongly that the higher taxa are necessary, you could open a discussion on the template talk page and argue for including higher taxa (and advertise the discussion widely at WT:PLANTS, for example). Rkitko (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't found the Infobox cultivar template. The hybrid Rubus pages are quite a mess, so I might not get to this in the near future, but it is good to have an idea about what to aim for. I doubt that the higher taxa are needed when presumably the hybrid line can cover the parentage. It would be good to have a visual resemblance between the taxoboxen and what is done with these lower taxa, to show the connectivity. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I applied the cultivar infobox to Marionberry and hope that is ok. For the origin parameter, I used the release date and location, but you could also insert the location and date of first cross. The latter makes a bit more sense to me for this parameter, but there's no guiding documentation on how to use that parameter at Infobox cultivar (perhaps we should come to some decision and include a note on this). Overall, the cultivar infobox does have some visual similarity to the taxobox, and I'm glad it does. I'm still working my way through the Rosales to convert all the leftovers to APG III, so please let me know if you see any other edits that need addressed. If I remove any other taxoboxen, I'll be sure to convert them to the cultivar infobox if appropriate. Rkitko (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Limnocharitaceae
I've started the APG-III cleanup for monocot pages (both on the English Wikipedia and Wikispecies). However, I'm not sure what to do about the page for Limnocharotaceae. This family has been submerged back into Alismataceae, but the information on the page for the family is far more detailed than Alismataceae, and much of it is too general to split into generic pages (which do not yet exist). What do you suggest? And feel free to take action yourself, if you like. I can already see the APG-III cleanup of the monocots will be a larger task than I initially expected, since taxon authorities also have to be updated and corrected for some of the orders and families, in addition to the family mergers and checking correct placement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good question. Perhaps the easiest thing to do is to remove the taxobox and tweak the lead to include a mention that APG III sank the family back into Alismataceae. Any descriptive info that is in the article may not apply more broadly to all Alismataceae, so it's hard to merge, as you noted. You might also want to check in with User:Peter coxhead as he was handling some aspects of the Asparagales, I think. Rkitko (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, just noticed this. I have been all through the Asparagales – all pages should have automatic taxoboxes with the correct APG III placement – but the advantage there is that subfamilies have been provided for almost all the families which have been submerged. So e.g. the old "Alliaceae" page was moved to Allioideae. If there really are no subfamily taxa provided for a merged family, it's more difficult. A short-term solution could be to have a section "Former Limnocharotaceae" on the Alismataceae page. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Do we want all the monocot taxoboxes to be automated?  I know that for the liverworts it would be a watse of time given the inevitable overhaul the classification is likely to undergo soon, but monocot taxonomy seems reasonably stable at this point.  I intend to update all the taxonomy and authorities while I'm at it (both here and on Wikispecies), but only intend to do the non-aroid Alismatales for the time being.  I'm finding that there's a lot more to be corrected than I initially thought, and can't bring myself to simply fix the taxoboxes and leave all the other problems be.  Look, for example, at the changes and basic cleanup I did for Zostera (which included merging Heterozostera per recent authorities and publications). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Is MOBOT unreliable?
Hi Rkitko, I recently edited the article Vangueria madagascariensis, showing that the author was J.F.Gmel., and filled out the synonyms. I cited as a reference for both Tropicos.org, the online site of the Missouri Botanical Garden (MOBOT). Today a user eliminated the citation, and in the edit summary said it was an 'unreliable reference'. Maybe it is, and if so, I will not use it. Do you agree with the editor that it is 'unreliable'? Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Happened to notice this, so I looked at the article. I'd be interested to know why Tropicos is "unreliable", although the Kew World Checklist of Rubiaceae is probably more reliable. I'd also like to know whether the editor in question followed WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT when using Systema Natura as a reference... Peter coxhead (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * >to Peter: I agree that Systema naturae is the source, and, speaking for myself, I showed where I got it from; this is what my two (now removed) Tropicos citations looked like:






 * I guess I could have said "fide" in my citation, as that would be more accurate. Hamamelis (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been looking in detail at selected entries for IPNI and TROPICOS, and am finding lots of errors. I haven't noticed an incorrect authority yet, but wouldn't be surprised to see one.  There are a lot of obsolete species and genera lying around in there without annotation to that effect.  By contrast, the Kew checklists are double-checked and reviewed as they are assembled.  FWIW, I've also noticed a couple of odd authorities in the FNA, in the sense that the FNA citation differs from every other published source I can find, without explanation.  Weird. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I find that the Tropicos editors are very responsive to well-researched nomenclatural corrections, IPNI editors less so, apparently because they don't have time to consider these matters as promptly. I don't know what you would mean by "obsolete" species and genera; Tropicos states its mission as "All of the nomenclatural, bibliographic, and specimen data accumulated in MBG’s electronic databases during the past 25 years are publicly available here." those matters are not taxonomic. There are a lot of mistakes still hanging on from older codes of nomenclature or literature that has priority but has been overlooked, but corrections are happening. FNA may well have corrected something that has been copied unthinkingly through many other sources. ... Nadiatalent (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ulmus minor
Dear Rkitko, I notice the entire History page for Ulmus minor has been deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Elm. Don't know how to correct this, can you help? Regards, Ptelea (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your (attempted) contribution to the article New Guinea Singing Dog!Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? Frustrating, isn't it?  Chrisrus (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful Move
Dear Rkitko, I have tried to change the title of the article on the Japanese beetle to its correct scientific name Popillia japonica, but for reasons unspecified, 'Move' won't allow it. Can you assist once more? Regards,Ptelea (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the target you're trying to move the page to has more than one edit, the move must be performed by an admin who can delete the target page in order to make way for the move. In this case, Popillia japonica has two edits:, so that's why your attempt at the move failed. I, however, will decline to move this for you. As far as I know, Japanese beetle is a really well-known common name for the species. Moving it to the scientific name would probably run afoul of WP:COMMONNAME, in that "Japanese beetle" is the most commonly used name to refer to the species in reliable sources. It would be like moving Oak to Quercus. I don't feel comfortable doing that move for you, but you are more than welcome to open a discussion using the requested move (under the controversial heading) procedure. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment request
I posted a couple of questions in response to your posting at WT:WikiProject Tree of life and would appreciate any comments you may have. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Dioecious plants
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to populate this category. Just be careful in your application of it, for example, not all species in the genus Juniperus are dioecious, so the category should not be placed on the genus article. Only categories that describe the higher taxon should be included, e.g. we also do not categorize genera into categories like "Flora of North America" if not all species are native to North America. For the most part, I see you applying it correctly, so please do carry on. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I am an educator and paleobotanist, so this has been very helpful to organize my research. I apologize for not logging in, I have not logged into Wikipedia in many years and do not remember my log-in information. I'm not sure what you meant about the "Flora of North America" category. I have not added anything to that existing category. As for the junipers, that makes sense even though most juniper species are dioecious. Similarly for the genus Buddleja, I am unsure how to categorize this since only the New World species are dioecious. As for uncategorizing Juniperus, were there any others that you uncategorized? I'm trying to keep track of everything in the category and I've been thrown off by what articles have left the list. I noticed Cucurbitaceae isn't there anymore, which is good since I did not agree with it being in the category in the first place.--99.68.137.198 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Drosera capensis
"... cultivar names, such as Drosera capensis 'Albino', always use single quotes as a matter of convention (ICNCP)."

Says who? Some educationally-challenged Brit? I haven't checked into the history of this particular area of publication practice, but I wouldn't be risking much by saying this is a recent development, within the last 40-50 years, mirroring the horrible degradation of punctuation and grammar with which the UK press has become rife today. It's interesting that the Wikipedia ICNCP article, referenced in your comment on my Talk Page, contains multiple typographic and stylistic errors. See if you can spot them. &mdash; QuicksilverT @ 15:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be rude. It seems you haven't come across this before, so let me explain. Within the discipline of botany, single quotation marks are used to denote a cultivar. I'm not sure how long it's been the standard, but it is. If Wikipedia were to ignore convention and use double quotes for our plant cultivars, it would appear as if we don't know what we're doing. The ICNCP is the authority, not simply a style guide. If written any other way, you're doing it wrong. Your opinions on the "degradation of punctuation and grammar" are irrelevant. The usage of single quotation marks for cultivars is standard within the discipline and all I was trying to do was alert you to that fact. This particular usage was recently incorporated into WP:MOS after this discussion. I admit that I struggle with typography, style, and grammar, so if you see a problem at the ICNCP article then WP:SOFIXIT. Rkitko (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect that what Quicksilver regards as "typographic and stylistic errors" in the ICNCP article are in fact prescriptions of the Code, which can look rather odd if you aren't used to them (e.g. "Group" is always capitalized whereas "grex" is not). As far as I can tell (and I've checked the article carefully) the article's use of quotation marks, capitalization, etc. follows either Wikipedia guidelines or ICNCP rules. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Image problems
Uploading a photo of a hawthorn bush, I notice the process of its own volition rotates the image through 90 degrees; very annoying. Can anything be done to right this? Crataegus monogyna, Ports Down.jpg. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen some uploaded images recently that had this problem, and they were tagged with a "rotation request" template. I can't recall offhand where I saw this last, but it might give you a start on looking for the template.  Presumably, someone able to correct the problem then performs the requested rotation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

More JSTOR
Help again, please! At User talk:Magister Scienta there are six bulleted articles that were recommended to me, and all should be available on JSTOR. I'm looking to work heavily on that article over my winter break and would like to have as many references at hand to ensure broad coverage. Thanks again for your continuing assistance to others in improving Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)