User talk:Rkitko/Archive25

WPPLANTS
Hi Rkitko, I see that you have deleted twice in the past. Do you mind if I recreate this redirect to ? I know that I, for one, would tag more plant articles if this 12-keystrokes-saving shortcut existed. jonkerz ♠talk 20:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There's already WP Plants and WP Plant. I've been too busy to really care, so I have no problem with it. Back then I was having trouble with maintaining the assessments for the project and my bot would hit these redirects and not recognize them. That just meant I was a crappy coder since I didn't know regex coding; now that I do, I don't have the time to run the bot! As an aside, I recall seeing a bot running around somewhere changing these redirects to the full template name but perhaps that was my imagination. Ah well, it seems a silly point now. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It never occurred to me to check WP Plants or WP Plant, pretty silly I know :) I went ahead and recreated the template anyway, because when it comes to tagging, I'm lazy and usually gamble by typing an all-caps shortcut such as, , etc. etc. If no such shortcut exists, I usually give up and move on. I'm glad your bot is working better now :) Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 00:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ignaz Pilat
Hi Rkitko, would you review an article for moving over redirect? The landscape architect (and aparently a botanist who is a naming author, though I have yet to find a plant he's an author of): Ignaz Pilat to Ignatz Anton Pilát. I've made some changes to the article, replacing "Ignaz" with "Ignatz"/"Pilat" with "Pilát". If you think I should change them back, I'll trust your judgement. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Sorry that took a few days. That is strange that IPNI has the author in the database but when you do a query of plants authored under that abbreviation you get no results. I generally trust IPNI and this seemed like an uncontroversial move, so it's all done. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure what's going on here, but I found at least one mention of the author abbreviation in fungi (Steccherinum):
 * Steccherinum pulcherrimum (Berk. & M. A. Curtis) Banker
 * Steccherinum pulcherrinum (Berk. & M. A. Curtis) I. A. Pilat
 * An orthographical error published under his name and thus he was given an abbreviation? Perhaps he authored other legitimate names. Rkitko (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing the move, and for trying mightily to find an example of his authorship. He inventoried a lot of plants in New York's Central Park (as explained in The naturally occurring historical and extant flora of Central Park, New York City, New York 1857–2007) and possibly made a few errors there, too, according to the text. Thanks once more, Hamamelis (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Piranha plants
Like you, I don't want an informative page on carnivorous plants to turn into a long list of video game references, and I guess I should take the fact that somehow the ubiquitous Mario Brothers enemy does not have a Wiki page as a sign that it's not as notable as I thought. What I don't want to find out is that you think triffids and Audrey II belong because books and movies are serious art, but video games are not as important. You mentioned reciprocity, so are you saying that a well sourced Piranha Plant page would be a prerequisite? Because, of course, this isn't just some video game reference (I didn't mention the ones in Duck Tales!) but a frequently recurring enemy from the top-selling and best known video game series of all time. Due to this, Google hit counts are very close for "Audrey II," "Triffid," and "piranha plant." (Argh: original research!) Now I want to find a reference wherein many people's first exposure to carnivorous plants is thru piranha plants. (This would be unlike turtles, fish, squid, plumbers, and other ubiquitous examples of Mario enemies, since I imagine (yes, unsourced again) that people encounter those notions before SMB.) One final note: one of the top Google searches involving piranha plants is "are piranha plants real?" which makes me think there would be a benefit to a nice reciprocal link between two pages, one of which has yet to exist. --Signor Giuseppe (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I, along with others, originally cleaned up the popular culture references in 2006. This is what it looked like before we did that: . You'll notice there had been references to SMB included. In complying with WP:IPC, specifically the suggested criteria in WP:IPCEXAMPLES, we removed those mentions. Has it ever been stated in SMB canon that Piranha plants are meant to portray carnivorous plants? I couldn't find a reliable reference to suggest such a relationship. And no, reciprocity is the idea that, if Piranha plants are portraying carnivorous plants, it is much more important to link to carnivorous plants on a Piranha plant page, if one existed, than it would be to mention Piranha plants on the carnivorous plant article because they have little to no meaning of the overall topic of the article. Popular culture sections do not exist to force non-reciprocal links like that into the article and are usually considered WP:CRUFT or unnecessary WP:TRIVIA.
 * If you want to search for reliable sources that seem to fit the suggested criteria at WP:IPCEXAMPLES, I'm willing to reconsider. If you do locate any, bring the issue up at Talk:Carnivorous plant instead of my talk page so that others who watch the page can also discuss it if they want to. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality scale Hypnales
Hi, I've extended the Hypnales article. You may wish to reassess it. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice work on expanding the article with decent information, but I notice you didn't WP:CITE any of your sources. Might have just been an oversight, but it's crucial that we include references to the original sources to verify the accuracy of the statements. It also helps guard against vandalism in the future since I could check that indeed the sources did not suggest some odd fact for that moss. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm aware, and I usually cite meticiously. However, these additions I translated from the Hypnales. I don't know why, but other wikis don't often have in-line citations. I know two bryologists that may be able to help, but it may be months before I'll be in contact with either. The reason I extended the article is that I specialize in trilobites, and in looking for sources on Weymouthia I found out it is also a moss genus from within the Hypnales. I'll see if I can reconstruct something shortly. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I have added some information on emerging insights in the relationships within the group. This and my previous additions have now been sourced. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

TFA
Coming soon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Drosera regia
This is a note to let the main editors of Drosera regia know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 10, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 10, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Drosera regia is a carnivorous plant in the sundew genus Drosera and is endemic to a single valley in South Africa. The tentacle-covered leaves can capture large prey, such as beetles, moths, and butterflies. The tentacles of all Drosera species are specialised stalked glands on the leaf's upper surface that produce a sticky mucilage. The leaves are considered active flypaper traps that respond to captured prey by bending to surround it. The genus name Drosera comes from the Greek word droseros, meaning "dew-covered". The specific epithet regia is derived from the Latin for "royal", a reference to the "striking appearance" of the species. It has many unusual relict characteristics not found in most other Drosera species, and these factors, combined with molecular data from phylogenetic analysis, contribute to the evidence that it possesses some of the most ancient characteristics within the genus. Of the two known populations of D. regia, the higher altitude site appears to be overgrown and is essentially extirpated. The lower altitude site is estimated to have about 50 mature plants, making it the most endangered Drosera species, since it is threatened with extinction in the wild. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Precious
  Carnivorous plants

Thank you for quality articles, with research background in plant systematics and ecology, on Carnivorous plants, such as Drosera regia, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

漢の高祖の話
高祖皇帝におかれましては、市場の艇長に身を起こしたまい、三尺の拳を腰に携え、白蛇を石垣山にて切り、義塀を揚げ、三年にした大導寺、5年にしてヒッグス龍氏を発見し、代疎400年の歴史を作ったのでございます？？

--えいえすあい (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)