User talk:Rkitko/Archive29

Angiosperm genera
I'm not really sure what's going on with Category:Angiosperm genera (and now I see you've made it not a container category). Would a Category:Basal angiosperm genera be worthwhile (I presume the contents would be the ANITA grade genera)?. The category name "Angiosperm genera" doesn't clearly indicate that the contents should be basal genera. Is there anything else that belongs in the category (surely it not intended to include every genus of angiosperms). Plantdrew (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd thought too that articles categorized into Category:Angiosperm genera shouldn't have been until I realized how the category is used. I think it would be useful to design a set of categories for genus articles which did allow this category to be a container. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's Category:Plant genera as a container above Category:Angiosperm genera. We sort of have two parallel systems of taxon classification. There's rank based categories (i.e. Foo genera or Foo families), and rank-less categories (Fooaceae, Foooideae, Fooeae). Obviously, the rank-less categories usually correspond to articles on a formal rank, but the category itself could admit all sorts of subranks. Fooaceae might have subcategories that correspond to subfamilies, tribes and genera, while also directly including (not subcategorized) articles on genera and species. It seems more straight forward to me to have the rank based categories as containers. And I think I've managed to confuse myself, and probably you as well (as I'm now realizing what I called "rank based" could be organized by informally ranked nested clades; but still, "Eudicot genera" says something pretty clear about the rank of articles so categorized, in a way that "Eudicots" does not). Plantdrew (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @PlantDrew – categorization of plant articles is one of those issues we've discussed at WT:PLANTS, but not written up well on a project page, so it gets lost. The scheme is supposed to be as at File:Plant_categorization_actual.svg so far as I understood it at the time. Levels above order aren't shown but it goes up in the same way. There are in effect several parallel systems: one which follows the APG hierarchy of taxa from species upwards, another for genera, another for families, etc. The complication arises when levels are skipped, e.g. there are genera not placed in a family, families not placed in an order, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I found the discussion associated with your diagram, and don't have much to add to that; you were seeing the same thing as me (your "brown categories" being my "rank based categories"). I'm not quite sure what the benefit of container categories for taxon classification is, but it seems that the "brown categories" could be containers, at least above the lowest level (i.e. "FAMILY genera" categories would not be containers as they would need to directly include articles on genera). Plantdrew (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Ryan, sorry to take over your talk page!) Actually on reflection, the complication is different from what I wrote above. It arises because of the view that categories should not be very small, although I can't at present find where this is written down. Suppose order Xales has one family Xaceae with two genera Y and Z. The articles on Y and Z need to be put into a "... genera" category. They can't go in either "Xaceae genera" or "Xales genera" because there aren't enough. So they have to go higher, which instantly stops that category being a container.
 * One solution would be to accept very small categories, even of one member, for the special case of taxonomic hierarchies. Then the higher level ones could be containers and the category structure would be much cleaner. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, folks. Yes, sorry for the delay. I've been a bit busy as of late, but I saw Plantdrew's edits and wanted to at least note in an edit I undid why the category didn't seem like a container to me. I think Peter's last post here is on the nose. I'd rather not have small category exceptions for taxonomy categories; categories are for browsing related articles, so a rigid hierarchy that produces small categories for the sake of maintaining every rank leads to a more frustrating browsing experience. I don't particularly like clicking through to small genera categories, especially if a family contains only ~10 species - they should all be in one category at the family rank. Likewise, Amborella would be the only article in, so it is instead (and I just did this) added to . Since "basal angiosperms" is a grade and could not clearly be a taxon, I'd rather not have those be included in something like . So really the only option for some of those genera, if there are not enough genera to create a large enough , for example, would be to include them in . Instead of a container category, it could get the Diffuse category tag. Hope that makes sense on my perspective. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A Diffuse category tag would be helpful. I did notice when I started clearing out that there were a lot of basal genera included, but didn't quite make the connection that this was really intentional (having the container category tag at the time certainly misled me). I think I would have figured out the intended contents if the tag had been diffuse category. Plantdrew (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that whatever is done, it isn't entirely satisfactory. A 1:1 match between the taxonomic hierarchy and the classification hierarchy produces a large number of very small categories, which isn't desirable and is frowned on within Wikipedia. (Can either of you point me to where this is written down? I'm sure I've seen it.)
 * On the other hand, having some genera listed at the top level category and others in subcategories of this like  (which is 3 levels down) is confusing, and may imply that Ranunculaceae genera are somehow "lower" or "less important" than those listed at, whereas the reality is simply that there are at least 9 genera in this family but not in the families of the genera at.
 * The present set-up is probably the least worst solution, but does need clearer explanations of how the categories should be used. The "diffuse" tag is useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dorothea Dix
Four years passed, and I'm sure that some trusting IPs can edit this page. But you can lower to "pending changes" if you want. --George Ho (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've pending changes protected it per a request at WP:RFUP, but please see my comments [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&action=view&diff=585088794 here]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
  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) A year ago, you were the 330th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 330th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)