User talk:Rkitko/Archive9

User:Cottonapple4
I am amazed at your patience in cleaning up after this user! If it had been me I fear I would have long since had harsh words with him. Gdr 23:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My apologies for spamming your watchlist. You're right that it's not necessary to avoid these redirects. Gdr 23:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Higher plant taxonomy categories
Thanks for the heads up; it amounted to a reinstatement of the dicots. I have fixed that. What I haven't fixed is the problem that we still have a Category:Magnoliopsida; but I'll put that on my to-do list as well. Hesperian 23:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Baobob
New to Wikipedia, I think this is how to reply? Anyway, after looking at Baobab, they seem to be the same thing. I've always learned to spell it as Baobob, from books, african-related games (ie: Sim Safari) and so on. You can also find a few references to a Baobob tree, put I suppose this is a mispelling. It might be it's own species, or sub-species, but I am no expert. (Avalik (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Elm cultivars
Could you please work your Admin. magic once more to restore the following to their correct page titling as elm species Ulmus glabra / Ulmus parvifolia cultivars, and not as hybrid cultivars, minus their specific epithet, as mis-redirected by an antipodean contributor? The three cultivars are: Horizontalis (Weeping Elm), Lutescens (Golden Wych Elm), and Todd. Thank you, Ptelea (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ptelea, I think you are confusing redirects with page moves. I created new redirects from the full scientific names to the articles which were, at that time, already placed at " Cultivar name (elm cultivar) ". These redirects were later updated to " Ulmus 'Cultivar name' " by RussBot following page moves to that particular format by yourself. None of those particular articles  were moved from their full scientific names by me. Having said that, I fully support your requested page moves - I'll leave any moving in the hands of Rkitko, if he is in agreement with the request. Melburnian (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since these are cultivars of an individual species and not hybrid cultivars, it would be consistent with the other elm cultivar articles. We attempted to come to consensus for WP:NC (flora) on hybrid article naming, but there was some disagreement. We may open that discussion again in the future. I'll go ahead and move the articles. --Rkitko (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quercus alba
Hi Rkitko. I note that you overturned my move of Quercus alba to White oak using Naming conventions (flora) as explanation. I have read that guideline and it does make sense, though it doesn't appear to apply in the case of White oak. Indeed, the wording seems to me to suggest that the common name is the one that should be used: "Plants that are sufficiently significant economically or culturally should be given a page describing their use, history and associations, with their common name as a page title." I came to the White Oak article via Common_names as I looked at those examples during a discussion on Big Ben as to which was the better name for the article - Big Ben or Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster. The common name is given as an example of a widely used common name, so I was surprised when I clicked on the article link and found that the scientific name was used instead. Just in case the Common names article was incorrect, I looked at Google books to see which term reliable sources most use. Quercus alba - 2,370 sources - White Oak - 23,900 apparent sources - I say apparent, as there will be some in there which are not referring to the tree. However, Naming conventions, which is what I used as reference when making the move, does say Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject, and the quick and dirty measurement of the Google Books search does indicate that White Oak is the more widely used term among verifiable reliable sources. I am further persuaded that "White oak" is the most appropriate title as that is the name used 33 times in the article, compared to 7 uses for "Quercus alba". Would you take a look over my comments and findings and give me your thoughts? Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 16:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ungnadia speciosa
This article should be redirected back to Ungnadia because it is a monotypic genus. --☺☻☼Pomeapplepome☼☻☺ (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Replies
Hi, SilkTork! In response to your post on my talk page (User talk:Rkitko), you're right. That was a hasty move on my part and I will reverse it. We tend to get quite a few pages moved at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality log and the general agreement in the convention and at the project is to maintain plant articles at the scientific name, unless it meets one of the exceptions you noted. I should pay attention more when I make my rounds! Quercus alba certainly meets that exception. Eventually the goal will be to have two articles, one that describes the cultural use, properties of all the various products, and history thereof at white oak and the botanical properties, history, and life cycle, etc. at Quercus alba. But this article isn't nearly long enough to split.

And in response to your message regarding my conflict with Rotational, I really would appreciate mediation. It's drawn on too long and we've proven that we can't come to an agreement on our own. I had tried a WP:THIRD once (here), but I don't think it was very helpful. Of course the MoS is only a guideline and it is stated that exceptions are allowed, but I still don't see how Rotational's preferences (for images, infoboxes, and headings) are an improvement. It seems more to me like an editor trying to protect his articles to maintain his style preferences, not to mention his POINTy edits reported in the last AN/I. I would welcome mediation for this if you're up to the challenge. How would you do this? Set up a user subpage for this? Hopefully Rotational will agree to discuss our disagreements and maybe we can finally put this to rest. I won't have much time in the near future to dedicate to the discussions, so I don't promise swift responses, but I'm dedicated to a resolution or at the very least civil discussion. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Civil discussion is certainly the way forward. I'll get in touch with Rotational. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've set up a page where we can talk - User_talk:SilkTork/Rkitko_-_Rotational_Discussion.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It would assist matters if both of you refrained from reverting each others edits while we are in discussion. In addition, Rotational, it would be helpful if you didn't revert others' corrections to your non-standard edits. I would say that you are welcome to make non-standard edits, but if someone objects or adjusts your edits back to what is in the guidelines, then you do not persist in the matter. The proper route for ensuring your non-standard edits remain on Wikipedia is to gather consensus through discussion. Engaging in edit wars and trying to force your way forward is not going to win you many friends, will make you upset, will disrupt the project, and will be unlikely to ensure your edits remain on Wikipedia. You cannot watch all the articles you have edited all the time, and eventually the work you have done will be unpicked as people come upon it, see it as not following guidelines and so will put the article back.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tropical Greenhouses for Vegetables
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tropical Greenhouses for Vegetables. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Unusual? Quite TalkQu  21:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

id please
Another Stylidium id please, my punk guess is S. pulchellum. I've got another couple of images, also better-than-nothing quality. cygnis insignis 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta. Mt Clarence is in the city itself. This is on the border of the Jarrah Forest and Warren regions, not the one to the east. The height is right though. This image shows the leaves, which seems to exclude my guess and parts of this shot are actually in focus!, revealing the arrangement and 'trigger'. cygnis insignis 04:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced! -), can you fix up the infrageneric arrangement? Perhaps we need an article on too, or a section in the 'general' article. Maybe a description sometime. Cephalotus next month ... cygnis insignis 05:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Grrr!, I'm inspired to catch the [expletive deleted]s. Poaching of many species is a big problem around here, hopefully the value realised overseas will inspire greater levels of protection of SWA's assets. It is tragic enough to see new development in this biodiversity hotspot, I have to bite my tongue when I meet those responsible for land clearing, but this had heritage value to the community. The plant is well loved in the region.
 * I agree that waiting for new info on the arrangement is worthwhile, I suspect you have explained how shaky it was before. Thanks for the help. cygnis insignis 06:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still contemplating all that, and I have yet to finish reading the pdf, but by next week we should have improved images of that species. In the meantime here is another snapshot that I'm guessing is S. violaceum, the leaves are shown at the bottom right of this little field note. Cheers, cygnis insignis 05:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice, cool! I will check the 'roll' to see if I have better one. I may be able to some better equipment to the site in the next couple of days. I will check again, but I think my S. violaceum image was reasonably close to the place where Brown first collected it. Thanks, cygnis insignis 13:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No trick of the angle, this discarded image shows two of them. I had 5 minutes to get what I could, but I'm looking forward to returning. cygnis insignis 14:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I went and did a quick survey this morning, leaving the area was like coming down off some wild drug! I would lift my eye from a targeted species and find hundreds of others all around my feet. Still processing the images, but I got a couple of the small communities of Drosera, Stylidium and mosses in their seasonally wet habitat.
 * The image above was the only mutated variant I could locate. I will note that, seemingly, only the first flowers to present on the scape seem to display this variation, that it was very close to the same location, and the local population was confined to a small area. The other specimens I found were typical. The example given is prostrate because of a storm a few days ago, the mutation is clearer despite the lower resolution. It was found by a mate of mine, when we had all but given up, and a few minutes after he suggested adding a petal or two in photoshop :-) cygnis insignis 14:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image move
Hi Rkitko! I was just checking on the P. moranensis article and noticed that the infobox image had been replaced. Apparently, my badly named commons image got moved to the generic Pinguicula_moranensis.jpg, a file name for which there already existed an image in the en.wikipedia. Could you rename this latter image (I don't have the admin privileges to do so), or suggest a better solution? --NoahElhardt (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Quercus alba
Looking at the article, I agree that there probably should be two articles, one about the commercial properties and one about the species itself. Unfortunately, I don't really know enough about either to write the article myself; botany isn't my area of expertise, and I only moved the page because I'm trying to clean up all the non-species page titles. I didn't realize there was controversy here since this type of thing is usually uncontroversial; I suppose I should have checked the move log first. For the meantime, I don't have a problem with the page being left at White oak until it can be split. --TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Chordate
I've undone your recent adjustments to the images at Chordate, as they made a complete mess of the layout on a widescreen monitor (these are becoming increasingly common, and this makes image lauout more difficult). MOS does not forbid sizing of image. If you have other suggestions about image sizes, please discuss them at Talk:Chordate. --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mohos
Thanks, and I appreciate your doing the hard work!

My question now is whether to have "Mohoidae" in the taxobox, or retain "Meliphagidae" until the AOU and the world-list makers change. If they do&mdash;sequencing more of the genome could suggest something different. Another option is "Meliphagidae (or Mohoidae)". My feeling is that we should be, if anything, slower than the AOU, which has an embarrassing history of reversing itself. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Taxoboxes
Hi Rkitko, thanks for the welcome to WikiProject Plants. I left this message on Hesperian's talk page, and I notice you also seem expert in this area. Any suggestions? Thanks. First Light (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm not completely lost now, and I know where to go for help. First Light (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Schulzer von Müggenburg
Thanks for looking at this and removing the no more applicable. Tusbra (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cats on Redirs
I had no idea that this was even possible. Cool. Guettarda (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Stylomecon
Do we do the write up about the species on the genus page, when there is only one species in the genus? My understanding of this issue is unclear, thanks for any clarity you can help me with on this issue. Hardyplants (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tree peony
After moving Rock's peony to the far more commonly used Paeonia rockii, I discovered that even more sources call it Paeonia suffruticosa. But then, in China maybe it's still rockii. And some say rockii is a subspecies of suffruticosa, others say it's a synonym. In other words, I'm confused. Is there a definitive source? Even IPNI left me a bit confused. Thanks. First Light (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw it in this 2004 book, The Genus Paeonia, p. 204. I also found a couple of websites that supported it, but it looks like what you are showing is more authoritative. And that move I did - for such an absolutely overwhelming case, should I still have put a note on the talk page, or requested moves page? Thanks. First Light (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)