User talk:Meteorquake

Welcome!

Hello, Meteorquake, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Nomination of William Main Page for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Main Page, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Main Page until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erigeron[edit]

hello. Are you working on the Erigeron genus? Khitrostin (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically but there's a need for people to understand them so I added some photos and a missing page for some globally spread ones :) I do have plenty of photos and experience with the ones I know (for the Conyza section: bonariensis, sumatrensis, canadensis, floribundus). Meteorquake (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I had a bonariensis growing on my roof so I clicked it and uploaded it Khitrostin (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Meteorquake. Thank you for your work on Alcea striata. Dcotos, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, Meteorquake Nice work! please add more specific categories. Cheers!!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Dcotos}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dcotos (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I've just added categories for the new one I've made, it worked easily. I'll create a list of categories to cut and paste for future usage! Meteorquake (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use complete sentences; these are encyclopedia articles, not catalog listings. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @UtherSRG! can you mention a specific example you are referring to. Many thanks. Meteorquake (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent Alcea articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I need to understand which lines in particular, since what I've provided is a fairly normal description. In general, I think they are more readable than most the plant descriptions with detail on wikipedia, since I've avoided jargon where possible, for example using 'flower stalk' instead of 'petiole' etc. A good many of the plant articles' descriptions actually make themselves incomprehensible to all but expert readers because they can be endless specialised words. However there will always be a residue of technical information, which I place at the end of the description in as short a way as possible, which is also common practice.

The idea in providing the description is that other people will add on sections for horticultural, medical usages etc. They then appear in automated ways in other places, for example the descriptions of plants put here will appear on iNaturalist against the plant.

If you take at random https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcea_digitata perhaps you could highlight which lines you feel are written in sentences and those that are not. Meteorquake (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say pedicel there not petiole, but can't see the edit option. Meteorquake (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the proffered article, the Distribution section is a single sentence fragment, as are several of the Description lines. Like I said, we are an encyclopedia, so we need to write in in complete sentences. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to put the references immediately after the assertion they are supporting, not just as a list at the end of the section. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with references is that they apply to the whole section there rather than individual paragraphs, which I'd felt might be obvious from the nature of the sources in respect to the content description, and from the reader encountering the sources only at the description end, implying it covers whatever has been written in the description up till the reference.

In the past I'd put "Sources:" so that it would cover the entire section but that was removed. Obviously I can repeat the same set of references after every sentence but that seems rather awkward. I'll look at your other points in a moment. Meteorquake (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just slow down and put some thought into it. Do they all provide all of the same informaiton? If so, then you don't really need 5 references when 2 will do. Do some of the references provide a broader set of data while others provide more fine detail? Then pick and choose which reference better supports each assertion. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience botanically you have to consult all the references. A plant in Turkey may be white flowered, but pink in Greece; it may grow very tall and narrow and neat in one country, but be broad and tangly in another; it may grow at high altitude in a hot country but at low altitude in a cool one. One country may have a lot of transitional forms to another species present in that country, which may not occur in another. References also tend to only give the minimum of details that are relevant to separating from similar species in the region concerned and so may miss details relevant when considering a much wider region. So generally you'll find an individual work is good for its own country or region but is not enough to give you the bigger picture of a plant's forms across many countries. Meteorquake (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as may be, ensure the correct references are attached to the assertions that need them. The broad "end of section" listing is insufficient for verification. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, don't just put all refs on all assertions, as that's a form of reference bombing. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly look up reference bombing. But what you're suggesting isn't how botanical referencing for a description works. Botanical referencing for any description takes the form of the notable works consulted, with individual extra references noted for unusual details. So if you state a flower is white, the reference will be that it's white in Europe and also white in Asia, so you have both references. If you just reference the European one that is insufficient, because plants are not uniform like for example maths where it's sufficient to reference 1+1=2 in Britain and quote that for the world. What you generally have is a description followed (or preceded) by works consulted for that description, so that your description is known to have taken account all those works. You won't find descriptions with a policy of individual features being allocated to individual works as that's not a good approach. Meteorquake (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a botanical reference book. We are n encyclopedia. We have different standards. Look at some more well-established botanical articles here, like Coleus neochilus. While it also needs some work, you can see how what I'm suggesting of you is done. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]