User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 6

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 10, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 10, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^™ and © 20:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Archaea are a group of single-celled microorganisms. They have no cell nucleus or any other membrane-bound organelles within their cells. In the past they were viewed as an unusual group of bacteria, but since the Archaea have an independent evolutionary history and show many differences in their biochemistry from other forms of life, they are now classified as a separate domain in the three-domain system. In this system the phylogenetically distinct branches of evolutionary descent are the Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya. Archaea are further divided into four recognized phyla, but many more phyla may exist. Of these groups the Crenarchaeota and the Euryarchaeota are most intensively studied. Classification is still difficult, since the vast majority have never been studied in the laboratory. Archaea and bacteria are quite similar in size and shape, although a few archaea have very unusual shapes. Despite this visual similarity to bacteria, archaea possess genes and several metabolic pathways that are more closely related to those of eukaryotes: notably the enzymes involved in transcription and translation. Initially, archaea were seen as extremophiles that lived in harsh environments, such as hot springs and salt lakes, but they have since been found in a broad range of habitats, including soils, oceans, and marshlands. Archaea are now recognized as a major part of Earth's life and may play roles in both the carbon cycle and the nitrogen cycle. (more...)

The Plant List

Hello, with your regard to your remarks on my talk page, I respectfully disagree with you. Zabanio (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? An error-filled web database that's been around for less than a month can hardly qualify as a core topic in botany. We don't rate any on-line database as a core topic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic taxoboxes

Thanks for saying the same thing I've been saying for months now,[1] that one has to know something about the taxonomy of the organism to create the automatic taxoboxes for it. I was warned to go gender neutral on the name. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding prod tag to English phonetic alphabet

Please don't restore a {{prod}} tag to an article after it has been contested. The way WP:Proposed deletion (prod) works is that it only goes through if there is no objection. If you want to voice an opinion regarding deletion, you can visit the WP:AfD discussion I just started, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English phonetic alphabet. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I used the wrong tag initially, I guess. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm doing

Presently I am looking over 1,100 articles and categories that are subcategorized under Category:Algae and personally reviewing their tags and seeing if {{WikiProject Algae}} was present prior to me editing the page. If that tag was already present, I am skipping it and if I am the one who added it, I am reviewing the contents of the page to see if it seems suitable for WikiProject Algae. If I cannot tell, I will mark it down and ask for members of that WikiProject to review it. Thanks for your patience in this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what are you doing about the ones where the tag was already present but you removed it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User contribs I will look at my user contribs from that period and review which articles (as best as I can tell) belong in which WikiProject using this edit as a kind of benchmark. As you can see, I made altogether very few changes of the sort "replaced: {{WikiProject Algae}} → {{WikiProject Microbiology}}" and so it should be relatively straightforward to review each of them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was not easy to see, for reasons I've already stated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History Starting with this edit, I made roughly 200 edits of the sort that I mentioned above. All I have to do is see if I am the only person who had an edit history prior to that replacement. Between the 820 articles left in my AWB list now and those 200 or so edits, I can determine if the page was only edited by me and if it was, whether or not it warrants the algae tag. Do protists universally belong to {{WikiProject Microbiology}}? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not easy to see what you did, as I also edit and follow human pathogens, and many of your intermingled edits were to pathogen articles, leaving hundreds of articles on my watchlist to check. --Kleopatra (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

Bookmarks and tags I now have every edit of the sort that I mentioned above (where {{WikiProject Algae}} was replaced with {{WikiProject Microbiology}}) and I will review each of these. I also have a list from AWB of 202 talk pages whose entire content is {{WikiProject Algae}}. I will review each of these to see if they are appropriate for inclusion in this WikiProject. I am assuming that if an article's name includes "(alga)" or "algea" in it that it is appropriate or if it is in the following categories: Category:Algae, Category:Edible algae, Category:Algae genera, Category:Green algae, Category:Red algae, Category:Brown algae, Category:Algae of Australia, Category:Algae biofuels, Category:Algae classes, Category:Algae families, or Category:Algae orders. For any pages that remain, I can consult the text of the page or a member of the WikiProject for guidance. The following is that list of articles in AWB:

Full list

Does that methodology make sense? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have since looked at each of the 202 articles above and removed it from my list if it was in any of the categories I mentioned. That has left me with the following 36 articles:

And from this list I have removed all articles that explicitly mention the organism being an algae (e.g. Synurid reads "The synurids are a small group of heterokont algae, found mostly in freshwater." and Skvortzoviothrix terrestris says "Skvortzoviothrix terrestris is an algae species in the genus Skvortzoviothrix.") or kelp (Eisenia arborea "Eisenia arborea, or the southern sea palm (not to be confused with the sea palm), is a species of kelp.") leaving the following 22 articles:

Of these 22, I am responsible for tagging the following 15 talk pages:

Talk:Chrysista
Talk:Dinophysis norvegica (which Kleopatra confirmed)
Talk:Heterophrys
Talk:Hyphochytrium
Talk:Hystrix (diatom)
Talk:Karyolysus
Talk:Labyrinthula
Talk:Mesopedinella
Talk:Oxyrrhis
Talk:Phaeista
Talk:Phaeothamnales
Talk:Protoopalina
Talk:Pseudopedinella
Talk:Rhizochromulinales
Talk:Rhytidocystis

As you can see, only 14 articles need manual review by someone other than me. I will grant you that this is still a bother for other editors and it has been a bother for other editors (and I have yet to check the other articles that I mentioned above), but this seems to me like an altogether small disruption, assuming that the methods that I just used were sound. This should resolve almost any ambiguity about the edits that I made to these talk pages and I will post my findings about the rest of these as soon as I get to them. In the meantime, if you, Kleopatra, or anyone else from WikiProject Algae wants to take a look at these 14 articles to ensure that they are properly tagged, I would be grateful for your time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update again

The following ~~107~~ 106 are talk pages where I removed {{WikiProject Algae}} and replaced it with {{WikiProject Microbiology}} (not that a couple of pages, such as talk:Sea wrack have already been removed):

Full list

I will employ the same method I did above to filter out edits where I have reverted another user or where the article explicitly mentions that the organism is an alga or kelp. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally The following 92 are talk pages where I removed {{WikiProject Algae}} and replaced it with {{WikiProject Microbiology}} and that could use review from another editor more knowledgeable than me about algae, as none of these pages mention "alga" or "algae" and I am the only user to have edited these talk pages.

Full list

Again, this is a burden for you users, but it should not amount to pouring over thousands of edits, nor will it take 1,000 hours of editing. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected about a dozen. It took me over an hour. You missed some, Opalinidae, for example. At a little over 10/hour, and you made a thousand edits, I'm going to leave you to correct all of the rest. Please check every article you've tagged. You can go to algaebase and insert genera to see if they are algae. Don't use NCBI. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging grass article

Problem? I tagged Poa alpina with {{WikiProject Sweden}} because it's in Category:Flora of Sweden. Is that a problem? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Unless the grass is endemic to Sweden, it shouldn't be categorized that way. In fact, the species is widespread in both Europe and the United States. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Phaeothamnales

Can you find something on this Phaeothamnales? Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling, should be phaeothamniales; so I moved it and nominated the misspelling for speedy deletion. There was nothing in google except what came from wikipedia, and nothing at all in scholar or books. It appears the misspelling spent some time propagating itself through cyberspace via wiki mirrors. Sigh. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, it might have been better just to convert it into a redirect, since it might persist somewhere as a spelling error. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not supposed to be making up taxa. I've seen this happen before, that these wikipedia taxon errors carried into cyberspaces continue their circular references to the source misspelling (our redirect to the correct spelling, a redirect created because we spelled the taxon's name wrong in the first place). They need deleted, and the sooner we stop verifying our error, the better. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euphyllophytina

There's a strange bug on the page Euphyllophytina, which I noted you've edited in the past: "{{#if:" appears at the top. Any idea how to fix it? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bad edit of the automatic taxobox template. It's been corrected. It occurred on all organism articles in wikipedia as far as I can tell. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not corrected as of now. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purge the cache on that page and it disappears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphyllophytina?action=purge Rkitko ^(talk) 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Grobschnitt 03.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Grobschnitt 03.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original source seems to have been called into question, despite the permission tags that it bore at the time. You will need to find out from the German Wikipedia what the status is, or wait for their discussion to conclude. The image was only uploaded here for DYK purposes, based on the tags the de-image bore. Since the image is now on Commons, there is no longer any need for the local copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to bryophyte article

Although the addition wasn't either quite right or quite appropriate, I don't think you should have put "rv nonsense" in the edit summary when reverting it. This wasn't a spam or outright hostile edit, and there is probably a need for some slight expansion of the "Bryophyte life cycle" section. It's surely better to try to support editors who try to be constructive, even when they don't quite succeed. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reverted content was nonsense. It wasn't spam, or hostile, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't errant nonsense. It was pure fabrication with no basis in any reality. There are no single-sex gametangia produced by any land plants. This was not an attempt to be constructive; it was the addition of grossly false information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your Bryology expertise

As you might have seen on WT:PLANTS, I've begun overhauling the botanical glossary stuff on wp:. Currently I'm defining as restricted to the land plants, but I am very unfamiliar with bryological terminology. Do you think you could have a second look at the Bryology entries for the A's (haven't gone farther)? If you're interested I'll extract them with a few specific questions. Circéus (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy offline at the moment, so I haven't been following WP:PLANTS. You'll have to provide a link, as it wasn't from a quick scan of the several sections where I should look. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll compile a list of the words whee I'm not sure I got the meaning right and get back to you. Circéus (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a commented list (number signs indicates that these links will be to other entries in the glossary):

acrandrous: in mosses, having antheridia at the top of the stem.
- might be better as apex, since the "top" of the stem could be many things.
acrogynous: in liverworts, whose gynoecium terminate the main shoot (vs. #anacrogynous).
anacrogynous: in liverworts, bearing the gynoecium on small #lateral growth (vs. #acrogynous).
- Are these three restricted to the groups given here (I suspect I'll have to specify "leafy liverworts")? Also, what, if any, is the opposite of "acrandrous"?
- The leafy liverworts, together with Aneuraceae, Mizutaniaceae, and Metzgeriaceae, are acrogynous (see the phylogeny on the Metzgeriales article to understand the significance of this character state); all other liverworts are anacrogynous. I do no know the opposite for acrandrous off the top of my head.
acroscopic: mostly in cryptogams, pointing toward the apex of the shoot or frond.
- I found this used only in bryophytes and ferms.
amphigastrium: a leaf from the abaxial side of the stem in leafy liverworts with #inclined or #prostate habit.
- This was from the original list on wp:, but does appear to be used all that much. Is there a more appropriate term than "leaf" here, since those of higher plants will also be discussed?
- No, bryologists call these "ventral leaves" or the "underleaves" on leafy liverworts; they typically differ in form from the lateral leaves. I have no problem with calling them leaves, and I do not understand why vascular plant specialists make a big deal about it. "Leaves" have originated independently at least three times among vascular plant lineages, so there's no such thing as "true" leaves anyway.
androgynous: in bryophytes, #synoicous (monoicous with male and female organs produced in a single inflorescence).
- You'll need to link inflorescence here, preferrably to a bryophyte-specific meaning.
annulus: in bryophytes, a ring of #deciduous cells that allow the dehiscence of the #capsule.
- addendum; these cells allow the operculum (lid) to fall away from the capsule in most mosses (it's moss-specific)
- antheridiophore: in bryophytes, a specialised branch that bears antheridia (vs. archegoniophore).
- archegoniophore: in bryophytes, a specialised branch that bears archegonia (vs. antheridiophore).
  - These were originally cited only for hornworts, but they appear to be used at least for liverworts too, or am I mistaken?
    These do not occur in hornworts, and occur only in some families of the order Marchantiales. Better described as a specialized elevated branch.
apophysis: in bryophytes, the thickened support of a #capsule.
- The sterile base portion of the capsule, where it attaches to the seta (stalk); found only in mosses and also called hypophysis.
arthrodontous: in bryophytes, said of a peristome where the teeth are formed of whole cells (vs. #nematodontous).
- That's backwards: arthrodontous means that the teeth are formed from the partial remnants of cell walls, not from whole cells. This condition is limited to (and diagnostic for) the class Bryopsida.
autoicous: in bryophytes, producing female and male flowers on the same plant, but in separate inflorescences (vs. #synoicous).
- I wouldn't use the term "flowers" here, but antheridia and archegonia.

I also omitted the word "amphithecium" and its companion "endothecium", because I did not quite understand what type of tissues they were (I intend to keep developmental biology and embryology to a minimum, but I'm not sure where these two terms fit, and hence if I'm gonna include them at all). Circéus (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've interspersed most of my comments above. For amphithecium and endothecium, these are the fundamental two regions of the developing capsule. The amphithecium gives rise to the outer sterile portion, while the endothecium produces the sporogenous tissue and columella. I expect to use both terms quite a bit when I get around to expanding the high-level moss pages, since they're key in understanding the classification of mosses. They're used in the "peristome formula", which is roughly analogous to the "floral formula", except that in mosses the formula separates the deepest branches. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for clarifying those. Guess I'll get rid of "amphigastrium" as a mostly obsolete word. Circéus (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I miscommunicated, but amphigastrium / amphigastria is not obsolete. I was answering your question about calling them leaves and thereby giving current synonyms, rather than trying to shift emphasis to other terms. I also didn't see acostate (=ecostate), acrocarpous (ant. pleurocarpous), aerenchyma, alar cells / alar region, androecium, anisophyllous, anisosporous, auricle. Be aware also that abaxial, adaxial, actinomorhic, anticlinal (ant. periclinal) are used by bryologists, especially in connection with mosses. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[undent] I do have some of those. I either did not include them because I forgot or I did not know off-hand (from my sources) of any bryology-specific definitions. The entries are pasted below:

abaxial: on the "underside" or "reverse" of an organ, particularly flat ones such as perianth parts and leaves (vs. adaxial).
acrocarpous: in mosses, bearing the sporophyte at the apex of the main shoot (vs. #pleurocarpous).
actinomorphic: usually of flowers, presenting radial #symmetry, as a lily (vs. #zygomorphic).
adaxial: on the "upperside" or "obverse" of an organ, particularly flat ones such as perianth parts and leaves (vs. abaxial).
aerenchyma: plant tissue with very large intercellular space for transport of air and gases.
- If this requires a specific definition for bryophytes, I did not know
Androecium
- I have this and gynoecium only for spermatophytes. I have no idea what the correct definition is in bryophytes, and Google attempts at locating a definition or usage of the term are hopelessly polluted.
anisophyllous: presenting leaves in pairs (whether alternate or #opposite) where one is markedly smaller.
Auricle
- I don't have it as a separate entry. The internal link is to "Auriculate": "having a pair of large, rounded #lobes (the auricles) at the base."

Regarding the last three terms, I have trouble.

Should I define "alar cells" in term of the "alar region" or vice-versa? (I am having trouble finding a definition too. If you can direct me to an introductory book I can use for such terms, I'd appreciate.)
Is "acostate" specific to mosses or is it also used for leafy liverworts?
I think in the end, endothecium/amphithecium and anticlinal/periclinal are a bit too developmental biology-oriented (the list needs to have some set limits a bryology list would probably deal fine with having it though).

Circéus (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make my recommendations below, by simply copying and emending your list, followed by clarification where it may be appropriate:

abaxial: on the "underside" or "reverse" of an organ, particularly flat ones such as leaves and parts of the perianth (vs. adaxial).
"leaves" should be mentioned first, as they are the primary organ being described in most situations and most taxa (also for adaxial).
acostate: in mosses, lacking a costa or central "midrib" in the leaf; ecostate.
acrocarpous: in mosses, bearing the sporophyte at the apex of the main shoots (vs. #pleurocarpous).
I've altered this to "main shoots", since acrocarppous mosses typically grow in clumps with numerous "main shoots" pressed close together.
actinomorphic: usually of flowers, presenting radial #symmetry, as a lily (vs. #zygomorphic).
This is used to describe the symmetry of bryophyte stems. Most mosses have actinomorphic stems, but most liverworts are zygomorphic. There are some zygomorphic mosses, such as Fontinalis
adaxial: on the "upperside" or "obverse" of an organ, particularly flat ones such as leaves and parts of the perianth (vs. abaxial).
aerenchyma: plant tissue with very large intercellular space for transport of air and gases.
It may be worth mentioning that aerenchyma is connected to the outside air, and is not a sealed internal chamber.
alar cells: in mosses, the region at the base corners of a leaf where the cells typically are larger and have thinner walls than cells in the rest of the leaf.
The alar cells are responsible for allowing the leaves to fold up against the plant or out to increase surface area in response to changes in environmental moisture.
androecium: in bryophytes, a cluster of antheridia and paraphyses, along with any surrounding specialized leaves.
You may have seen pictures of the open cup-shaped androecia of Polytrichum, a genus where the surrounding leaves form a "splash cup" for distributing spermatozoids. This isn't always the case in mosses or liverworts, but would be a useful and easy-to-find image.
anisophyllous: in bryophytes, either producing two forms of leaf on a single stem, or producing different leaf forms on the branches from those on the main stem.
anisosporous: in bryophytes, producing two sizes of spore within a single sporangium.
auricle
This is any earlobe-like structure at the base of the leaf, even if the leaf itself is not described as auriculate in shape. The cells of a moss leaf auricle may have specific morphology differing from the rest of the leaf, so the strucutre is referred to independently of leaf shape.

By all means, ask question if anything seems unclear. The best resource for bryological terminology is Bill & Nancy Malcolm's Mosses and other Bryophytes: An Illustrated Glossary (isbn 0-473-06730-7). However, I do occasionally find omissions or errors, and there is far more terminology in the book than needs to be in our glossary. Their book includes ecological terms, for example, as well as highly precise terms that are seldom used (and therefore hard to look up). --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a few questions... Is the singular "paraphyse" or "paraphysis"? When you say "producing two forms of leaf on a single stem", does that implies together (as when there are amphigastria) or on different parts of the stem (i.e. is the first part of the definition the same as used commonly in angiosperms)? Is "anisospory" the same as "heterospory"?

I know what you mean about terminology. Simpson (Plant Systematics, ISBN 0-12-644460-9) is a great explainer, but his insistence on using a similar or identical terminology between the sexual cycles of algae through angiosperms actually obscures the parallel (the diagram on p. 103 is virtually undecipherable to me). And his usage of epi-/peri-/hypogynous (p. 378) seems markedly idiosyncratic. Circéus (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The singular is paraphysis. When "producing two forms of leaf on a single stem", this means at the same location, but does not mean the same as an angiosperms, since the vascular plant definition relies on the leaves being produced at the same node, a structure that relies on the presence of vascular tissue. However, if the definition of "node" is relaxed then the two descriptions amount to the same thing. No, anisospory is not the same as heterospory. The term heterospory implies (a) separate sporangia, each producing a single kind of spore, and (b) two sexually distinct spores. The term anisospory refers to different size spores produced from the same sporangium, and requires nothing about the sexuality of the resultant gametophytes (although they may differ). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zosterophyllacea

A tag has been placed on Zosterophyllacea, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
The various pages & redirects related to "zosterophylls" need some sorting, which I'm about to do (the higher level paraphyletic taxon "zosterophyll", the family and the genus are not the same). I'd like to get rid of this redirect before creating others! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with the deletion. The redirect is an artefact of an old move from an incorrect spelling to the correct spelling. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was rejected by an admin. Yes, I understood how the redirect got there. The problem with not deleting such pages, in my view, is that if you google "Zosterophyllacea" all but one of the 16 hits I got are actually 'mirrors' of the Wikipedia article, so we're just perpetuating errors by leaving the redirct. However, it's not important enough to argue about with the admin concerned; plenty of real work to do. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hah!

Just went around the world doing the monocious interwikis again. Got reverted on Fr: with "bah! Alors..." There has to be a solution to this other than just no-botting. Of course the bot owners can't legislate against people putting the wrong interwikis in. I left a note with VolkovBot's owner. Rich Farmbrough, 11:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've been thinking about moving the page to Gametophyte sexuality, which would eliminate linking by false cognates. Of course, that wouldn't prevent the bots from continuing to link, but it might stop linking by humans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to notice this when replying above. This move seems a good one to me. Actually, I'd generalize. Separate plant articles seem to have been created for many terms when they are actually tightly linked, often being alternatives which can't be properly understood except by knowing the full range of them. So for example, there were articles for different patterns of xylem development (endarch, exarch, etc.). All this did was to require repetition in each article of common material, so I created one article Xylem development and redirected the specific variants. How can you understand 'monocious' without 'diocious'? You can't, of course, which is why 'diocious' sensibly re-directs to 'monocious'. But then the title would be much better as something more general. So I'd strongly support your making this move! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is Bryophyte sexuality, and I haven't decided which would be more appropriate. I worry that a "gametophyte sexuality" article would be a hodgepodge across all plant groups, with undue emphasis on seed plants. However, an article on bryophyte sexuality would have considerable overlap with aspects of pteridophyte and algal gametophytes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If only extant plants are considered, then "Bryophyte sexuality" would be ok. But there are extinct non-bryophytes which seem to have had both monoicous gametophytes and dioicous gametophytes (although the literature is not always consistent). So if you do make the move, Gametophyte sexuality seems much better to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice diagram

Just to say that I really like the way you've set out the diagram at Hornwort#Phylogeny – it's the first time I've seen it. It's an approach I think should be copied. With modern phylogenetic approaches, separating taxonomy/classification from phylogeny, as seems to have been the style, doesn't work so well. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done similar diagrams for articles on all the basalmost moss taxa, the Metzgeriales, and the basal angiosperm clades (e.g. magnoliids). The level of detail varies according to the amount of information I've had at hand, but I agree that it's very handy to have the "modern" classification side-by-side with a phylogeny to help make both more intelligible to a general audience. With angiosperms in particular, it helps to clarify in a simple picture why some changes have been made from older systems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary history of plants

I've put a note at Talk:Evolutionary_history_of_plants#What_is_this_article_about_now?. You might like to add your comments... It's hard to know what to do with such an ill-formed article. Unfortunately there don't seem to be many plant editors around at present judging by the limited responses to questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... User:Ettrig is now moving chunks of Evolutionary history of plants elsewhere; the latest is into Xylem. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing required if you have time

See Embryophyte#Bryophytes if you have time; it has been added to by various people recently, and needs checking and at the least copy-editing (a quick glance shows significant overlap between paragraphs). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the grossest errors and have thoroughly restructured the section. I'm not entirely happy with it, but proper polishing will take more considerable time at a later date (as Wikipedia so often does). --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of gross errors is the most important step! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moss page

Hello EnclycloPetey,

Thank you for your notes on my additions to the Moss page. I am impressed by how quickly you responded to my hitting the Save button. I do however take exception to your description of my edits as 'parochial'. You may be misreading my edits of the Habitats section. I go to some pains to be not parochial and to respect the limits of my knowledge. I have specified some aspects of mosses growing in the Pacific Northwest because a) that's what I know, and b) I'm finding that the ecology of the PNW is largely and blatantly ignored in many of the biology and gardening articles I've looked at, for instance the statement on the Moss page that mosses grow on the north side of trees. Not here they don't! The original statement is quite parochial, IMHO, applying mainly to the eastern United States and Europe. (I hope it wasn't yours).

I am well aware, and thought it was clear enough in my edits, that mosses do not grow only in cool climates. What my edits say is that mosses grow in damp areas, and that in cool climates (such as mine) they do such and such. The example of dry areas that mosses grow that I chose is alpine rocks. More specific to my area of the world mosses can be rampant on seasonally-dry logging roads, roadcuts, rock outcrops, and avalanche chutes, but I didn't want to confuse people with too much minutia. You probably have better examples to add.

The Pacific Northwest is not the only part of the world with this peculiar cool damp cloudy climate, so I try not to specify PNW unless I think it necessary. New Zealand, the British Isles, and coastal southern Chile have similar climates. I try to use 'cool damp cloudy' when I think something is more generally applicable than just the PNW, and use 'in the PNW' when I think something is more specific. For instance in Cultivation I specify PNW and Seattle because I have no idea if people do the same things elsewhere. Someone who does will make edits to that effect, I hope.

I am no bryologist, just a simple field biologist, with intimate knowledge of the biota of one corner of the world which is often overlooked in general descriptions of biota, and enough knowledge of other parts of the world to know how mine is different. For instance I also feel compelled to work on the Prairie page because it totally ignores prairies of the PNW, which are completely unlike the prairies of the Great Plains and the Eurasian Steppes. I have no bryology textbooks so please replace my citations if you have better sources. I realize that I know nothing of tropical mosses and so did not say anywhere that mosses grow only in cool climates. Being not-a-bryologist I'm not sure how much help I would be to you in improving this page but I would be glad to help however I can. Let me know what I can do. Dog Walking Girl (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Baptist State Convention

Hello,

Would you consider nominating this page for DYK? This is a relatively new page and needs expansion due to its significance. More than 1 in 6 people in Arkansas belong to this convention. See population here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas and convention membership here: http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2558 . I would like to see this important page expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate DYK yourself. You don't need someone else to do that for you. However, the article is not eligible, as it was started a year ago. DYK candidates must be less than 5 days old when they are nominated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf

Thank you for your corrections to my changes on the leaf article, turns out my knowledge of botanical terminology is a bit wobbly! You obviously know a lot about plants, would you mind having a look at the two new diagrams of leaf structure and making sure you think they are accurate? - Zephyris _Talk 11:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a look at those, and they looked good enough for diagrams to me. They're one step of improvement beyond what we had before, which in turn was one step better than the original diagram (which was a crude one I created myself). --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks :) - Zephyris _Talk 13:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phaeoceros laevis

This recently created article had a number of issues, including outdated taxonomy and basic errors. I've tried to correct these as best I can, but my experience with this group is limited. Could you have a look to make sure I haven't messed up somewhere? Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing algae edits

I'm back As you may recall, several months ago, I incorrectly tagged a number of pages with {{WikiProject Algae}}. Since then, I've gotten busy in real life and have only returned to Wikipedia within the past two weeks. Do you still think there is something that I can do to fix any damage that I did before? Please post to my talk to let me know if I can assist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of Lycopodiophyta

I noticed your edit to Lycopodiophyta. It's something I've had on my "to do" list for some time. There are sharp inconsistencies between the treatment normal in paleobotany and the treatment in the article. Harlan Banks (1968, 1975) established a system much used in paleobotany at least until the cladistics approach became dominant in the late 1990s:

Division Tracheata

Subdivision †Zosterophyllophytina = zosterophylls

Subdivision Lycophytina (often called "lycopods" rather than the expected "lycophytes")

(There's a variant of this which elevates the two subdivisions to divisions.)

From Kenrick and Crane (1997) onwards, the usual classification in paleobotany shifted to:

Division Tracheata (Tracheophyta)

Subdivision Lycophytina = lycophytes

Class †Zosterophyllopsida = zosterophylls

Class Lycopodiopsida = lycopsids (I don't think I've ever seen "lycopodiopsids", although Lycopsida is frequent)

There are also genera like Hicklingia which are in the lycophytes but outside Kenrick & Crane's zosterophylls.

Now I would really like Lycopodiophyta to say something about these different treatments, if only because articles on "para-zosterophylls", zosterophylls and extinct lycopsids include taxoboxes which put them in Lycophytina which re-directs to Lycopodiophyta. On the other hand, I agree with your previously expressed view that we should be careful to say more about the plants and their biology than the taxonomy. I'm interested in any ideas you have about this. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Banks treatment is particularly useful or relevant information for inclusion within a more narrowly taxon-focussed article in an encyclopedia. I don't see a strong rationale for exhaustively presenting classification systems in articles about groups of organisms, except when the circumsciption of the group (ignoring name ending or rank) differs markedly from author to author, as it does with the magnoliids. I could see writing a separate article about the Banks classification system itself, and then including a linked mention that Banks classified the group differently. However, detailing the differences in the lycophyte article isn't particularly worthwhile, especially as the circumscription of the group (whatever its name) does not change with classification; only the rank and name ending differ.

The name "Lycopsida" is a common error, but incorrect (and to be corrected) under the ICBN. Members of a group "Lycophytina" should properly be called "lycophytines", as "lycophytes" implies "Lycophyta". However, I have not see "lycophytines" used in the literature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the Banks treatment; this is only of relevance in a paleobotanical article. However, the more modern paleobotanical treatment, i.e. based on Kenrick and Crane, is different from the article in a couple of important ways:

The top level group (always called "lycophytes" as the informal name in my experience) has a wider circumscription, i.e. including genera outside zosterophylls and lycopsids.
The extant groups are put together and the informal name "lycopsid" used to describe them all, whereas (I think) the same term is used more commonly by those concerned only with extant species for the narrower group (Lycopodiaceae + Huperziaceae). But I'm not sure about this.

As for names and the ICBN if the current endings are followed strictly, the "automatically typified" names should presumably be "Lycopodiophyta", "Lycopodiophytina" and "Lycopodiopsida". I've never seen "Lycopodiophytina" in a paleobotanical context, although Google finds it. So I guess the informal name should actually be "lycopodiophytines"! Google finds one paper with this in it (in both an English and French version).

However, I don't think that you are right in saying that "Lycopsida" is to be corrected under the ICBN. Article 16 says that if the name is 'automatically typified', i.e. based on a family name, then its ending must be corrected to those given in the Code. However, the Code explicitly allows names such as "Anthophyta, Chlorophyta, Parietales". So I think that "Lycophyta", "Lycophytina" and "Lycopsida" are ok as "descriptive names"; note that if "Lycophyta" is a "descriptive name" under the Code, it can be used other than for a division. But the Code is notoriously tricky, so I may be wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would mention in the article that Kenrick & Crane have expanded the group, and discuss the additional taxa and K&C's taxonomic placement of them. However, their ranks and names for all the various members are not as important.

I understand about descriptive names, but "Lycophyta" (etc.) is not a descriptive name; "wolf-plant" is in no way descriptive. If you look back at the early sources, this is an error in ending attachment to Lycopdiaceae and the name was not intended to be descriptive. It is thus to be corrected under the ICBN. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's clear from the author of Lycophyta that it was explicitly based on the genus Lycopodium and not on a more general application of the prefix "lyco-" (as e.g. in "lycophyll"), then I'm sure you're right and it's correctable. "Lycophyta" seems to go back quite a long way; was Article 16 in the Code then, I wonder? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear by comparison across parallel items, yes. Explicitly stated, no, as it almost never was in those days. As far as your Code question, there was no ICBN at the time. There were separate European and American Codes even as recently as the early 20th century. Article 16 is not bound by date of publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider external link for Seed page.

Hi EncycloPetey,

Hey I tried to add an external link to "Seed" page, but it wouldn't let me. Anyway this is a link to a useful seed search utility that can search by geographic area for any seed, video tutorial, no adds on the site at all.

www.seed-finder.com

It says to consult with another editor for approval.

BR Cresard (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Peter G. Thailand[reply]

We don't link commercial or how-to sites; that's not what the Links section is for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Physicist

Yes, the bot was trying to add the template, but got confused about where to add it because of the highly unconventional nature of that talk page. Looks like someone tried to subst {{Oldsfd}}. I'll fix that. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 08:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Riella

On 2 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Riella, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Riella is the only liverwort to grow as a submerged aquatic? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]