User talk:Rkitko/Archive18

Re: Stephens cite on Drosera regia

Re the Stephens cite on Drosera regia, do you have an authoritative link to where it's cited as in volume 8 and 1926? I believe the paper is this one, from the website of the journal, where the page is right but the year and journal are different to the values you've got. Volume 8 is listed as dated 1919, so your values of volume 8 and 1926 don't add up? I find it hard to believe that the journal's own website would be out by several years. Rjwilmsi 15:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Something funny is going on over at that website. Bad import of data, perhaps? Every place I've ever seen this publication cited, it has been listed as volume 8, 1926. See, for example, this. IPNI, however, lists volume XIII and a year of 1926. Perhaps since it's cited everywhere as volume 8, that's just been perpetuated in all scholarly publications since then? I know publication dates from that long ago were often pushed back. Is it possible Volume 13, issue 4 was actually printed in 1926 and not the volume year of 1925? Rkitko ^(talk) 16:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just been mistyped somewhere as volume 8 rather than 13, and copied. The last issue in 1925 being given as 1926 does not seem unreasonable (printed December 1925, arrived in post in January 1926 seems plausible). There are other pages [1] [2] listing volume 13. It would certainly seem to be volume 13, and the year seems to have settled as 1926, so that's what I'd go for. Maybe a note in the cite to say that it's sometimes misquoted as volume 8? Rjwilmsi 16:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I know how easy it is to make a simple mistake in reference citations. Programs like Endnote make that so much easier to perpetuate, too. I've changed it to volume 13(4), but I wasn't sure what form a note would take, nor whether it's all that necessary. The DOI link is right there to help anyone with questions. Thanks for making sure the missed DOIs and PMIDs were included. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Rkitko/Archive18! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection conflict

• Gabrielle Giffords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry for the protection conflict. Nice that we agreed on the duration though :). CIreland (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Glad you're looking after it, too. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hymenaea protera

Did we decide to start eliminating tribes and subfamilies on legume pages? I thought that the legumes (like orchids and grasses) was one of the families where the subfamilial classification was still preferred. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just following WP:TX's advice on minor ranks. I've only been removing them from species articles since the subfamily and tribe is more relevant to the genus rather than each species in that genus. Species taxoboxes get so large with subfamily, tribe, and subtribe. I'll stop for now if you think that's best, but should we clarify with others that these families get exceptions? Rkitko ^(talk) 03:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be good to get an explicit idea of where the editors stand, at least to head off potential edit-warring in those three families. For most other families the subfamilial ranks aren't particularly useful or stable, at least as far as I am aware.

The only minor rank I usually have to worry about in bryophytes is the subclass within class Bryopsida, where it's quite useful for all lower ranks. The subclass in this group immediately describes the peristome architecture, which is a central identifying character for mosses. By contrast, hepaticologists are over-fond of publishing liverwort classifications with minor rank intricasies that (a) never stand up to phylogenetic testing, and (b) no one ever uses in the literature aside from the originating author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. To WT:PLANTS, then :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 03:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

'Over-eager' deletion

Hi. Just noticed you undid my last deletion on the WikiProject Plants talk page. Sorry - didn't realise everything was archived - I was thinking I'd make a bit more space on the page by deleting my own query which had been answered. How often does the page get archived (I'm thinking it might all get a bit unwieldy if text stays posted for ages)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I try to archive it monthly. The page doesn't normally get too large with that archiving schedule. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nepenthes clipeata

I can't understand that you removed the growing tips for Nepenthes clipeata. This specie is classified as CR (Critically Endangered), so sharing growing tips with as much as possible amateurs & growers is the best way to conserve it. I don't know too why `Nepenthes University' is not a reliable source. This is a grower, so there is no reason for him not to share interesting growing tips. Luca Merciadri (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I see from your contributions that you've tried to include information in this article before but it was reverted then, too. You must really care about this species; I admire that. But you must understand that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to regulate its content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide (please read the linked policy). For plants, it's a tricky line to walk between describing the plant's cultivation and prescribing how to grow the plant. We can do the former and there's certainly no reason why a plant article cannot include a section on cultivation. But be descriptive! Do not include advice on how to grow the plant. For example, instead of writing, "Grow this plant in 50% humidity with temperatures between 60 and 80 degrees F," be descriptive and write, "In cultivation, this species requires 50% humidity and temperatures between..." See the difference? And make sure you have reliable sources to back up these claims. These typically include published books, scientific journal articles, and websites by experts. I find no information on cpjungle that the author is an expert in this field. Does he have an academic degree? Has he published books or scientific articles on the subject? What makes his advice "expert"? I hope this helps. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your point of view is now clearer to me. However, finding academic articles about this plant is extremely difficult, and this is also a problem. I am convinced that academic articles are not the only useful ones. An experienced grower (even with no academic degree) might give more interesting information, honed by some extensive practice, that an academician might not be able to give. Here, the situation is quite difficult, because there is a fundamental lack of knowledge about this plant, which partly contributes to its non-spreading. It is sure that if I were to found academic articles about care instructions for this plant, I would be pleased to read them and cite them. Luca Merciadri (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a higher verifiability threshold for content inclusion in Wikipedia than other websites. Anyone can start a website and claim to be an experienced grower. I have no reason to doubt the information on cpjungle, but it cannot be used a reference. Information on this species' growth requirements are clearly out there and will show up in google searches, so it's available for people to find. Inclusion in Wikipedia will not change that and no matter how noble the intent, we cannot include information without reliable sources. If the information does not yet exist in reliable sources, we cannot include it. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. But most of the things you might learn by reading academic articles on Nep. clipeata is that it grows in eastern Borneo, and more precisely on Mt. Kelam (Guning Kelam in Indonesian), on sheer granite walls. Due to harsh weather conditions (severe drought, etc.), and abundant collecting from people, this specie became nearly extinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merciadriluca (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

On Nature's Trail

Why should On Nature's Trail not have a plant template? The article mentions hundreds of plants in Maryland. If it should not have a plant template, should it have a fungi template? Perhaps I am missing something, though. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the description of the project's scope at WP:PLANTS. We primarily focus on plant taxa and secondarily have an interest in botanists and botany topics like photosynthesis. A television show doesn't really fall within the self-described scope of the project. You'd have to ask the fungi project about their project banner on the talk page. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment/status of prehistoric plant articles

I notice that you assessed the Aglaophyton article at Talk:Aglaophyton. I've been trying to improve the coverage of early (Silurian/Devonian) land plants, and am in the process of creating more articles (9 so far). I haven't attached a {{WikiProject Plants}} template to them, yet. One issue is that these articles are of "Low" importance to WP:Plants, but would be of much greater importance to a WikiProject:Paleobotany, if one existed. I'm very reluctant to tag them with {{WikiProject Palaeontology}}, because, as a quick glance readily shows, that project (and the Palaeontology article) is overwhelmingly about animals. I'm not sure if it's worth raising the general issue of the treatment of prehistoric plants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

Hi Rkitko

I was reading up on soap and came across that information on the Soap substitute page. How do I use a WP page as reference? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox font size

I believe I fixed the font-size issue, it was due to upstream changes. Let me know if there is still a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I was noticing it in other places and was about to mention that. Thanks for fixing it! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

cite templates

Hey, I noticed you dropped the {{cite journal}} templates on Alexgeorgea, but I couldn't really see much difference. Is it the bolding? the quotes? Also, how come you removed the date from the authority section of the taxobox? Just curious; thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you put a lot of work into that article to clean it up, so I'm sorry for stepping on your toes here. I do have issues with the formatting of those citation templates. Take a look at this revision of the article. The quotes around the title are unnecessary, the period hangs out after the pdf icon (and outside the quotes) and I never see bolded volumes in the journals I look at. My biggest problem with the templates, though, is how hard it is to read around them when editing the text. All that last1=, first1=, journal=, etc. adds extraneous text when citing an article. I understand the only benefit to using them is some kind of microformat data? Not quite sure how that's all used. Regardless, I'm planning an expansion to the article. Do you have strong feelings that these templates should be used?

Botanical authorities don't use dates; zoological ones do. The Code doesn't specifically prohibit the use of dates, but it's very rare (and usually unprofessional) for dates to be used. It's either just the bare author abbreviation, or the full citation with journal abbreviation, year, and page number. I used to argue for inclusion of the date, but the counter argument that we'd look like we don't know what we're doing when it comes to botanical taxa was compelling enough for me. I hope that's a sufficient explanation. Besides, the year of description is included in the text. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I certainly don't feel like my toes are being stepped on or anything; can't wait to see what else you do for this article. Most of the work - by far - that I did on that page was going through the licensing shenanigans to get the picture there, and if you have a better one please use that instead. I don't care much about citation formats, and you certainly have legitimate complaints about the output of {{cite journal}}; my point in asking these questions was just to get a better handle on what all the issues are. And given how wrong I've been all this time about botanical authorities, I'm glad I did. I like citation templates only because I don't have to worry about consistent punctuation/format, it is theoretically supposed to take care of all that for us. One partial solution to the "read around" problem is to put the {{Cite *}} templates inside the {{Reflist}}, like this: {{Reflist|refs=<ref name="foo>...</ref><ref name="bar">...</ref>}}. Then all you need in the article text is the minimal <ref name="foo"/>. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexgeorgea is certainly an interesting genus to write about. I'll do my best on it. I think I recall asking you about the use of photos from Carlquist's website. I don't have any additional images, but I'll happily use the ones he has posted on his site. Thanks for going through the hoops to get his permission for those images.

I was thinking of suggesting formatting changes to {{cite journal}}. How well do you think they'll be received? I think style varies depending on which field you're used to reading about, but an argument based on the superfluity of parentheses around the year and quotation marks might be well-received. Thanks for point me to the reflist option; I had seen it before. Do you have any sense of how widely used that is? I just don't want to adopt early and then have to change again if some issue arises. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm - I haven't been involved in many discussions about citation templates and formatting, so I don't have a feel for it. The |refs= thing seems very rare, but I've used it a couple places and it seems solid. thanks,ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Happened to see this discussion. It's not quite so rare as you imply for dates to be used in botanical author citations. Firstly, as you rightly say, it's not banned in the Code and there are in fact examples all over it. Look for example at Article 47, which contains "Arabis beckwithii S. Watson (1887)", "Centaurea jacea L. (1753)" and "C. amara L. (1763)"; note that it's always parenthesized, unlike zoology. Secondly, practice varies in different areas of botany. My experience is that the paleobotany literature from Banks (1980) to Edwards (2006) virtually always includes the date in formal citations. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the examples in the Code were news to me, though it's inconsistent within the Code, too. By far, the vast majority of author citations in the Code do not have dates. And I think the parenthetical dates in the few examples I've seen could just be helpful in the context of when the name was published and not, in fact, part of the author citation. If it was the latter, they would have used the date in Art. 47, example 1 - "A. shockleyi Munz". And they would have repeated the date in example 2 when they repeat "C. jacea L." I can't comment on paleobotany since I haven't read any of the literature, but your references seem to make that point. However, the most widely used and cited journals don't include dates in author citations. (One could make the case that we should start italicizing all ranks above genus, too, but only a few journals follow the Code on that point...) If you didn't see this discussion before, here's the one I remember most: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive15#Poll: Should/May a date be included in the taxobox authority? (As I noted above, I since changed my mind on this, so my comments there represent my old view). Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Code only appears to use dates to make specific points; still, it does use them. I think the right conclusion is to follow the style in the references used in the article; clearly for extant plant species this will be not to use the date. For early land plants, in taxoboxes where the reference(s) which support the botanical authority use dates, I have too. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, which fits my point that the Code doesn't use dates as part of the author citation and so neither should we include dates in the |authority= fields in the taxobox for the most part. I trust that your knowledge of the paleobotany literature is light-years beyond mine and agree that you should follow the refs in that case. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to citations. I too hate the style of the {{cite ...}} templates, which is why if I start an article or add most of the citations, I always use the {{citation}} template, whose style does not have so many full stops and redundant parentheses. It also makes it much easier to add a specific page reference in a book or long article, for example, since the absence of a terminating full stop means you can add ", p. XXX". I don't know why people use the {{cite ...}} templates where you have to choose 'book', 'journal', etc. instead of the simpler {{citation}} template.

I wasn't aware of the {{reflist|refs- ...}} possibility! I wish I had known this earlier; it seems much better to me and I shall certainly try it out. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

New article puzzle

What would you name an article on a new species which hasn't been formally named yet? I know that wouldn't normally be proper, but it's already notable and doesn't even have a common name. It would make an interesting main page DYK, before it is formally named. Rather than explain more, you can see the beginning of the article in my sandbox. Feel free to edit or change if you're inclined, or say "this just isn't done" (I'm also asking User:Hesperian). First Light (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the Aussies took care of your question better than I could while I was asleep ;-) I'm afraid I don't have anything else to add as I, too, can't find any provisional name for this organism. Occasionally, you can also find a "manuscript name," but the contest seems to muddy the waters on that point. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of genus navboxes

Your nomination of "Genus navboxes" for deletion at Templates for discussion is unopposed, and so I have closed the discussion as "delete", as you can see at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 23. (As you will know if you have ever had much to do with TfD, "There is no such thing as quorum. If after the normal time period, there are no objections to deletion of a template, it can simply be deleted.") However, there is a huge number of transclusions to remove before the templates can actually be deleted, and I don't have time to do it now. I will try to remember to come back to this, but maybe you would like to do make a start on the job. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I see they have been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)