User talk:Rkitko/Archive28

Asteridae

Special:WhatLinksHere/Asteridae has a few articles that should be APGIIified. What are your thought on what to do with the Asteridae article itself? It has a merge tag (to Asterids), but no discussion about merging. I'd be inclined to remove the taxobox and tweak the language to present it as a historically recognized taxon. I'm a little at a loss as to how the language should be tweaked though (I know there are some other pages on historical taxa that might serve as a model). Plantdrew (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Happened to see this. I would treat it like Hamamelididae. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

APG

what do you think molecular based taxonomy is except gene sequence based? I am providing more understandable words, which is desirable in wikipedia. APG is useful for genetic relationships. Big but is that most plants cannot be classified this way for lack of sequence. So Cronquist system will live on for many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 July 2013

At each article you edited, the information that APG is based on gene sequences is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it's a more modern classification system. The respective articles on the systems are the correct locations to direct edits that would correctly identify criticisms of each, but remember that this must not be undue weight, nor original research, so you must provide reliable sources that say what you're paraphrasing or describing. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and it is not a crystal ball, so we cannot assert that Cronquist will "live on for many years" or have lasting influence. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverting plant article names

I became rather confused by the nomenclature of a series of dwarf Buddleja hybrid cultivars raised in the USA. The series is named Lo & Behold, which I'm now informed is neither part of the cultivar name nor a selling name. Alas, I included it in each title, eg. Buddleja Lo & Behold Blue Chip; I have tried reverting the title to the original Buddleja 'Blue Chip', but the system won't allow me to do this. There are three cultivars involved: Buddleja 'Blue Chip', Buddleja 'Ice Chip', and Buddleja 'Miss Molly'. I would be much obliged if you could change these article titles back to their original form. Thank you, Ptelea (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispsacales (etc.) may need updating to APG III

Hello Rkitko, noticing this edit at Sambucus nigra, I decided to check on the editor's accuracy, but was left mostly confused, and didn't know if it should be reverted or not. I'm not trained in the subject, and don't have the time right now to do all the research required to feel 100% sure enough to make any changes; so at the risk of looking foolish, I'll say this: it appears that the Dipsacales article (and probably others in the web that it is part of) is out of date, seemingly discussing APG II as the most current agreement (though APG III is mentioned in a footnote for the authority, saying it was from 2009, but the access date is from 2006 (how could that be?)). If you feel my amateurish assessment has any merit, could/would you be willing to bring this up, in more professional language, at the WikiProject Plants talk page? I understand that I could be vastly misinterpreting this. I contacted you because I see your edit summary ("Updating taxobox classification to the APG III system ...") a lot on my watchlist. Thanks in advance for taking a peek as time permits. Hamamelis (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Drat - and here I thought I was very nearly done with the updates when I finally get around to finishing off the Ranunculales (less than 200 articles there to do). Good catch, though. I've reverted the classification change at Sambucus nigra since the editor cited the USDA (I assume the PLANTS database, which is notoriously out of date and terrible for classification). Strictly speaking, the APG III system doesn't, in most cases -- unless there's a clearly unplaced genus -- discuss placement of genera, but the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website does host lists. The Plant List website is down at the moment (at least for me) as is the Kew Checklist (don't know if they include Sambucus), so I'm not sure if they confirm that classification. Anyway, unless there's been a change post-APG III, Adoxaceae is correct. But you're right that Dipsacales needs to be updated to reference the APG III classification, which changed fairly radically with the broader circumscription of Caprifoliaceae. Thanks for putting that on my radar. I'd have missed it otherwise and it probably would have gone unchanged from APG II for quite a while. I'll get to it soon-ish? (Also, sorry for clogging your watchlist from time to time!) Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for helping because it's important :), but sorry if the light at the end of the tunnel just got a little dimmer :( Hamamelis (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of article title of Whitebark pine

You are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Whitebark pine#Requested move to scientific name. —hike395 (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Help moving monogeneric families to genus title

Would you mind making the following moves for me?

• Ancistrocladaceae->Ancistrocladus
• Aponogetonaceae->Aponogeton
• Degeneriaceae->Degeneria
• Lanariaceae->Lanaria

All are families with a single genus, and should have the article titled by genus name according to WP:FLORA. Admin tools are needed to make the moves. Plantdrew (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

And another admin request. Could you delete Category:Thymus (genus)? There's also an insect genus Thymus. I made a new category Category:Thymus (plant) and moved all the entries over. Having "Thymus (genus)" hanging around seems like it will invite errors with HotCat (and I can't see much of a point in having a category for Thymus (plant) and Thymus (insect)). Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Kiko4564 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I do in many cases, but not in one-off IP vandalism cases where the IP has clearly already moved on where the IP may be dynamic, shared, etc. Not doing anything useful there unless the message is within moments of the vandalism, which this was not. But well aware, thanks. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot to check links to SIAs

In case you don't see it, I've suggested at Talk:Nettle (disambiguation)#Alternatives that, as an admin, you might be the best person to raise the issue of a bot to check newly added links to SIAs. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Converting Notes to References section

Hi Rkitko,

I am sorry for the inconvenience caused. I thought that "reflist" was supposed to go only into "Reference" section and that was the only reason i changed the section names. I am new to wikipedia editing. I want to sincerely contribute in making wikipedia a better platform. So kindly guide me on the same. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks in advance! :) Trixie05 (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Plant article importance assessments help needed

Discussion you may be interested in about plant article importance assessments. Click! --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Move request

Could you please move Aphyllanthoideae to Aphyllanthes? Its a monogeneric subfamily with a monospecific genus, so should be at the genus name according to WP:PLANTS guidelines. (My mistake in creating the stub in the first place.) Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Saw this, so I did the move. Guettarda (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Guettarda. I may decide to put up a semi-wikibreak banner on this talk page since I haven't been very active. Too much to do offline recently with candidacy preparations and planning my first field season in Australia. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Field work in Australia? Cool. Are you going to be anywhere near Cas (or any of the other Australian PLANTS people)? Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Cas? Yes. Haven't mentioned it yet, though. The others are, I think, mostly in Western Australia if I'm not mistaken except for Melburnian (I think -- I've always guessed from the username). I'm pretty much taking a big tour of the south and east from Adelaide east and north to Queensland along the coast in search of Dipodium. (Our article on the genus is crummy and I intend to do something about that... one day. Recently took a whack at Bromheadia which has been a problem genus, phylogenetically, but I could do more.) Would definitely be neat to meet up with some PLANTS people and maybe head into the field? Nice photo opportunities. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I am in Sydney - happy to meet up any time. 21:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm in Melbourne (no surprises there!) and would also be happy to meet up.--Melburnian (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Eudicot orders pie chart

Can you review my File:Eudicot-orders.svg? Now it's better readable, and the classification used before was not APG II but just mixed.--Kopiersperre (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)