Talk:Hieracium anatomy

About moving this page to the commons

In my first few edits at the commons, I was told that it was not the place for encyclopedic pages, which is the reason that I will not be moving it to the commons.

The gallery was made originally to assist with the description that I have yet to write. The description is to explain how the 10,000 species of this flowering plant might have stems with a single flower atop or stems with a cluster of them or hairy bracts or mostly smooth bracts, smooth edged leaves, jagged edged leaves, hairy stems, moderately hairy stems, fuzzy stems. Stems without leaves and stems with leaves and stems that might have leaves. I was actually looking for some encyclopedic style information about descriptive phytotomy words with images that would help....

There is already at the commons a gallery Hieracium and this page not the same thing, nor is it better than that already existing gallery. This was intended to be a single gallery and not an individual gallery for each of the 880+ species of this plant that have been accepted by the USDA.

Please reconsider the move to the commons tag. It is not media, it uses available media. -- carol 20:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you expand on how this page, which is explicitly a gallery by title, would be encylcopedic? For now I don't see how, but that might just be a misunderstanding on my part. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about the Talk wikilink, I wonder the reason it did not work before....

Also, congratulations for acquiring that NewPersonWatcher thingie, is it an honor? -- carol 21:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it is not even 24 hours old! For certain it can be better. It was originally part of the description section; I thought that the images would help me to write the rest of that eh, thing there. Perhaps a rename then before the rest of it it made? Hieracium Anatomy?

It is not unlike when I gather the references and construct the templates for them first, before writing any of the text even. That way, while I am writing the text, I merely have to paste the reference at the spot that the text is being sometimes pasted as I am writing here about things I might not ever have seen.

Such a visual reference for all of botany would be helpful but huge; so an individual reference at the genus level and no lower is not unreasonable, in my opinion. I say this because I really have some real life experience with trying to identify plants that are growing on their own (weeds). When attempting to identify a plant, I liked to have a text description, a line drawing, a water color painting and a photograph. I looked and looked and looked for one plant that I only had a text description of and never found it. Later, I found it with a name plate in an botanical garden and had one of those moments where you slap your forehead upon the realization that the plant had been everywhere there. When I was studying this stuff, it did not bother me that they used a lot of different words to describe the same thing. But now, as I try to write the descriptions, I am finding it to be a incredible pain.

Also, the images here are almost self citing references for different insects that they attract, don't you think?

Was it just the title that caused the tag? At the commons, it goes against the first advice or warning or whatever that was that the commons was not the place for encyclopedic information, just encyclopedic media. I don't like the galleries at the commons, btw. In my mind, they are extremely difficult to maintain. Even this visual reference is going to have some problems because I requested some name changes already.

Also, if it is 'gallery' that you don't like, I made another one in the case that this one is deleted. I have an apology for that, I have had pages here deleted without discussion and also after the person who suggested the deletion was appeased. I am very very sorry that situations like that exist here. -- carol 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what we can do here. First off, the NPW thingy is no biggie. It's just a flag to indicat ehtat I am allowed to use NPW, which requires authorisation, which anyone who is not a blatant vandal will get, as it potentially allows fast edits or vast vandalism, but thank you for the cheers :D. Second, this article. Hieracium Anatomy is already much better than either of your other titles. If I get this right, the article you have in mind, is a description of Hieracium, with pictures to help with identification. My first thought, is that that would be much better suited for wikispecies. What you seem to have in mind is a practical guide kind of thing, which wikipedia is specificly not, per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Could you give me an idea if I am thinking on the right track here?

Nope, I actually have a guide here with me (printed on a dead tree and not in a place easily displayed for a monitor), It is filled with abbreviations, little icons and its own language. Try to think about this in the other direction -- if I were trying to write a web page for my own pleasure or perhaps a little something for a Master Gardner class (the one I took from the Michigan Extension did not ask for that kind of thing though) I would have looked at several of the other web pages that are available for this sort of thing and come to this english wikipedia for what should be the last word on it for English speaking peoples. Have you seen the page for bract? It says little that would help for this genus. Can you show me where at wikispecies that kind of page is being made? Inflorescence is also there, the description for this genus has been lumped into other along with fig and some of those weird house plants. None of the existing pages do very much to help to describe this genus.

As another note, I'd like to ask you to ask for deletion of the copy of this page, Hieracium/anatomy. You can request speedy deletion yourself by putting {{db-author}} on the page. If you are afraid work will get lost, you could always userfy this page for the time being, by moving it to a subpage of your userpage (for example, User:CarolSpears/Hieracium). Though I don't think this will be very quickly deleted, it can never hurt. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but before I do that, can I ask your experience with the botanical stuff here? I actually requested guidance from the wiki plants people and I am waiting on that. Just because you can delete pages might not mean that you should (and that is the reason that the wikilink to the page did not work when I pasted it there for your ease to remember (as templates seem to sometimes get pasted and then become forgotten). I actually thought (and am still thinking) that Hieracium/anatomy is a good way to have that information.

Once again, thank you for your time and your guessing about how things work here. I am guessing as well. Did you know that I have been commended for similar pages I have authored recently? It makes me wonder the reason that today I am having to defend things I have written within hours without much expertise being display from the offensive side and with a lot of questions being asked by the person causing the defensive stance. -- carol 00:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict from the move, notes on article title might not make too much sence anymore) If the goal of the page is a more detailed description of the Genus, I still think that Wikispecies would be the better place to put it, but wikipedia could hold that aswell. You are then basicly talking about a spinout of the article Hieracium. There is nothing against that. As for my experience with botany, I have none. If the wikiplants people can help you out, that would be great, as they are far more knowledgable than me on the field of botany. (but then again, a lot of people are ;)). I'll get rid of the transwiki template, now that I have a better idea of what your idea is. The page would be better suited to be moved still. I would suggest something along the lines of Description of Hieracium, or appearance of Hieracium. For the summory style, use the {{main}} and {{details}} templates. If I can be of any more assistance, drop me a note, or comment here. I'll keep a close eye. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger completed

I merged this article's content with Hieracium per the merger proposal that has been pending since 2011. Andrew³²⁷ 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)