Emok

I liked your edit to roughness. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Amending the roughness chart

Hi Emok,

This image has the units the other way around, could you amend it? It was removed from roughness by another user who noticed it.

If you are short of time, I will make the change myself in a couple of days (it just won't look as good as I don't have good graphics software).

Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan/Shanghai map

Emok, if you have the time, would you mind creating maps like your Korea/Manchukuo/Mengjiang maps, but for the following articels: Taiwan under Japanese rule Second Philippine Republic Empire of Vietnam

Thanks. --SelfQ (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Plantbox

Hi Emok, sorry for my synthaxis. I really appreciate your work, but sincerely I think the amount of work to do what you want is colosal, we don't have even wikipedians to put every plant on its own page. Hardly we can make a quick "Description" section. And the glossary you have seen (Terminología descriptiva de las plantas) is in construction since last year and I don't know when it will be finished. It's only morphology centered on angiosperms, it lacks terminology about anatomy, embryology, palinology, etc, and about morphology of reproductive structures of gimnosperms and ferns, and morphology and everything else about briophytes. I am talking about a lot of work for various years. And that is a previous step if you want to make a plantbox.

Besides that, there are a couple of problems I can see people can face while completing a plantbox:

• terminology is not a consensus, and you will find different glossarys with different definitions of the same term. So the plantbox should have very precise (and arbitrarily decided) definitions and users should learn to adapt their vocabulary to that of the plantbox.
• There should be a manner to put variability in a single character. Sometimes you can find a plant can have different states of the same character. Higher ranks will have higher variability for each character.
• there are a lot of "but not that so" in the descriptions of the plants. There should be a comments box in each of the lines so you can explain better.
• users constantly will find terms that are not listed in the box. Terminology is incredible vast.
• different authors may have reached different conclusions about what state of a character a plant has.

Maybe the last points are not a big problem to resolve, but the first one (to add all, all, all terminology in a consensed glossary) is a really big one.

So that's my opinion, I think the plantbox is cute but I have serious doubts about if we have the manpower to add all terminology needed if we want to do it right. If you want to generate a list of terminology needed you may want to check this site: http://delta-intkey.com/angio/ is about a diagnostic description of each family of flowering plant in the world. There you can generate a nice list nice ordered, if you check every family. Good luck. --RoRo (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

I've brought my comments here, please believe me sans any hostility, because it would be less appropriate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Keys in Wikipedia articles.
As one who has (in real life) been told that I often take people too literally, it is also possible to read into the quotes of others only subtext (which is a thing that can be interpreted by different people in different ways) while ignoring the substance of what they are saying. Please assume good faith in those editors with whom you disagree. Holding strong opinions does not always mean 'hostility'. Everyone has been in the position of defending their ideas in the face of strong opposition, and to call everyone else unfair is a fallacy we all are tempted to make some times. I've been there, too, and may be in the future. The major problem with it is that it can become self-fulfilling, as editors (fallible humans the lot of us) begin accusing each other of things, and the subject gets lost in the mix up. Best to not focus on what we may think of another editor personally, but simply counter their arguments, or see the sense of them. Again, I've been where you are (haven't we all?). By the way, the ideas you presented are brilliant (I'm sure many would agree), but I still think not right for Wikipedia. Respectfully, Hamamelis (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I've left the conversation.emok (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Plantbox

Template:Plantbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Emok. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.