User talk:Hesperian/Archive 34

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposed community ban of User:CarolSpears

As you were one of CarolSpears' supporters I want to notify you that I have proposed a community ban of her at AN/I.[1] --Blechnic (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hesperian 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you help on Commons? I have repeatedly asked Carol Spears to leave me alone, but the harrassment and pestering that began here on Wikipedia (over an incident that never occurred) now continues on Commons. I do not want her posting her blog on my talk page; I do not want her comments; I do not want any more contact with her on my talk page at all. She is creating undue stress in my life and refuses to leave me alone. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Hesperian 03:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, out of curiosity, you supported CarolSpears at one point, I noticed that you considered that she had been harassed. Some people, harassed, don't respond well, and will lash out in anger or with other behaviors that, then, will make them into the identified problem. What happened? She is banned, but that requires that there be no admin willing to unblock. I understand that an unblock could be difficult, and I'm not proposing it, but I'm trying to understand what happened. The editor who seems to have been the most active tracking and accusing her, Blechnic, did also harass, in my opinion, Wilhelmina Will, who was topic banned as a result. When the evidence came to light as to what had happened, the ban was reversed, though not without quite a bit of wikidrama. In the middle of trying to search through Wilhelmina Will's edits for copyright violations, and being very active, Blechnic abruptly stopped editing August 4. --Abd (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of parallels between the two cases, aren't there? Many of Carol's alleged copyright violations weren't violations at all; and many more were violations of the most trifling nature. I am still of the opinion that if someone had carefully explained to Carol the nature of the problem, then the problem would have ceased.

I am also still of the opinion that Carol was harassed by Blechnic and others; I know it wasn't their intent to harass, but they got too wrapped up in their mission to protect the 'pedia, and took actions way beyond reasonable force. e.g. User talk:Hesperian/Archive 33#CarolSpears' copyvio documents the case of someone who would entirely gut an article because a single sentence was identified as a copyright violation; and who will take issue with someone who would handle it more deftly.

But the parallels between the two cases fail when you consider the nature of Carol's interactions. Carol is exceedingly difficult to get along with. Her favourite mode of communication is sarcasm; she is liberal with insults towards people she doesn't like or who have wronged her; and she speaks in riddles much of the time.

On top of that, some other stuff came out during the AN/I discussion, including a discussion so bizarre that it made us wonder if she was unwell: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Einstein receiving certificate of American citizenship. And there is also the dreadful way she treated Durova over at Commons. Sure, we're not supposed to take Commons stuff into account over here, but I can't fault an administrator for bearing it in mind.

So the status quo, as I understand it, is this: Carol should never have been dragged over the coals in the first place; but she was, and while in the limelight she put on display her full range of flippancy, sarcasm and insults; plus others drew attention of other problems with her character, interactions and edits; and she was banned. Currently no administrators is willing to stick out their neck for her; and if an administrator should feel disposed to do so, I would encourage them to first spend a week with her over at Commons, where the underlying problems continue to manifest themselves, albeit not magnified by wikidrama.

Hesperian 04:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s. sorry about the mixed metaphor. Hesperian 04:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You can mix metaphors any time you like. Sounds accurate to me, and it seems to be an example of how our process can make situations worse. CarolSpears may have been a problem, but so was the harassment of her, and we may never know if better treatment of her might have resulted in a better response from her. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. --Abd (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

wikibreak

I'm on wikibreak until Monday. Hesperian 04:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Banksia acanthopoda now has images Gnangarra 07:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice indeed; thanks! Hesperian 12:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK i will get around to that format for refs in time - just the Indonesian project chaos brings on short cut methods :) SatuSuro 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that's the beauty of collaboration. You can add your reference and move on, safe in the knowledge that some wonk (e.g. me) will format it for you. And I can create articles and move on, safe in the knowledge that someone (e.g. you) will tag it into the appropriate projects. Hesperian 03:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm such preditability :) SatuSuro 03:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot

While searching for the Lightbot errors that I posted I found this Lightbot edit from 7 June that I found interesting. As you can see, at that time it was removing the wikilinking from months but not years. Now, Lightbot removes wikilinking from years as well. I thought nothing of this until I followed the link that ra52 provided[2] and discovered that Lightbot was approved on 5 June, two days before that edit. This indicates there have been changes to Lightbot's functionality since it was approved. This raised a serious question but I'm completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's controls on bots. Once a bot is approved does the bot's creator effectively have complete, unchecked control on changes until somebody complains, as has happened now, or is there some policy on changes to the bots functionality that the creator has to follow? --AussieLegend (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot policy, like all policy, must submit to the ignore all rules policy. According to bot policy, Lightmouse should seek approval for every tiny change s/he makes to his/her bot's functionality. But that is totally ridiculous, and I think Lightmouse is quite right not to bother seeking approval for trivial changes; s/he should just make the change and get on with his/her work. An occasional screwup is the small price we as a community pay for being laid back about it. Hesperian 01:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cripes

• (a) I am indeed proud that i am on your watch list (well at least at times :( ) - thanks for your help - cheers -
• (b) after all that it was such a loose sort of connection i wonder whether he'll think im odd having put two in
• (c) ice on the windscreen this am but the wildflowers are going crazy (also this ams west has a story on the issue as well) I think youll be able to name your flower and theyll be there out and bright and beautiful if you want gnang self or others to get some brill pickies SatuSuro 03:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TinucherianBot you probably have already seen it pass by on your watch list - it makes me reflect upon them - bots must only as dumb as their creators (or should that be like all technology is only as dumb as)it must have spent 6 hours changing what i and others had tagged as cat to Cat - ahh give me a manual typewriter and a nice place in the sun (its freezing up here)SatuSuro 01:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

wikisource issues

I have checked, and harsh is indeed στυφελος, which is two letter different from what the source says, which is what you wrote - ςυφελος - they left out the τ, and used ς at the beginning of a word, a no-no. Question is, is it worth putting a footnote with the correct translation of the word? (i.e. highlighting the source got it wrong but not correcting the text as such? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: the other is fine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RFA?

Thanks for your unexpected message. I'm flattered and possibly interested in the interests of more effective vandalism control and the speedier resolution of AfD's. That said I think there's a bit of work to be done before I was ready, both in article writing and admin areas. My article writing tends to be taking stubs to medium-quality pieces, rather than medium pieces to GA-FA. That's fine by me but I suspect some people considering RfA's expect a featured article or two. On admin areas I think I have a good knowledge of the "rules" and responses but I'd want to spend some time doing intensive work on this before nominating.

Can I have a think about it and get back to you at a later date? Euryalus (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mm? If/when the time comes I would be very pleased to be nominated by you, provided you still agree. Euryalus (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of trying new things per the above, I've just lodged my first SSP report. An apparent and fairly hamfisted attempt to multiple-vote at an AfD - not exactly earth-shattering but still marginally worth raising. If you have a moment could you havea look at the report I lodged and give me any pointers re this kind of thing? Euryalus (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward. Initially I wondered whether this was just someone who didn't give a crap whether they were editing through account or IP. Someone who doesn't give a crap either way isn't really abusing multiple accounts because there is no attempt to deceive. But in this case there is clearly a established pattern of trying to get his/her vote counted twice.

The other thing is that when someone passes the duck test so easily, there is not really any need to ask a checkuser to confirm that we're dealing with a duck. It is so obvious that a checkuser isn't going to tell you anything you didn't already know. Better to just deal with it as obvious sockpuppeteering; in this case all it really needs is to strike one of their votes, and let them know that double-voting is forbidden. You can escalate it if they do; e.g. you can ask for a checkuser if they tried to deny the link. Hesperian 04:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I initially thought so too, until the AfD !vote (both in reality and the mistaken one on the talk page). I'm a bit hesitant with the duck test on the basis of "innocent until proven guilty" - not being an expert in this area I'd rather be cautious with my conclusions. Its also good practice in lodging a report, for what that's worth.

Thanks for the feedback. Euryalus (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries; it's all good. Hesperian 05:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Quack

Region talk edit v odd - still old one - really odd SatuSuro 08:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ta; fixed. Hesperian 11:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

degrees

I tried to explain approximatelly, correct them if I'm wrong, I tried to help, somebody who isn't from Aust. or N.Z. does'nt know where that popultions are located.

degrees

O.K. right thank you--Jaguarlaser (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Parrot Bush

If any of you guys should happen to see a Parrot Bush growing down here on the sandplain, please snap it for me. The sandplain variety is B. sessilis var. cygnorum, for which we lack a picture. Hesperian 00:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok how do we tell its the real mckoie? Nothing personal but as I have grown sandplain varieties up here on scarp (tuart tree in darlington, very healthy scaevola crassifolia on glen forrest clay) - so theres always the problem of finding a hills sesselis rogue located on sandplain ie reverse - would it be simply the smaller leaves?SatuSuro 15:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Small and wedge-shaped; that's really the only easy way to tell the difference. Hesperian 23:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ta - scuse the posturing but, rogue misplacements is the name of where the bots (botanists) they gets their medals when they clarify or refute the assumed locations with the descriptions i supposes SatuSuro 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Received with thanks. Hesperian 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anytime - just state the full name so can get cf's against something like barrett and eng pin tay (Perth Plants) which i got today SatuSuro 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Lightbot

I've proposed to User:Lightmouse that I will unblock Lighbot, provided it goes back to its original functionality; i.e. not adding the {{convert}} template. As you are the admin who originally blocked it, would you be happy for me to do this? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

speciosa victoriae baxteri

I was a bit confused by the similarity of these:

• 
• 
• 

and then I found this: [3] Melburnian (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You totally rock! I've been scratching my head over this since last September: User talk:Casliber#B. victoriae. Now, finally, I can rewrite Banksia victoriae#Discovery and naming. Hesperian 07:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Network vandalism continues

The block on Cooper University Hospital has expired and the predictable vandalism has returned, presumably from the same "Network" fraternity jokers. —Whoville (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Australia-plant-stub

Template:Australia-plant-stub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist

My watchlist just blew up :) --Melburnian (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. :-( Hesperian 07:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, you have created a useful category to check through --Melburnian (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've still got a hundred or so to go; will finish it tomorrow. Hesperian 10:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hadnt checked my watchlist - me too! very good idea to have done it SatuSuro 11:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I expect my friend from across the ditch will be here shortly to join in the chorus of congratulations. Hesperian 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You know an editor in the Antartic? SatuSuro 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Oh that ditch with all the damned faults and trenches SatuSuro 14:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I had thought that it was just an ugly rumour that all the plants in Australia were stubs. I had thought that some of the eucalypts were quite tall.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Australia-plant-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Grutness! Nice to hear from you again; we must do this more often. Hesperian 00:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh - not too often like this I hope :). I've just discovered this has already been nominated for deletion at the wrong forum (if it had gone to SFD as it should, it probably wouldn't have survived, since stub types for plants are always split by taxon. That way there's no overlap. I know that Australia's a bit of a special case, but there'd still be enough overlap for this one to be a problem (and an unhealthy precedent). Hope things are fine with you, sorry for the "form letter" notification! Grutness...wha? 00:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, plants are always split by taxon... except, of course, for {{vegetable-stub}}, {{fruit-stub}}, {{tree-stub}}, {{fruit-tree-stub}}, {{Fabaceae-tree-stub}} and arguably {{Grass-stub}}. Gosh, that's a lot of unhealthy precedents. ;-) I'm glad you've softened up that form letter a bit; last time its tone really yanked my beard. Hesperian 01:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Just to let you(and other likely suspects) know since its probably of interest I've started on this Gnangarra 09:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

At last someone has had the courage SatuSuro 11:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

After JH this is easy Gnangarra 12:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloody good. And not before time. The best summary of the history of botany in Western Australia that I come across is "Extra-tropical Western Australia" in People and plants in Australia. I can pass you a scan if you want. (Although published in 1981, it is essentially a translation of an article published in German in 1909, so it only covers 17th and 18th centuries; but it does so very well indeed) Hesperian

that would be great, my source is better on the post 1900 info. Gnangarra 12:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Monday. Hesperian 12:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, while I'm able to write the historical, and the statistical distrubtions etc. I honestly dont know enough to be able to go into the detail about bioregions, could you add a section on that. Also appreciate if you prompt me on any specifics you'd like to see covered, I think that Wildflower society, Flora base, Herbarium will need to be covered in a section. Overall theres no rush this ones going to take a few weeks to nail down before moving to mainspace. Gnangarra 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll pull out my notes. Hesperian 01:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I scanned it as promised today, but it came out over 20Mb, and gmail knocked it back. I CBF figuring out how to shrink the file size, so I'll scan it again at lower resolution tomorrow, and send then. Hesperian 11:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, sent. Hesperian 02:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ID help

Need help with an ID for this one full location details on the image page, taken near Mundaring weir its a shrub ~1.5-2.0 meters tall small population of plants 5 adult plants all similar size and a handful of juvenile plants. Gnangarra 02:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be Hakea amplexicaulis [4][5][6] Melburnian (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that.Gnangarra 05:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a side thought, while uploading and assigning categories is it worth placing the pictures in IRBA categories, so this would be in SW, JF, SWA, WAR... thoguhts? Gnangarra 05:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you follow that "notes" link above, you'll see that in a past life I started collating flora articles by IBRA region. The idea was to create the categories once we had sufficient plant articles to populate them. Since then the issue of cosmopolitan species has twice reared its ugly head. If we categorise by IBRA categories, aren't we likely to see some species in 40-odd categories for Australia alone? I like the idea, but I'm not much interested in getting involved in that argument all over again. Hesperian 05:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gibbo

Theres a qustion at gbson desert re talk i thought you or moondyne might answer with more informed tact re facsimiles than i could - i cannot bring myself to answer to a user name like that when i havent had breakfast yet :( SatuSuro 23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC) monday morning it must be - gmail is playing up on me real odd- gibson desert is at talk page, and one thing - bruny island is another - gotta get a kid to school - talk later SatuSuro 00:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Moondyne 01:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stathams gallery growing at my user gallery on commons - still hve many flowers to follow :( or :) whichever way you look at it all SatuSuro 02:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm busy proofing OIC's recent foray into Wikisource at the moment; will look later. Cheers, Hesperian 02:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Horse shoe-ers

Thanks for yoour help in the category business. Many well-known people have shoed horses - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Chairman Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Jethro Tull, Willaim Cobbett, William Shakespeare. (completely unsubstantiated).

No worries mate. Hesperian 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Carnivorous plants of Oceania

G'day mate,

Have you noticed me mucking about with your category structures yet? I'm very slowing working to bring our category structure into conformance with the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. The guys who put that together put a hell of a lot of thought into what is the best, most practical, category structure for recording plants-by-distribution, and botanical databases all over have adopted it, so I can't imagine why we wouldn't adopt it too.

I've now completed Australia and New Zealand, and would be finished with Australasia except for a terminological clash with "Oceania". The WGSRPD doesn't recognise a continent called "Oceania". The vast majority of the plants that Wikipedia has been filing under Oceania belong under either Australasia or the Pacific. I have dispersed the contents of Category:Flora of Oceania to Category:Flora of Australasia and Category:Flora of the Pacific, and have left a message at User talk:Kaarel about nuking the Oceania category, but haven't received a reply yet.

With respect to your hungry critters, I've created Category:Carnivorous plants of Australasia and Category:Carnivorous plants of the Pacific, and will gradually disperse the contents of Category:Carnivorous plants of Oceania to them, if you don't object to my doing so. For now, I've made them subcategories of your Oceania category, but ultimately I would like to nuke the latter.

Any comments?

Hesperian 01:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Long time, no chat! Yep, I saw you diving into that. It's been a problem for quite some time and I may have contributed to the mess by misinterpreting the messy Oceania boundaries. I really appreciate you taking the time to fix that. Do let me know if you need any help; some of the species stubs don't mention distribution one bit, but I have materials here that mention distribution. I've liked the WGSRPD ever since you first introduced it to me, but I haven't had much time to read through it yet. I'd support nuking the Oceania category when empty. As an aside, I have a question for you Banksia folks. Mind if I ask you for a plant ID or at the very least confirmation that it's some kind of Banksia? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate it. I purchased a few seeds of Banksia and sowed them about a year and a half ago. One came up very quickly (right) and began to grow vigorously once I put it outside this summer. Surprisingly, something else began to grow that I thought originally resembled a Banksia but started putting out alternate leaves and now I wonder if it's some seed that got into the pot by accident, though I didn't notice anything. Any ideas? I know it would be easier with flowers, but I'm hoping for a "no way that's a Banksia" so I can just go ahead and pull it and forget about it. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 

The ones on the left are definitely not banksias. I'd say they aren't even Proteaceae, but beyond that I couldn't begin to guess. You don't know what species of banksia you bought? Cas might be able to id it for you, though juveniles can be difficult.... Hesperian 03:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks =) After re-reading the description on the Banksia article, it should have been clear to me. Unfortunately, I don't have the list of seeds I bought, but I do remember purchasing B. integrifolia. Could the photos on the right be the juvenile leaves of that species? The goal was to get some species of shrub or tree that might have a snowflake's chance in hell in surviving in the US hardiness zone 5 to 6, but I doubt that possibility. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not integrifolia. Juveniles aren't that different. Hesperian 03:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Damn my lack of labeling! Can't blame this one the cat, though she did find it tasty once or twice. Well, anyway, thanks for your help. Sorry for hijacking the thread. Do let me know if you run into any trouble with those distributions and recruit me where necessary. Time for bed here. Have a good one! --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tricky- the juvie leaves could feasibly be integrifolia but are more serrated than is usual for that species, which is as common as muck, so if that is what they say they are, then they probably are. Other possibilities are B. seminuda or an unusual B. marginata. I will get someone to have a look. Some species are happy down to -12C and snow, but not for long periods. You can only try - in a pot or south facing wall maybe ok. How cold does it get where you are in Ohio? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's an illustration here showing an example of a juvenile leaf of Banksia integrifolia (marked H) with prominently toothed leaves. Melburnian (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi, is there any rule that an image of a person cannot be used in an article unless the person depicted in the image gives permission to do so? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Some jurisdictions have personality rights. I don't really know a great deal about it. Hesperian 11:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed it

[7] Hesperian 11:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxalis

• 2704,5,6: No idea, but it is too beautiful to ignore; well worth uploading this one so Melburnian et al can id it.

Found out what it is Oxalis purpurea, native of South Africa found from geraldton to esperance, common weed in KP Gnangarra 13:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• opinion flabellifolia? Gnangarra 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that the golf course one gnang? how do you get the diff from the other variants? the book? SatuSuro 15:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep Bolgart golf course, looking at the Flora base maps. Gnangarra 00:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There's some images for comparison here Melburnian (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats ok it was my mistake, that wasnt sess v flab its sess v sess. that was in the toodyay cutting. Gnangarra 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

the Oxalis is now uploaded Gnangarra 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Flowering plant nomenclature

The citation is correct. The Cantino et al. publication uses a PhyloCode definition, which amends the Lindley circumscription. As such the amending publication is to be cited parenthetically. Please refer to the cited Cantino publication which shows how to cite PhyloCode definitions of clades. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the first issue is whether we are using a rank-based name, or a clade name. If a rank-based name, then we follow the ICBN, and the citation is

Angiospermae Lindl.

If a clade name, then we might follow the draft PhyloCode, in which case the citation is apparently

Angiospermae Lindley [P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue]

i.e. square brackets not parentheses.

I agree that the article is essentially about the clade, but using the PhyloCode name is a bit problematic considering the PhyloCode is still a draft, it has not yet gone into operation, and therefore Cantino's names are not validly published under it. "The starting date of the PhyloCode will be scheduled to coincide with the publication of a volume that will provide phylogenetic definitions for many widely used clade names and the names of many large clades (see below). Names that were provided with published phylogenetic definitions before that date will not be considered to be established under the PhyloCode."[8] Cantino is fairly clear that he is working "towards a phylogenetic nomenclature", rather than actually establishing a nomenclature.

On top of all that, the PhyloCode is explicit about all its names being rankless, so if we're using a rank name, it is incorrect to give it divisio rank.

Since you've indicated that you want to use Cantino's name, I've corrected the citation in accordance with that.[9] But I'll reiterate that I do not endorse premature adoption of the PhyloCode.

Hesperian 23:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For the vast majority of plant names, I agree with you. The problem is (in part) that the Wikipedia articles for the highest-level groups ("ferns + horsetails", "magnoliids", "asterids", etc.) are core navigational articles and there is no published name under the ICBN that circumscribes these clades in anything resembling the modern phylogenetic sense. For these high-order groups (about a dozen), I propose that the Cantino paper descriptions be used even if they are not "validly published", because the cited reference will present the problem and refer the reader to cladograms and taxonomic literature of much greater benefit. Again, I don't propose trying to fully incorporate PhyloCode principles, and there are anumber of clades named in the Cantino paper that I don't think deserve articles. However, for the few high-level groups that have heretofore been unofficially named in phylogenetic studies, and for which we have key articles, the Cantino definitions and reference should be used, IMO. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh the burrows

All because of the source you sent for User:Gnangarra/Sandbox/Flora of Western Australia, I was looking at James Drummond (botanist) information and saw that Hydatella became Trithuria and seeing as Hydatella leptogyne 1st collected by Drummond and is declared rare, found only in a reserve north of Toodyay which just happens to be in the area of a planned photo trip we end up detouring to there for picts and with an article on Drummond Nature Reserve. Now I know why you all were laughing at me when I said I'd start a Flora of WA article, but I get the last laugh between me a SatuSuro theres about 100 flower pictures some will need id's (Cas has got the Fungi already) and most will need articles. I think you and melb will be kept busy for a while. Gnangarra 13:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Youre tellin him g! SatuSuro 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For the latin challenged

?huh? SatuSuro 12:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

cum grano salis means with a grain of salt. A barnstar for whoever can tell SatuSuro the story behind the poem. A hint: there's a double pun there, on Paradise and salis. Hesperian 12:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough to go into wiktionary to see the thoroughly atrociuous lack of adequate australian english work - and sidestep the latin barnstart bribery SatuSuro 13:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the words were penned by James Edward Smith and 'Paradise' refers to The Paradisus Londinensis by Richard Anthony Salisbury ('Salis'). Moondyne 13:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Proabably just a coincidence, but Smith stored the Linnaeus collection in rented apartments in Paradise Row, Chelsea. I have no idea of the story behind the poem. Moondyne 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Good enough; well done!

Smith and Salisbury hated each others' guts. In March 1808, Salisbury published a plant in his The Paradisus Londinensis that he named Hookera coronaria (see it here). The next month, Smith overturned Salisbury's name, publishing the same plant as Brodiaea grandiflora (see it here). Salisbury didn't like that much, and the September issue of his Paradisus contains a long rant against Smith, which accuses him of deception and ends "It is of little importance which of these names is adopted by future botanists; for, if my ideas respecting the genus are right, they will be confirmed in spite of all Dr. J. E. Smith's opposition, whose multiplied acts of injustice to me, whether open or concealed, I sincerely forgive". How nice of him. Smith then composed this clever little ditty, with its double pun on Paradise and salis, and must have passed it around botany circles as a running joke at Salisbury's expense, as it is contained in a letter from Smith to William Roscoe, and was handwritten by Smith into his copy of the Paradisus, and was handwritten by Robert Brown into his copy.

I find this poem interesting, because of the cleverness and "inside joke" nature of the puns, and the intriguing historical backstory.

Hesperian 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Great story. And now the plant is called Brodiaea coronaria. It seems they both got a piece of the glory. Moondyne 14:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, botanists will get off their backsides to conserve genus names, but can't be f*cked conserving the individual species names. Hesperian 14:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that article mention Menzies, as the collector? I wouldn't know if that was appropriate or significant. Moondyne 14:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, very well; done. Hesperian 23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, botanists will get off their backsides to conserve genus names, but can't be f*cked conserving the individual species names. Me wrong, as usual.[10] Hesperian 01:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

?huh? has been answered very well thanks for that guys :)- if all that had not been put in one wonders about youse folks sometimes - but i suppose a close read of wikisource contribs could have uncovered parts of all this SatuSuro 14:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

anecdotally

there i was minding my own business at a friends place on sunday, and the baby nikon had to come out immediately - another variant of the bloody sesselis - have heaps images to upload - just doing one for the mo at my gallery - cheers SatuSuro 02:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. Hesperian 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Havent had a chance to check the id yet - larger softer leaves - and much larger flowers than the strettle road ones - about another 8 or so images for further checking - when my damned teenagers are not awake and on their computers - i wouldnt be suprised if there is an inter and intra genus playfulness with variants but hey im no scientist SatuSuro 02:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sky as well? - even zamphuor seems to have left - have tried to cajole offline - but has other things in life - so I'd say no recent edits for 6 months or more is also another way of looking at it as well? SatuSuro 11:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC) rensis looks like a long gone too if i read the contribs right SatuSuro 11:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I booted everyone who hadn't edited in 2008. Need to be conservative because some of these people only edit a couple of times a month, and regularly have multi-month breaks. I wouldn't want to boot someone who considered themselves an active member in good standing. Hesperian 11:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.