Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Banksia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Some basic standards

Suggest

1. Distribution - locations orientated North -> South
   • Sometimes the easiest way of describing distribution is to say where it is most common, then mention how far it extends in various directions. Or if there is a major population and one or more smaller outlying populations, it makes sense to describe the distribution of the first population first, regardless of orientation. Snottygobble 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Plant measurements - millimetres (mm) and metres (m)
   • Yep. Snottygobble 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Taxobox image to be Flower spike
   • For species, I agree. Snottygobble 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Gnangarra 04:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Category names

Your category names are inconistent with the way everyone else names them. Suggest you remove the "WikiProject" from them. See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index_of_subjects. Rlevse 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll change it over shortly. Snottygobble 00:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

huh? Cas Liber 01:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You're confused because I had already made the changes, e.g. from Category:WikiProject Banksia articles by importance to Category:Banksia articles by importance. Snottygobble 11:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Kings Park wander

The only affected leaves where close to ground level higher branches were unaffected, and setting flower spikes

Feeling let down by WP:GA i decided to go for a wander in kings park, got some good pictures of hakea that are in flower. In two hours of walking the "nature" trails and fire breaks I could only find 1 banksia tree with a-typical dieback damage the tree was marked like other species that had obvious dieback infections, though I did see 3 dead with the same markings. I think the blus paint/dye at the base of the trunk is for the trees they have been injecting. I could recognise 3 different tree species of banksia including menziesii. Also 2 prostrate varieties though one was most likely an introduced plant as it was in a made garden bed near the DNA tower. This was a curiosity (see image), is it worth creating Banksia pests and diseases. Gnangarra 09:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

for the record 47 pictures in 120 minutes, but it was more a walk to clear my mind then to fill camera. Though from where I walked there'll be a good show of kangaroo paws, and orchids come late august. I'll probably repeat in the circuit in a week or two. Gnangarra 12:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

11 of the 47 uploaded Gnangarra 14:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

They're blisters caused by a rust. To my knowledge they are only common on leaves of B. menziesii. I assume that was the species? The Ecology of Banksia draft is starting to shape up. I plan to include a "Diseases" section, which will of course focus on dieback, but will also mention Armillaria, canker, rust, and anything else I can find a reference for.

I'll change the description page to include this info. I thought they were but without any formed flower spikes i wasn't certain. Gnangarra 02:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• From my limited plant pathology experience I don't think it's a rust; it's more like a gall. Coincidently I was just reading a fairly interesting paper on the endemic wasp family Mesostoinae - all the members associate exclusively with Banksia species forming galls on the foliage. The ref if anyone is interested is AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY 46: 559-569.--Peta 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If I recall correctly my diagnosis was courtesy of a captioned illustration in Leaf and Branch, not exactly an authoritative resource. So I'll defer to yours. Thanks for the ref; looks interesting; I've printed a copy. Actually that whole issue looks interesting. Must be a Proteaceae special issue? Hesperian 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • thanks I've altered the image description and included the reference, Is there anyway I could return to the plant(think I know exactly where it was) and confirm this now or would it be too late. Gnangarra 04:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You should be able to cut the structure open - it should contain wasp larvae and/or empty chambers where they were - there is an OK photo in the paper of a cut gall which might help. If you don't have access send me an email and I'll send you the pdf. I'm not sure its definitely a wasp gall, but if you cut it open you should be able to tell one way or the other. --Peta 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Banksia technical terms

I was thinking about the Banksia brownii article and how the technical terms were highlighted. Maybe a possible solution is to create this or a similar article with each term given a section where it can be explained with a diagram(photo) specificly related to the banksia plants, then all terminology links would be to this page and it relevant section. That way there's no more confusion with multiple meanings. Gnangarra 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I can remember some books having anatomy bits - there are pages on inflorescence, and perianth already. We've already put some info on the former. Will have a look at the terms tooCas Liber 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've often wondered how to handle this issue, which arises often. I favour the idea of a Glossary of Banksia terms article, but I am virtually certain such an article would be given short thrift by the deletionists. Snottygobble 02:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if its built on a non article page first, then when ready we'll move it to the page fix the links in. It cant be deleted if there is 30 or so pages linked to it. Besides if they try we'll quote the Banksia brownii article GA nomination as a reason for its creation and use. Gnangarra 02:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Glossary sounds a lot more officious, additionally if its GA or FA nominated, or even FL, we could call it List of Banksia anatomy Gnangarra

C.Liber

This person is appearing as a reference in a lot of articles for this project should we honour him with an article Gnangarra 09:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha (dunno what to say really...pic of me grinning) [[1]] Cas Liber 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

.....................Next potential FA canditate?

Guys, any idea what one to do next? I guess options are the genus, B. menziesii, or B. integrifolia, B. ericifolia, B. spinulosa, or is doing another species 'samey'?

For summertime, you should be able to gte some great shots of B. grandis or B attenuata and both would be good candidates. cheers.Cas Liber 20:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep working towards getting the genus up, but in the meantime I'd like to have another species in the works. My preferred is B. menziesii. Other options I had thought of were B. integrifolia (so much to say about this one), B. serrata (type species), B. marginata (taxonomically complex), B. goodii (another well-researched endangered species). Snottygobble 00:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont have a preference, B.goodii doesnt have any images that would need to be addressed before FA nomination. I'll do distribution maps for each of these in the next couple of weeks. Gnangarra 03:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point, scratch goodii. If we take the intersection of Cas's and my lists, we end up with a choice between menziesii and integrifolia. Snottygobble 04:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

since its down to two lets work both until FA, then choose Gnangarra 05:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Snottygobble 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree.Cas Liber 11:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Banksia integrifolia is starting to get quite meaty now...Cas Liber 04:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

article importance

Every species article currently rated as mid but is this really accurate.

• Are there species that have more prominance(sp) due to commercial uses?
• Are there species that have cultural importance?

or have I just lost my mind or is this broad brush approach ok. Gnangarra 12:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said here, I regret rating them all as mid. I actually think most of them should all be at least high, because they are so core to the project. I also agree that they shouldn't all be the same. Species should get a higher rating if they are:

1. well known (e.g. B. menziesii)
2. widely distributed (e.g. B.  integrifolia, B. marginata, B. dentata)
3. taxonomically important (e.g. B. serrata, the type species)
4. commercially important (e.g. B. prionotes, B. coccinea)
5. or particularly prominent for any other reason.

Snottygobble 00:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

New stub

Hi guys,

This looks like one hell of an active WikiProject, good work! I was just creating an article (Grevillea petrophiloides), and went looking for the suitable stub (finding it to be just plant-stub). I noticed that the Banksia genus is taking a large portion of the plant stubs. Have you considered creating a stub for banksias (or better yet Proteaceae)? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 09:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I created stubs for Proteaceae and Banksia, and retagged the articles. Snottygobble 12:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. --liquidGhoul 12:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirlingia latifolia

Walking through Kings Park photographing orchids I saw a sign saying this Stirlingia latifolia species was a member of the Banksia family?. This sign is one of a new series of signs placed along the nature walk Gnangarra 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, um, it is a member of Proteaceae, but not closely related to banksia (odd thing to put on a sign).cheers.Cas Liber 06:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've occasionally heard Proteaceae referred to as the "banksia family" or the "protea family". Oddly enough I've never heard it referred to as the "grevillea family". Snottygobble 06:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

still very strange that such inaccurate terminology can be use by somewhere so involve in the preservation of WA native plants. Gnangarra 08:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

• Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
• Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

• About the plugin
• About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
• User guide
• About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 11:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Useful location

http://www.anbg.gov.au/acra/acra-list-2004.html List of Australian registered Cultivars / List of Registered Cultivars derived from Australian native flora Gnangarra 13:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclatural conventions, summary and apology

Earlier on I enforced certain nomenclatural rules which I believed to be correct at the time. In a couple of cases I was wrong, so I owe you guys an apology for insisting on doing things my way. Here's an update on their status:

1. Always include "subsp." and "var." in trinomial names. Correct; these are required for plant names, but always omitted from animal names.
2. Don't include the year in author attribution. Correct; years are never included for plants, only for animals.
3. Use "subsp." rather than "ssp.". I had thought that "subsp." was formally correct and "ssp." was slang. It turns out that the ICBN doesn't rule on how ranks should be abbreviated, so neither is formally correct or incorrect. However, the ICBN uses "subsp." throughout its Code, and so does IPNI. Closer to home, George, Theile, APNI, etc. all use "subsp.". So I think the convention we have settled on is best.
4. Don't abbreviate species epithets. Again there is no formal ruling, but abbreviating the species in subspecies and variety names is absolutely widespread and perfectly acceptable. I have abandoned my (in hindsight) ridiculous insistence on expanding the "i." to "integrifolia", and, unless you guys object, will probably begin to use the shorter form where it is warranted.

Hesperian 12:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As there no real convention that must be followed for 3,4 the current format is acceptable and as long as we remain consistant across all articles. As my taxonomical knowledge has only expanded from being associated with this project I like the expanded format, but I'll follow like a good sheep along what ever trail you guys want to take. Gnangarra 12:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I always knew ssp. was OK for subsp. but it looks too similar to sp. for mine and I don't like it. Otherwise I am glad you've formalised a style. Cas Liber 12:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: May be a good time to nominate soon as the FAC commenters are supporting alot of stuff ;)Cas Liber 12:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

be more fun, to wait until they are inclined to oppose every thing then slip it in that'll throw them all off balance. Gnangarra 12:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats the next FA

Banksia integrifolia is now FA so which articles are the most likely candidates to concentrate on? Gnangarra 13:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

....well, the other one we were going to concentrate on was Banksia menziesii but there is also the genus and Ecology pages to think about. Has any other wikiproject had a run of FAs on really closely related articles? Cas Liber 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting B. menziesii to FA would be very special, but at the moment I don't feel much inclined to focus heavily on a single article, nor sufficiently motivated to take on such a big project. Perhaps we should adopt the "integrifolia model" again: i.e. you guys work on whatever you want, and I'll bludge off you until the article is nearly finished, then come in later with a bit of spit'n'polish.

One article that is on my mind is the recently published and little-known B. epica. This is very short, yet virtually complete. We could get this to FAC with a couple of weeks' work (e.g. eliminate red links; distribution map; units). I know the FA people say they don't care about length, "too short" isn't actionable, blah blah blah, but in reality would this be too short to have any prospect of making FA?

Hesperian 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

B. epic has an interesting story behind the collection and naming, I'll do the distribution map. Also as its planted in the banksia garden at Kings Park in go get leaf, branch photos if required. I'm not concerned about article size as theres a short article at FA now thats looking like its going to be successful. In the back of my mind would be Alex George though I dont think we could get it to FA in time to request front page on the 4th April. I think we should start looking towards something other than species Gnangarra 23:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done the red links already! I'll have to have a think about what needs to be done to spruce this up. Hesperian 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)