Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Carnivorous plants

New Pinguicula species

[1], but I don't have access to the article and don't know which section, if any, it was published under. Any ideas? --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright free photos

Hi, all! I was browsing the ICPS forum today and found an interesting note at the bottom of one person's post that may be helpful to the project. See this. At the bottom, the user notes, "All my pictures are without copyright." And he posts quite a few photos that may be useful. Lots of species we don't have. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal

Looks like user:ZooFari created Portal:Carnivorous plants. It doesn't look too bad, but could do with some work. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Carnivorous plant

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Utricularia

With the completion of the Utricularia subramanyamii stub, the Utricularia genus is completely filled in. On to another genus! And then maybe filling in stubby Utric articles. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo.. great work! :) I've noticed that Utricularia vulgaris (the best known species, right?) is one of these stubby articles and was created before your exhaustive article creation run. Any chance you could flesh it out a bit? :) mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. It's in need of some work. I think I have some references floating around here somewhere on it. I was also going to try and work a bit more on Sarracenia. Another editor wants to put it up for FAC, but I think it's far from it. I'll see what I can do. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Utricularia inflexa

I am told by someone on Flickr that Utricularia_inflexa has the wrong picture: "U. inflexa is yellow (we have a poorish picture)" (I can't seem to find their picture online). Richard001 (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

From everything I've seen and read, it looks right to me. In Taylor's monograph, he states: "Corolla white or pale mauve or more rarely yellow, with purple nerves..." so it seems there's some variability within the taxon. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Carnivorous Plants

Hey, folks. If anyone is interested, there has been a proposed change to our assessment banner. Other editors have put considerable effort into standardizing WikiProject banners with {{WPBannerMeta}} and now they want to convert ours. Take a look at the discussion at Template talk:Carnivorous Plants and voice your concern or approval there if you'd like. Much appreciated! --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Genera categories

If anyone didn't notice the discussion at WT:PLANTS, take a look: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Working systematically with common names. I've already begun to implement this with the Utricularia and Drosera and had an idea to begin it with the Stylidium. So far we have categories such as:

• Category:Utricularia
  • Category:Utricularia species by common name
  • Category:Utricularia by taxonomic synonyms
• Category:Drosera
  • Category:Drosera species by common name
  • Category:Drosera by taxonomic synonyms

And so on. Seems like a good idea to me. Mgiganteus1, any thoughts on implementing that structure in Category:Nepenthes? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles with unsourced statements

I just ran a WP:CATSCAN of the intersection between Category:Carnivorous plants and Category:All articles with unsourced statements and got a return of 18 articles: [2]. And I just took care of Drosera capensis. I suppose we're lucky as a project to have so few. Feel free to clear up the other {{fact}} tags out there on our articles. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Drosera taxonomy

Hey folks. Before I go any further in creating more Drosera stubs, I wanted your opinion. Should we continue on with the three subgenera taxonomy at List of Drosera species or should we shift toward the elevated sections to subgenera taxonomy a la Barry Rice's website? I'm currently working on subg. Ergaleium, which isn't effected by these shifts. Any opinions? --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:55, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Source of high quality CP images

Hey guys. I just came across scott.zona's photostream. It's a great source of high quality habitat photos of various CPs and includes many other exotic plants as well. All images appear to be licensed under CC-BY. mgiganteus1 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Input from Venus Flytrap experts needed...

File:Insectivorous Plants Drew's copy.jpg

The passage from Drew's book

Hi there. Could someone who's in the know about Venus Flytraps, so to speak come and take a look at this question at the Science Reference Desk? We have a user (Drew R. Smith) with a copy of Darwin's "Insectivorous Plants" which states that VFTs are native to the rainforests of South America - he's scanned the passage in question for us. Now, another user's copy of the same book states that the VFT is "found only in the eastern part of North Carolina", which would seem to agree with WPs Venus Flytrap article and most of the web, from what I can gather.

I'm bringing this here, just in case Drew and his book are correct and WP is helping to propagate a 'common misconception', based on an error in an early edition of Darwin's text. I/We'd appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Cheers. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I've searched all over the Internet - even tried to read Darwins hand-written draft of the book (it's kinda illegible) - and transcripts of letters written to him offering corrections after the first version was published. But I can't find any versions of the book that have the incorrect statement about South America. A variety of searches on the phrasing in Drew's version of the book turn up nothing whatever - but searches on the (presumed) correct version turn up dozens of online transcriptions of the book - from a variety of revisions of it - and without exception, they say "North Carolina". So it's pretty clear that Drew's book is a weird one...it would be really interesting to find out how this change came about. SteveBaker (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is late, but some information from other discussions needs to be placed here for the record:

• Evidence of a forgery by Drew Smith.

• Community ban discussion that refers to this forgery.

-- Brangifer (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[Input from third party] I believe that Darwin Could be correct because the earth was once a giant acapeligo and th venus fly trap could have generated in South America and during the split the altitude changed along with the environment for all we know the venus fly trap could have been spreed all the way across the acapeligo to as far as what is now europe or even africa but after the changes the only land left suitable to support the venus fly trap is North Carolina and a small North Eastern portion of South Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Foot2011 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No. This discussion was verified to be a hoax/forgery by an editor who manipulated a copy of Darwin's text. In any case, the evolution of the snap-trap appears to have occurred around 65 million years ago, just into the Paleocene where the continents were already fairly separate. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Photo source

Hello,

Czech CP society Darwiniana gives possibility to upload photos under CC-BY, which allows uploading them on WMC ([3]). Now only Michal Rubeš and Rosťa Kracík is uploading their photos under CC-BY, but their photos are high quality.--Petr Dlouhý (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! This is a great resource. Is there any way to easily list all of the photos that are CC-By, or do we need to go through, species by species? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For now you can at least search for authors which gives their photos under cc-by. I will write in discussion, if something better can be done. --Petr Dlouhý (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For now I think I'll just continue on through the Drosera and upload their photos. It's likely more systematic that way. And thanks for fixing my previous low-res image uploads. I don't read Czech, so I didn't figure out the download link until a few uploads later! --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: be careful, some photos (by Adam Veleba) are under cc-nc-sa, which is not suitable for use in WMC.

If you have problems with czech, google translate or dictionary can be helpful.--Petr Dlouhý (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Petr, the identifications are usually excellent, but I've run across at least one that I'd question: [4]. D. rubripetala is a synonym for D. cistiflora with distinctly large orange flowers. Any ideas? --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked on discussion. That plant is similar to D. Spathulata, but it is generating tubers.--Petr Dlouhý (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's really interesting. A new taxon, perhaps? Regardless, I must say again how much I appreciate this resource. The photos are so much better than one could ever hope for. I've worked my way through all the available CC-BY Drosera and Genlisea photos and have now started on Utricularia. Some of the macro photos of the flowers and bladders are just perfect! My thanks to the photographers for their hard work and willingness to share their photos. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Carnivorous plant articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Carnivorous plant articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Carnivorous plants of New Guinea

I've been noticing that have been deleted when I place the Carnivorous plants of New Guinea out of Asia, I placed them in Category:Carnivorous plants of Australasia and they have been removed them, O.K. I understand, I placed them in Category:Carnivorous plants of the Malesian region which is more correct and they've been removed, New Guinea isn't in Asia, New Guinea is very distant from Asia, just because someby doesn't like what I do is deleted, placing Carnivorous plants of New Guinea in the Category:Carnivorous plants of Asia is completely wrong.--Jaguarlaser (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on plant categories is to try and follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions as closely as possible. In that system, New Guinea is included under the region Papuasia, which itself is included in the tropical Asia category. So it is entirely correct to include carnivorous plants of New Guinea under the Asia category. I also don't think it would be in our best interest to split these categories any further, since we're dealing with so few articles anyway. (Australasia was incorrect because under the WGSRPD, it includes only Australia and New Zealand and a few minor islands.) Would you mind terribly if I went ahead and deleted Category:Carnivorous plants of the Malesian region since it's empty now and shouldn't be used? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed new species article?

Draft:Nepenthes titiwangsa is in the Articles for Creation queue. Do proposed new species count as notable? Newystats (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Just in case anyone still cares, I think we would generally leave creating an article until a species is formally described unless there is significant coverage prior to that for some reason. It looks like a draft was created for this article, moved around a lot in draft space and then abandoned. YFB ¿ 20:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hellooo

Is there anyone still active / participating in this project? I'm gradually tackling Drosera-related articles which seem neglected. Happy to discuss direction and priorities with others... if there are any? YFB ¿ 20:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Nepenthes rajah

Nepenthes rajah has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)