Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Ericales in NL wikipedia

Hi, Teun Spaans! I noticed you put some information in the Nederlands article. Could you please take a look and add things I missed to the English one. Thank you! Iorsh 07:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added one sentence, you got most info already. This sentence came from the german wiki. And your english is excellent, probably better than mine. See also Talk:Poales. TeunSpaans 21:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Example

I'm trying to upgrade Ragwort to an example article, as asked by User:Phyzome. I am still busy I dont know if I'll be able to complete it this weekend. TeunSpaans 09:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to expand the Ragwort so that more aspects are described. I would welcome your comments. TeunSpaans 09:26, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ragwort example does not have a Taxobox_species_entry, which the taxobox for a species section suggests the right way to do it.

Orders of flowering plants

I'm working on descriptions of the orders of flowering plants. The scope of the work includes only the orders recognized by the APG II. Described so far:

Laurales, Liliales, Alismatales, Poales, Ericales, Asterales, Geraniales, Cucurbitales, Malvales.

Since my English is far from being perfect, everybody is welcome to read and correct the articles. Iorsh 11:48, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Add references to template

I would like to see a references category added to the template.

I agree. An article without references doesn't look professional. Iorsh 23:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added a references section. User:nereocystis

Food vs Poison

There is a section called Food. The title doesn't seem quite right for poisonous plants. The ragwort example uses "Food: don't". The difference between food and medicine may be slight at times. I assume that psychoactive drugs should be mentioned under medicine. I don't have a better title than food, but I sort of think that I would prefer a better title.

I think the section names in the template are merely a recommendation about what should be covered. It is quite clear, that the person who knows a specific plant and writes about it, will sometimes choose to rename the section title or omit it altogether due to lack of information, or perhaps add new sections in addition to these recommended. Iorsh 12:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Additional section names sometimes make sense, but I would prefer to have almost all section names, and have experts add subsections when needed. iAs an author, it removes a need for creative labeling. As a user, I know where to look for a piece of information.

I intended the sections of the temlate as a reminderd of the several aspects of plants. If for a plant a section is inappropriate, one can either omit the section or list it with a sentence like "not applicable". Listing it is not applicable does show that one has thought of it, and tells more than omitting it.

When you have a better name for a section, please add it to the template. Drugs might be applicable for some species, for instance those in the papaver genus. I added the sections to show the wide variety of aspects. Adding the different sections will help to give artcivcles a wirder scope and make them more interesting. TeunSpaans 17:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help wanted for correct terms

Being personnally most familiar with French botanical terms, I'd greatly appreciate if some people could watch over the articles I create (Which will be listed here upon completion) for correct descriptive terms and factual accuracy. --Circeus 16:32, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Mouse-eared hawkweed
• Mullein
• Common mullein
• Orange hawkweed
• Green false hellebore

Forgotten plant stubs

It seems obvious that many plant stubs have been forgotten in the Biology stubs due to not changing {{biosci-stub}} to {{plant-stub}}. I will be looking further into this and try to switch a few to animal and plant stubs (I already found Mulleins, Flaxes and there are certainly more)--Circeus 19:50, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed Alkanet to {{plant-stub}} from {{biosci-stub}}. Chilepine 22:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

Me again! I wanted to know whether we had a sort of consensus for use of subdivisions (particularly units below the family) and as of whether or not the common name of the plant discussed in an article should be systematically capitalized (as was done by User:JoJan in [edit]).--Circeus 00:11, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Other questions I'd like to have opinions about include:

Should genus latin names redirecting to a single plant be systematically deleted?

Why would you want to delete the genus? Please give an example and explain the reason? Nereocystis 22:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't remember on the spot the case I had found, unfortunately. Will get back on you if I find others. Circeus 23:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

It seems common practice to redirect genus names to plant names for genera wih only 1 species. Personally I oppose the usage of redirects of genus to plant simply because we havent described more than 1 species from a genus. In such a case, I'd prefer a stub like xxx is a genus of plants in the family yyy. The only species described on this wiki is zzz. TeunSpaans 17:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should the template include default categories, such as "family or order", "plants" and possibly "herbs"?

--Circeus 18:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Auto-categorization

I have made an Auto-categorization request for sub-sorting plants into ordoes and family. Support would be appreciated. Circeus 01:38, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Trichocereus vs Echinopsis

Hi, i have some questions about cacti that hopefully someone can help me with- It is my understanding that the genus Trichocereus has been absorbed into Echinopsis, and the Trichocereus page redirects to Echinopsis; yet both are listed as genuses (geni?) genera (there it is . . .) on the cactus page. the Echinopsis page is lacking links to Trichocereus species such as San Pedro (Trichocereus/Echinopsis pachanoi), and the san pedro page still uses the genus Trichocereus. So, my questions- should the San Pedro page be edited to conform to the proper genus, should new species i'm about to add (eg peruvianus) be called Echinopsis, and should San Pedro and any new ones i add be placed with links on the Echinopsis page? Don't know if you will have an answer, but i posted this on the cactus talk page with no response and I don't want to start making such edits on pages under this project's jurisdiction without knowing my edits are proper. thanks. --Heah 01:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not feel competent to judge this matter for content. But if you feel sure of it, please go ahead. TeunSpaans 17:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I checked on apg2 by going to http://delta-intkey.com/angio/www/cactacea.htm, and indeed the genus has been moved from cacataceae under apg2. So i'll do some updates. TeunSpaans 17:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The lists of genera in The families of flowering plants shouldn't be regarded as authoritative or up-to-date. Only minor maintenance has been carried out recently, as the botanical author (Watson) is now retired. Information about the APG classification relates to the 1998 version, as is stated in the descriptions. You might do better with a Google search. Mike Dallwitz 1 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)

You are right about The families of flowering plants, I usually also check other apg2 sites, actually delta-intkey is one of my least favourite references ;-) TeunSpaans 12:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Carex identifications

I am of little use for the genus Carex, and happened to take a few pictures of plants belonging to it on a trip at Lac-Mégantic, near the Quebec/Vermont border. I'd appreciate help identifying the species on these pictures. The two first are the same specimen, taken in a forest, the others in a field, the third might be Carex grayi, but I'm not sure.

• Image:Carex Circeus1.jpg
• Image:Carex Circeus2.jpg
• Image:Carex ssp 1.jpg
• Image:Carex ssp 2.jpg

Circeus 15:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of poaceae, you might upload them at commons.wikimedia.org and ask there. Usually there is slightly more comment there than here. TeunSpaans 05:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Acturally, that would be cyperaceae, AFAIK. And the pictures are at commons. Circeus 14:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

What I meant is that you ask the question at commons:Category:Unidentified_plants TeunSpaans 20:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (and you are right about Cyperaceae, of course, I've ignored them together with the grasses ;-) )