Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)

With the recent renaming of Wikipedia:Naming conventions to Wikipedia:Article titles, it is perhaps timely to consider whether the title of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) page properly reflects its scope. The discussion is here. Melburnian (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Potentilla hickmanii

This article has undergone reassessment in accordance with the GA Sweeps process. Currently, the article has been placed on hold to allow time for necessary improvements. If, after 7 days, these issues have not been addressed, the article will be delisted. If you have any queries, please don't hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 12:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Microsatellites etc

Can someone who understands this stuff please explain to me the contribution of the paper Isolation and characterization of microsatellites in the woody shrub, Banksia sphaerocarpa var. caesia (Proteaceae)? A FAC reviewer has asked why we haven't cited it, and I've had to confess that I had read it but I couldn't figure out what, if anything, its contribution to our understanding of this taxon was. Hesperian 04:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean you do not need a complicated reference to say that the species reproduces sexually and that it follows a typical genetic expression after reproduction? Hardyplants (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a methods paper. There's nothing there that would be worth discussing in the article. Guettarda (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta. The impression I got was that it was announcing a resource: "we developed these microsatellites; we're just sayin', in case y'all can think of something to do with them." Hesperian 13:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the only publication that cites that article as far as I can find. It may contain something useful - seedling trials? Demonstration of interpopulation breeding? Rkitko ^(talk) 14:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; that looks much more useful. It is cited, and also listed as a publication that arose as part of the study. So this looks like the missing piece of the puzzle. Hesperian 14:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice find. That report looks like it might be interesting. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Done[1], thanks again guys. Hesperian 12:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A tricky article namng issue - deforestation vs forest management

See Talk:Deforestation_by_region#.22Deforestation.22_vs._.22Forest_management.22. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

articles every Wikipedia should have

Meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have lists 1000 articles that even the smallest Wikipedia should have in order to provide a "minimum amount of basic, useful information." Pertinent to this project are photosynthesis, botany, plant, flower and tree. I'm not convinced these five are our most fundamental articles. I think plant and photosynthesis are excellent choices; and flower probably deserves its place, but I doubt the importance of botany, and the inclusion of tree seems to me singularly stupid. What do you guys think? I'll start the ball rolling by suggesting that vascular plant is far, far more important than tree. Hesperian 13:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with you. wood is on the list, and that should be enough. Tree is rather a word every Wiktionary should have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs)

I'd definitely pick tree over vascular plant, based on the importance of trees ecologically, culturally, and as forest products. Agree about botany if defined narrowly, with a focus on taxonomy and such, but I'd probably be inclined to include plant biology (with a broader focus on physiology and genetics and the like). Kingdon (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow I think the tree article probably gets read a lot more than the vascular plant article. Anyone want to put money on it ;) And plant biology redirects to botany so that's a moot issue. Kaldari (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Vegetable monsters at AFD

Vegetable monsters is a new article and has been AFD'd. ANybody think it's worth keeping? Circéus (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Laelia crispa

A new article was recently created about the orchid species Laelia crispa. I would ask knowledgeable experts to weigh in at the discussion taking place at Talk:Laelia crispa. Thank you!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)