| Wikipedia:Babel | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Search user languages |
I've made a large number of small edits to various pages, but my longest single contribution was one of my first: the Spoken Wikipedia recording for Submarine. I've also written some stubs such as Creeping blueberry, Helwingiaceae (was easy to get to a decent stub due to having a French article I could translate), Eupatorieae and various others (especially plant articles).
I'm also at:
Random thoughts
editIn Foolish hobgoblins (Language Log, March 04, 2007), Arnold Zwicky dares to defend inconsistency in language. Doubt he'll get anywhere (and he doesn't discuss collaboratively written works like wikipedia), but I have significant sympathies with him.
To dos
editMost of these notes are pretty old
Category:Plant articles needing attention
Think about enabling User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for WP:PLANTS.
Should I try to write something about Lobelioideae? Right now it is unreferenced. A few journal articles: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Also note that [6] removed genera from the taxobox.
Keep browsing R.L. Small papers. Likewise Schilling.
Expand Pimpinella (e.g. [7] and [8]), per 4 October 2009 request at WT:PLANTS.
Category:Plant taxa by rank is rather incomplete and might be a parallel hierarchy to some other categories (not sure about the latter part).
Add inkscape/SVG directions to Wikipedia:Distribution maps. Create a path with the pencil tool, but haven't yet figured out how to do the intersection with the oceans (and presumably, the lines between countries too).
Say more about diet of Nectarinia newtonii (and thus de-orphan Leea tinctoria).
Propose that Gnetales redirect to Gnetophyta. Check amjbot (2004) special issue to see what terminology they use. Maybe do some searches for Ephedrales. Find out who puts these genera in 3 orders (it is uncited at Gnetophyta, I think).
- Everyone agrees that the three genera Gnetum, Ephedra, and Welwitschia are related. The question is whether to call this group Gnetales or Gnetophyta (I'll leave out, for now, the idea that they would be classified in the Pinales - there is evidence which points that way but a formal taxonomic proposal along those lines would presumably be premature and I'm not aware of anyone doing so). And in particular whether Gnetales should redirect to Gnetum (as it does now) or Gnetophyta (which I think reflects common usage better).
Clean up Polypodiales. these edits changed the circumscription without updating text which was true for the old circumscription.
As of 11 Feb 2010, Help:Wiki markup recommends linking dates. Link to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) or some such.
Follow up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#Direct copies of species descriptions from external website.
Follow up on merge of Ancistrocladaceae into Ancistrocladus (GRIN supports this being the only genus in the family). Probably move the text into a section classification. Include the family authority in the taxobox.
Unplaced in APG II has more potential for stub creation.
Fact-check this and come up with better wording (this is a word-for-word copy of text which is all over diverse sites on the internet).
Follow up on Physenaceae/Physena merge.