Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive52
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Mycotroph as a disambiguation page?
I changed Mycotroph into a disambiguation page (no content deleted) and got reverted. The page only has short descriptions and links to mycorrhiza and myco-heterotrophy. I think disambiguation makes sense for this page, but would like the biologists and botanist and other plant-whizzes to comment on the article's talk page. Thank you, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
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 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 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Am I missing something, or are there no project plants pages listed as needing cleanup (no pages for projects further down the alphabet than neuroscience)? Nadiatalent (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Aspidosperma
Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. Several articles that include the title Aspidosperma have been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Just click on the above link and you will see them. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- They could use more work, but I added a quick IPNI ref to each one (Aspidosperma melanocalyx, Aspidosperma populifolium, Aspidosperma subincanum, and Aspidosperma tomentosum). Rkitko (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. As I mentioned above, a group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and once more all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- In this case, if it isn't deleted, perhaps it should be changed to a disambiguation page. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd support this becoming a dab page if and only if the only thing that ties these plants together is their name. If there is some more substantial basis for the grouping, then this is a folk taxon, and I support it remaining an article, in line with other such articles like woollybush and kangaroo paw. Hesperian 10:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the more substantial basis exists. I've done a minor expansion and referencing of the article, and there seems to be lot more material out there to draw upon to go a lot further with the topic.Melburnian (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- var. sanguinea? Lavateraguy (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Based on Microcitrus australasica var. sanguinea, but that is currently treated as a synonym of Citrus australasica so I've changed it to "Finger Lime".Melburnian (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- var. sanguinea? Lavateraguy (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the more substantial basis exists. I've done a minor expansion and referencing of the article, and there seems to be lot more material out there to draw upon to go a lot further with the topic.Melburnian (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd support this becoming a dab page if and only if the only thing that ties these plants together is their name. If there is some more substantial basis for the grouping, then this is a folk taxon, and I support it remaining an article, in line with other such articles like woollybush and kangaroo paw. Hesperian 10:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Duplicated article
The same article is present as Asplenium azomanes and Asplenium trichomanes subsp. coriaceifolium. I don't know which is name is 'correct' - my personal preference is to unite all the tetraploid forms of the Asplenium trichomanes complex into a single species, for which Asplenium csikii (based on subsp. pachyrachis) might be the earliest name. But general practice is to include the diploid, tetraploid and hexaploid cytotypes in a single species.
The translation from the Spanish could do to be improved as well. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- 2¢ worth: The question of whether to unite all tetraploids into one species I can't handle, sounds rather like original research, unless there is a published work that can be cited. (My bias from working with Angiosperms is to separate allopolyploid lineages according to parentage.) Perhaps a quick fix could be used to remove the duplication of the page. The subspecies name appears to have been published in 1990, versus 1991 for the species name, not "at the same time" as stated in the article. WIthout having access to the Rivasgodaya article, I think these publications must be different opinions, lumping versus splitting, not the result of very different information, so Wikipedia is free to choose. I'd suggest turning the subspecies page into a redirect, and discussing the subspecies name in the intro, but not listing it as a synonym unless an authoritative reference can be cited for doing so. The reasons for choosing the splitter option are just that it makes the page names and the discussions of hybrids simpler, and that there seems to be quite a bit of literature about the new "species", so Wikipedia would be favouring the better-known name. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)