User talk:MPF

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lord Koxinga[edit]

many thanks for the categorization of the pics in [1] because I'm not a zoologist. But I have three remarks:

  • How can we change the categories in a way that they are not mixed up. My file names should allow a lineup of the series, which is quite important, since I've got longer series two weeks ago which I will place to the gallery mentioned above under visits.
    ;-) (We sweat like a hell, but for me it was the best weather for that flight demonstration I've ever got)
  • According the informations I've got in the center two weeks ago, the categorized black vultures ([2]) are turkey vultures (most likely youngs ones), as the zoologist explained there.
    So we should check this again.
  • As you see, I have problems to create links to wikimedia.
    Maybe you can help me.

Anyway thanks a lot for the categorization.
Feel free to put an answer on my discussion page. Lord Koxinga (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry that I put my message here. I have seen that you handled administrative matters concerning Eurycoma longifolia, a page that I edited because I am a user of this herbal. I am otherwise not very familiar with doing Wikipedia, so I do not know how to bring this to your attention.

Anyway, there are persistent attempts by some companies in Malaysia and Indonesia to tilt the Wikipedia entry in their favor.

This happens via a claim that research on Eurycoma longifolia was done with an patented extract (theirs), which is a lie (most of the research is older, and if you see the abstracts you can see that researchers typically prepare their own extract from roots). The plant itself, and its use, cannot be patented anyway. There are numerous patents including Eurycoma Longifolia. They are usually specific formulations, which indeed can be patented. Anyway, I could refer to other patents (see Google scholar), but those who do not want neutral info on the plant will anyway just delete it, so I am discouraged of doing anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Many thanks for rationalizing the categorization, too may cooks.... I'd started, using the genus rather than the family, but no matter. Little else to offer now as all references exhausted, but will be receiving new, as yet unidentified, Italian hybrids this winter. Off to France next month, during which time we'll collect the new VADA elm hybrid from the Lemonnier nursery to add to our trials. Best wishes, Ptelea 12:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Omigosh it's Tuesday 5 March 2024 !![edit]

Why isn't it yesterday??

My useful copy & paste notes[edit]

  • To make special characters show: add <nowiki> before and </nowiki> after
  • {{inuse}}
  • {{British-English|"colour"}}
  • {{Commonwealth-English|"colour"}}
  • {{notorphan|Page pic linked from}} - pics that are referred to but only indirectly linked
  • {{Copyvio|url=http://www.(etc)}} - copyvio note with url copied from
  • {{PD-USGov}} - US Gov copyright-free pics notice
  • {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}} - ditto, USDAFS
  • {{PD-USGov-USDA-ARS}} - ditto, USDA
  • & nbsp; - non-breaking space (rm space!!)
  • <!-- invisible text -->
  • <br clear="all"> - to make sure tables etc don't overlap
  • ;Bold :Indented next line

The standard [[Binomial nomenclature#Authorship in scientific names|botanical author abbreviation]] '''.''' is applied to plants he described.

[[Category:Botanists|, ]]


Some important interwiki positionings to watch for
  • et: (Eesti) comes before es: (Español)
  • es: (Español) comes before eo: (Esperanto)
  • ko: (Hangugeo)
  • he: (Ivrit) comes after it: (Italian)
  • ja: (Nihongo) comes after nl: (Nederlands)
  • fi: (Suomi) comes just before sv: (Svenska)
Taxobox for a plant species
| color = lightgreen
| name =
| status = 
| image = FILENAME.JPG
| image_width = 240px 
| image_caption =
| regnum = [[Plant]]ae
| divisio = [[ophyta]]
| classis = [[opsida]]
| ordo = [[ales]]
| familia = [[aceae]]
| genus = ''[[G]]''
| species = '''''G. s'''''
| binomial =
| binomial_authority =
Taxobox for a higher plant group
| color = lightgreen
| name =
| image = FILENAME.JPG
| image_width = 240px 
| image_caption =
| regnum = [[Plant]]ae
| divisio = [[ophyta]]
| classis = [[opsida]]
| ordo = [[ales]]
| familia = [[aceae]]
| genus = ''[[G]]''
| genus_authority =
| subdivision_ranks =
| subdivsion =
taxon1 <br/>
taxon2 <br/>
|- valign=top


Image layouts


| [[Image:|center]] || [[Image:|center]] || [[Image:|center]]


{| border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="right"
| [[Image:|thumb|]]
| [[Image:|thumb|]]
| [[Image:|thumb|]]
| [[Image:|thumb|]]


Old stuff up to Apr 2005 Old stuff up to June 2005 Old stuff up to Nov 2005 Old stuff up to March 2005


Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Wanted to add my welcome, also. Thank you for all your effort on various pine species. You are obviously an expert. Feel free to say as much or as little about yourself as you wish at User:MPF -- hike395 22:58, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 20:23, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

With regards to what you said on my talk page, I will put this in a simple fashion. Anyone using the GFDL can use Wikipedia's articles in their own project. But other open/free projects (WikiTravel for example) use a different, incompatible license, so we can't share with those projects and they can't share with us. What many of us feel is that the license that they use is better and that it's more important that more people be able to use our articles than it is that we keep them from always being able to be used at Wikipedia. Does that help to explain it? (Please reply at my talk page) -- Ram-Man 20:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

The commons namespace[edit]

Just thought I'd let you know: Wikimedia Commons is covered by the interwiki map. To make a link, use [[commons|(pagename)]]. Alphax τεχ 00:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


If memory serves me Carapa is not monotypic - the other species may have been synonymised (don't have any reference handy) but I remember mention of other species. Guettarda 23:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


An Award
I, Saikiri, award this Barnstar to MPF for being a tireless, knowledgable and generally awesome contributor, author of many fine edits!
Indeed, yes! Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alnus spp.[edit]

Hi! I'm really less than an amateur in this field, so I defer to you on the decission. The book is a bit old and it's very possible that these are two different species, but here it says:

There is considerable confusion in the taxonomy of Alnus acuminata. Furlow (1977) reported the species as Alnus acuminata H.B.K., but in his last revision (1979) he classified it as Alnus acuminata ssp. arguta. The species also has been described as Alnus jorullensis H.B.K. by Carlson and Dawson (1985). Holdridge (1951) concluded that if subspecies populations exist they apparently intergrade into each other and because of similarities in wood and silvicultural characteristics they may be considered as a single species, at least from a forestry viewpoint.

Alnus acuminata is native to the American continent ranging from Mexico to Northern Argentina in elevations between 1,200 and 3,200 m.a.s.l. where annual rainfall is 1,000 to 3,000 mm or more.

Libro del Árbol says Alnus jorullensis H.B.K. var. spachii (Regel). I've found the same problem in the classification of other related species; in some cases they were catalogued 150 years ago and then nobody researched them further with modern tools (e. g. genetic analyses). Andean Alder and Mexican Alder should refer to each other quite profusely. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be my guest. Make sure you upload it to Commons, not to Wikipedia. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, congratulations indeed! If you ever have any questions regarding your newfound tools, please do not hesitate to ask me or another administrator. We're here to help! Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congratulations. And about time! :) Guettarda 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congrats. It's about time! --DanielCD 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likewise; that was a very smooth RfA. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks all for your support! I must admit I was surprised at the level of support, I thought it would be something more like 3:2 or 2:1 in favour, not 74:1!

Congratulations. I didn't see your nomination, or I'd have been the first to sign it. I know you'll be an even greater asset to the project with your new tools. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects from plant species to genus/family[edit]

Hi. I found quite a few such redirects. Here's a list: bogdan 15:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just found a whole bunch more of these... replace with stubs? SB Johnny 13:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar award[edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
In appreciation of MPF's extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amen! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur completely. JoJan 14:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be fairly easy to integrate that option into Cite journal itself, using a yes/no parameter. Circeus 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just finished it. "quotes=no" will remove the quotes in {{cite journal}}. Do you mind if I put the template for deletion? Marking it as deprecated doesn't seem pertinent. Circeus 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure it's a a good idea. I preferred to make the change as unintrusive as possible, because the sudden "disappearance" of quote risk upsetting people. Maybe you could discuss it on the talk page while it's not used? Circeus 18:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phylogeny diagram[edit]

Did you produce the phylogenetic diagram that is reproduced in the Plant article? First, if this is your own diagram, I suspect it borders on "original research"; second, if presented in an article, it needs to be labeled more explicitly within the article as to the source. A glance at the diagram shows that it by no means presents a consensus view of plant phylogeny, so it needs to be made clear that this phylogeny represents the results of one particular publication. MrDarwin 14:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've deleted the diagram from the Plant article because, as Curtis Clark points out in Talk:Spermatophyte, the diagram does not represent the results of the reference it purports to represent. Can't we reproduce an actual diagram from a published reference as "fair use" as long as we properly label & attribute it? MrDarwin 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drat, I thought I'd got it to match the deep green tree. The diagram is easily edited though, if you can let me know what to change (and/or make duplicates for different phylogenies from other sources). I fear using actual published diagrams would be outside of the fair use criteria, which are very strict (see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria) - MPF 14:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Especially with such a contentious topic, where different analyses using different types of data have come up with very different phylogenies, I would suggest showing two or more such phylogenies, each linked to a specific reference and specific citation (preferably published literature, which I'm assuming the Deep Green website is derived from in the first place). This would help visualize the different phylogenies that are discussed in the text, and difficult for users (especially8 those without a background in botany or cladistics) to visualize in the abstract. MrDarwin 17:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please MrDarwin, will be in peace, me no longer I bear so much conflict! Berton 14:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Berton, I think (I hope!) that MPF knows that my critical comments are constructive, and not destructive. MrDarwin 17:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope too.Berton 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geographical categories[edit]

I proposed some language to be added to WP:TOL regarding geographical categories. I borrowed heavily from your comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_13#Category:Fauna_of_the_United_States_by_state_and_its_subcategories. I hope I didn't do too much injury to them. Feel free to correct and comment. I'm sure that others will do the same. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Suggest elm cultivar listings are restricted to their respective species pages. There are literally dozens of cultivars, notably of American, Siberian and Chinese Elms, and if they're all featured on the main page, it will be overwhelmed. Thanks for the tidying, long overdue. Ptelea 10:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cleaned it up so that I don't think it needs the {{advert}} anymore. Please re-add the tag if you disagree. —Chowbok 16:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article about Wikipedia Users[edit]


Wikipedia user David Badagnani directed me to your user page. I am a freelance writer working on an article about the wide array of people who make Wikipedia their life, their passion, their pastime. Wikipedia “addicts” if you will. I’m looking for people just willing to tell their story of how they got sucked into the intellectual whirlwind that is Wikipedia; how you got started editing, how the obsession grew, and what you spend your time focusing on these days? Do you write articles from scratch? Is your main push toward one particular type of article? Do you patrol for typos and errors, or spend your time diligently fixing vandalism? Do you take part in the “social aspects” of Wikipedia; engaging in animated discussions or decorating your user page with all sorts of internet memes? Have you ever forced yourself to take a “Wikipedia break”? If so, what’s your 20/20 hindsight on the obsession? Basically I’m just trying to get an idea of what it’s like for various Wikipedia “addicts.” If you are interested in participating, please email me at *****

If anybody else, other than this user is interested in participating, feel free to email me as well. This article is intended to be a light informational piece, nothing too heavy or controversial, just merely introducing readers to a subculture that they likely had no idea existed. So please don’t email me with your conspiracy theories, or your grudge against the Wikipedia hierarchy… unless it directly applies to your overall experience with the site. This article is about the USERS, not about the pros and cons of the site itself.


Brian68.39.158.205 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You seem to be a fairly knowledgeable person with it comes to botany. I've placed a {{disputed}} tag on the Jacaranda article as there's some questionable material there re: where the genus is native to. My sources tell me that no species of Jacaranda is native to Australia or Africa. Maybe you'd know for a fact and could update the article accordingly? Peter1968 08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, well done - must have been a long haul down from Northumberland for you. I finally got to Dawlish on Monday, having gone to Lincs on Sunday for the Black Kite, my first in the UK in 20 years of birding. Two British lifers in two days! Have you seen the crowd pictures on the Dawlish Warren website? Kit Day (linked from Surfbirds) also has some brilliant photos. Best wishes, jimfbleak 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seabirds, which precedes the split mentions four nests, one in Siberia, one in California (?), two on East Amatuli Is. Two nests in trees, two in tundra. it also says elsewhere in the article that eggs have been found on treeless Alaskan islands, presumably the Amatuli records, which suggests that both forms breed in conifers. . good luck with the kite, it's a few miles nearer now. jimfbleak 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Class for Stemona[edit]

Hi, can you fill in the class for Stemona? Badagnani 09:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just added a mention of eradication programs, which I learned about in a university class but don't have a reference for offhand.

Nice edits, BTW :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found one and left it in... just found another today in a book, so I'll add that in too. There were also attempts to control white pine blister rust by eradicating european currants, and a wheat rust by eradicating barberries... I've been reading the Encyclopedia of Plant Pathology lately, so I'll add a bunch more in. No-one will object, I hope, if I don't use that insane {{cite book}} template? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think what I'm going to do is write about it on wikibooks, then transwiki it back to here. Would you be willing to clean out the how-to stuff after I do that? (It has to be transwikied by me, for copyright reasons... unless we do the silly talk-page transwiki note thing). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, sorry. I mean I'm going to transwiki (import) it to wikibooks, add about 2 pages worth of info there, then transwiki it back. I'm more confortable writing about things like that when I can include the how-to stuff as I'm going along (my interest in plants, plant pests and diseases, etc. is from a horticulturist's point of view, which is neutral but not encyclopedic). It should be ready by Monday or so... you'll understand better when you see the reversion.
The reason I have to do the reverse-transwiki is because wikipedia doesn't have import, so for copyright compliance there would need to be odd accreditations added to the talk page if someone else transwikied it. (All this goes to shit if someone else edits the wikibooks version before I copy it back to wikipedia -- wikibookians tend to be a bit more anal about copyright stuff than wikipedians are -- but I doubt anyone would mess with it, since as far as I know I'm the only person there interested in plant pathology). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 16:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another example...[edit]

I didn't get to the rust thing yet... a client's garden has a downy mildew problem, so I'm researching that today. It is a good example of what I'm talking about though: compare Downy mildew with b:A_Wikimanual_of_Gardening/Downy_Mildew (not finished yet, but hopefully done by this evening). If I just removed the templates and the control section, maybe I could just copy the whole thing over and put a {{wikify}} tag on it? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 16:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hello MPF! Thank you for the compliment; no one has ever said I took a good picture (on Wikipedia) before. The species, I do not know, I was taking pictures of several palm trees. As for where I took the picture, in the United States, the state of Florida. I am sorry to say that I'm very ignorant when it comes to trees; I searched "Phoenix dactylifera" on the Wikimedia Commons, and on Google, but I can't see how they can all be so different. Perhaps you would know (being a tree expert). | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Euonymus fortunei[edit]

This is a page for Euonymus fortunei that I started. It needs work; if you (or anyone else reading this) are interested and know much about it. This is a commonly grown plant. --Kalmia 09:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for adding to it. --Kalmia 04:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tallest trees[edit]

Hi MPF! Why do you think the official web site and register of Tasmanian Giant Trees Consultative Committee is less reliable than a single six years old survey, where only 53 trees are measured? Two of three writers of the article are also members of the Committee.Krasanen 15:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Fixed. Thanks for your patience. It was a very long 24 hours. Hesperian 03:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandal patrol of botany[edit]

Man, I'm getting tired of vandal patrol of Botany, Protist, and Embryophyte. It's never just one edit anymore, but a chain. How come they're never original, entertaining or funny, either? KP Botany 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, probably enough lately to justify semi-protect, but I would be more satisfied if you could offer me one single creative or unique act of vandalism. Even if you had to do it yourself. KP Botany 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about commercial references[edit]

I noticed that you just removed the "commercial references" from the Apple article, one of them just added by myself. Unfortunately, these are useful links to pages with non-commercial formation. The site that I added, Apple Journal, is not strictly a commercial site but a not-for-profit site. What is the official Wikipedia policy concerning such links? What rules are you using to determine a commercial site? I would really appreciate it if you would reevaluate your decisions and put these links back.

Thanks very much. NickP 11:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a "me too" with respect to the above. The fact that aluminum Christmas trees were made by dozens of manufacturers thirty to fifty years ago is IMO of general interest to people who remember them, and in no way promotes a commercial interest. The page I linked to, in order to cite a source for my facts, is a museum which does not sell the trees. Heck, I didn't even mention that the darn things are collectible now. Please restore the deleted text, which I took the time to research and write just last night in an attempt to cover a somewhat underrepresented part of the topic of Christmas trees. Thank you. Karen | Talk | contribs 18:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having sat with this for a few days, I've pretty much decided that what you cut isn't exactly vital after all. And yes - I will conform to prevailing British English in future for articles that employ it. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NickP replies to note left at talk:NickP: Very good point. I missed the List of apple cultivars page, but that is the right place for these links. Better yet, is for someone to merge in (non-copyrighted) information on those links into the List of apple cultivars chart, expanding it to include their information. If I get some time, I'll see if I can start doing that. It would be a fairly ambitious project. NickP 10:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cupressus pigmaea[edit]

I agree. While I won't oppose a partial revert (because I did take the to sleuth out extra informations such as full author or journal names, issue dates and ISSNs), I can see other solutions:

  • Spreading out the refs.
    Part of the problem is that the Taxonomy paragraph contained so many initial refs. Since the recent updates to <ref> allows the content reference to be located anywhere, they could be easily spread out more evenly and not make #Taxonomy so illegible.
  • Simplifying the referencing
    Instead of naming authors and citing that, we could just say "various authors" and combine the various refs into a single tag.
  • Using shorthand notes and moving the full refs into the reference section.
    I know there's a pair of templates somewhere that allow for linking between shorthand and full references, but I can't remember where I saw them...

Circeus 01:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can you look at the Talk page? User:KP Botany is expressing concern over the chosen taxonomic placement. Circeus 03:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naming protocol[edit]

Hi there MPF and thanks for the welcome. I've been meaning to ask for a while but what is the correct Wikipedia protocol for capitalisation of common plant names. I have always worked on the basis that capitals should only be applied if the name contains a 'proper' noun, i.e, Sitka spruce and not Sitka Spruce. Your guidance would be welcome.The Boy that time forgot 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I can go with that on the grounds of consistancy, much as it grates against my pedantic nature. Your point about knowing whether a non-English word is a proper noun or not is a valid one. Thanks for the comprehensive response.The Boy that time forgot 17:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion kicks off again: see below. SiGarb | Talk 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

refs and variability[edit]

Harvard citations and footnotes (which is what is generated by cites.php) do not work the same way. see the Wikipedia:Footnotes style guideline for explanations. As for the variability, a plant that varies between a normal tree and a pygmy form is pretty variable... Circeus 01:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi HouseOfScandal - can I point out the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English - when writing topics concerning a locatable topic, the page should use the spelling appropriate to that area, e.g. Irish English (very similar to British English) for the Dún Aengus article, Commonwealth English for Asian trees, etc.; so 'metre', 'neighbouring', and so on - thanks, MPF 01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for the reminder. I knew that in the back of my mind and have applied those principles while making edits, but it has slipped my mind recently, including while I created the Dún Aengus article. HouseOfScandal01:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi again. Thanks for your edits and additions to my Acer articles. I know you are a Pinophyta buff yourself, but I am no less appreciative of having discerning eyes behind my shoulder. Best wishes. HouseOfScandal 12:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why the objection to mentioning the common name "hedge maple" in boldface in the article for A. campstre. I didn't change the article's name out of respect for UK Wikipedians for whom A. campestre is the only native maple. Why not allow the boldface "hedge maple" mention out of respect for the 300+ million people in USA? I consider you very much a colleage and kindred spirit in Wikipedic matters -- let's compromise. HouseOfScandal House of Scandal 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This, if you ask me, is a typical example of content that would benefit from being at the scientific name. Besides, the new Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) mandates latin names (if only for new articles, such as those by User:Anlace that recently appeared on WP:DYK). Circeus 16:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons FPC:Bryce Canyon Hoodoos[edit]

Just wanted you to know I removed the metal cage / fence at the top right of the slope here --Digon3 16:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of "Uses" paragraphs from Saw Palmetto article?[edit]

Not challenging, just asking: Any idea why somebody removed two of the paragraphs in the "Uses" section on Saw Palmetto? The two paragraphs had a total of seven references (which remain in the article), so it seemed a well-cited and justified bit.

I know I could revert the removal myself, but I'm still "getting my Wikipedia legs", and being pretty cautious.

Thanks. Lumpish Scholar 18:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, MPF. I know you and I disagree on the capitalization issue (and I really do wish we could come to some sort of understanding on that), but why revert all but one of the less controversial edits? i.e. the underscore in the image and one common name for D. fragrans. I still contend that common names of plants should be lower case -- even the Chicago Manual of Style explains it as such. How can we come to an agreement on this? I don't want to have to continue battling over this. Best, Rkitko 02:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rkitko - the underscore was accidental, I'd not noticed the change (not really sure it is important either, it doesn't affect the appearance of the saved page). On the common names, mainly because there isn't room to have every recorded option in that situation, as they won't all fit on one line; a species list is best just having the single standard common name (or even none), and put the rest on the species page as/when it gets written. On caps, I'm still waiting for someone to produce some reasoned arguments in favour of the lower-case-except-for-proper-nouns style, rather than blind religious dogma . . . "the chicago mos says so, so therefore you must do so" - reminds me of "the holy bible says so, so therefore you must do so". Conversely, there are plenty of good practical reasons why consistent capitalisation is useful, and plenty of historical precedent for its use, too. - MPF 11:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Consistent caps is useful, yes, but not according to Wikipedia style guidelines. Not much is said about in text, but on article titles:
WP:NC#Animals, plants, and other organisms: The capitalization on the common names of species has been hotly debated in the past and remains unresolved. As a matter of truce both capitalized and non-capitalized (except for proper names) are acceptable...
The guideline is similar to those concerning British English and American English spellings. The guideline then directs you to an actual Wikipedia article: Capitalization
A more controversial practice followed by some authors, though few if any style guides, treats the common names of some animal and plant species as proper nouns, and uses initial majuscules for them (e.g., Peregrine Falcon, Red Pine), while not capitalizing others (e.g., horse or person). This is most common for birds and fishes. Botanists generally reject the practice of capitalizing the common names of plants, though individual words of plant names may be capitalized by another rule (e.g., Italian stone pine). See the discussion of official common names under common name for an explanation.
From common name:
Botanists sometimes maintain official common names for plants, although this will vary greatly. Informally, botanists generally do not capitalize any common names; this can be seen as a sign of "professionalism" since the uninitiated may have difficulty in interpreting names such as "the hairy brome" for localities where the Hairy Brome (Bromus ramosus) is not the only member of the genus.
So I begin to understand your point that the practical reasons to use caps in common names is appealing, but I still reject that in the face of the argument for professionalism. Wikipedia may exist for the users and desires to make it easiest for the average user to find information so it can be useful, but that doesn't mean we succumb to those practical reasons at the cost of professionalism (would we, in light of the practical argument, shed our traditional grammar for ease of understanding for the average user if they typically don't understand the word whom, etc.?) And I resent your remark on blind religious dogma--I do not have some odd faith in the Chicago MoS. The reason I brought that up in the first place was that when we were discussing this earlier, the Wikipedia MoS stated that if a specific guideline wasn't spelled out, we were to defer to respected style guides like Chicago and others. I don't have easy access to other guides at the moment, so I chose the one I could get information from. There's also plenty of historical precendent for not using capitalized common names, though if you go back far enough you'll find what I consider egregious capitalization in the 19th century. Well, that's as much as I can put together right now--I've got to get to work. Cheers, Rkitko 18:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, MPF. I have to agree with Rkitko, and I seem to recall we had this discussion about a year ago. (Have you deleted the former contents of your talk page? Are you meant to do that without archiving it?) There are very few style guides of any sort these days that recommend initial capitals for common names for plants, except in cases like Indian bean, Japanese azalea etc. I agree it can be difficult, sometimes, when dealing with a common name derived from another language, to know whether it should be capitalised, but even though Spanish Broom is clearly a plant, and Spanish broom might be a brush, the Royal Horticultural Society, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, most publishers, newspapers etc now prefer to reduce the number of capital letters used in referring to animals and plants. I admit there is less of a consensus on birds and animals. Perhaps a good compromise, for Wikipedia purposes, would be to use bold for common names, which would help them to stand out within an article. This would be justifiable if the only common names in the article were those for the species under discussion, but in Chaenomeles, for example, where some of the quinces referred to are Chaenomeles and some are Cydonia, it would be less useful. SiGarb | Talk 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) PS Your changes to Chaenomeles (where you recently reverted my decapitalisation of common names, and my deitalicisation of hybrid ×s, which appear in italics in certain browsers if kept within the double quote marks) were hardly a "minor edit".Reply[reply]
Hi SiGarb - as to caps, please remember both are acceptable on wikipedia (as well as being used by most field guides) - your change removing the caps was contrary to the history of the page. Also why have you removed the italicisation of the hybrid signs? The hybrid sign is part of the name, and therefore should be in italics, like the rest of the name (unlike the hybrid sign in a formula, which is between two species, and so not italicised). And yes, the previous discussion is archived somewhere (though that is not a requirement). - MPF 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, MPF, both Initial Caps and non-cap styling are found on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is an ongoing project and much of the editing on Wikipedia consists of correcting earlier mistakes or out-of-date material. If the wide consensus is tending towards one style, it seems retrograde for Wikipedia to take the opposite tack. As for field guides, my Wild Flowers of the Mediterranean (Blamey & Grey-Wilson, 2004) follows the style also used by Oleg Polunin's Flowers of Europe (1997) of using capitals for the entire name, which neatly dodges the problem. As for more populist tomes, I seem to recall noticing shortly after our last discussion that the Readers Digest Wild Flowers of Britain (or whatever) adopts the current no capitals style. And I'm sure you are wrong about the italicisation of the hybrid × where it forms part of a binomial name. No book I can find has italicised ×s. And what do you mean, my changes were "contrary to the history of the article"? Whatever happened to the Wikipedia motto "Be Bold"? Any changes, except the most minor, or reverts, could be said to be "contrary to the history" of an article. SiGarb | Talk 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On your point "what do you mean, my changes were "contrary to the history of the article"? Whatever happened to the Wikipedia motto "Be Bold"? Any changes, except the most minor, or reverts, could be said to be "contrary to the history" of an article" - because it is an changing an accepted style, like changing a British English article to American English. Which is considered revertable, or only changeable for a very good reason (like I changed UK spellings in Oenothera to US a while back, as it is an almost entirely US-native genus). Using SMALLCAPS is a nice idea (the New RHS Dictionary is another example that does so), though it is very tedious in formatting as there isn't a wiki shortcut, in the same way that there is for many other html formattings like italics and bold (if one were to be created, I'd be happy to go with it as a policy). Of some that use capitalised names (as in e.g. Pedunculate Oak), my parents' old copy of the Observer's Book of Trees (1937 / revised ed. 1960); Bean's Trees & Shrubs 8th ed revised (to be exact, large-capitalised SMALLCAPS LIKE THIS); Blamey & Grey-Wilson's The Illustrated Flora of Britain and Northern Europe; Rushforth's Trees of Britain and Europe; Mitchell's Alan Mitchell's Trees of Britain; and for an American example, Preston's North American Trees. And for (my) local interest, Swan's Flora of Northumberland does so too. It is so common (and what I have been brought up with) that I find (contrary to what Rkitko says), that not using capitals looks unprofessional, and very untidy to boot. On "No book I can find has italicised ×s" - I don't see how it is possible to tell, as in most fonts plain × and italic × don't differ (interestingly, they do differ slightly in my computer's browser, with the italic × more closely resembling the × I see in books). - MPF 21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, I agree with most of your points on a sentimental and aesthetic basis, but it seems to be going against the grain of currently accepted practice. See, for example, RBG Kew's website where butterflies are styled with caps but their food plants are without. Also see English Nature/Natural England, Countryside Council for Wales etc, and as for the US and elsewhere, try ITIS, USDA/NRCS PLANTS Database, and HortiPlex...
On hybrid ×s: as you say, "in most fonts plain × and italic × don't differ". Because the hybrid × is a multiplication sign (not an X or an x) in typesetting it does not always follow the styling of the font it forms part of. For example, it rarely has serifs, even when it is part of a serif font, though it usually varies in weight to match the host font. In many fonts (though not all, I admit) it is not italicised, even in the italic version of the font, I suspect because this makes it less easy to confuse with a lowercase X. It tends to be scripts and other less formal fonts that italicise it. In almost all the dozen books I have just checked (from my ancient Keble Martin onwards) the × is a fine cross, larger than the lowercase x but usually not as large or bold as the capital X. There was only one that differed (RHS Encyclopaedia of Garden Plants); that made it bolder to match the italic font, but without slanting it. I haven't time to look into it further at present.
Thanks for the full and frank exchange of views! BTW, I tried out my suggestion of emboldening the common names at Broom (shrub). I think it looks quite clear (though it could be overdone. I think the first mention of a common name in a section or paragraph could be in bold, with subsequent occurrences left plain) what do you think? SiGarb | Talk 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is so common (and what I have been brought up with) that I find (contrary to what Rkitko says), that not using capitals looks unprofessional, and very untidy to boot. As I've pointed out before, speaking from that kind of experience should probably be avoided as it could be viewed as a POV. And again, Wikipedia is not a field guide, so I think we should only be loosely guided by the styles that they use (interestingly, I have equal numbers of guides now that use the three different styles--SMALL CAPS, With Caps, and without caps). The styles employed by field guides and journal articles vary so widely most likely because of each editor or publisher's own specific rules. If we did a thorough investigation of a good sized sampling of all the field guides, I bet we'd find about a 33.33 : 33.33 : 33.33 ratio of styles, or close to it. Choosing one style from the field guides would most certainly be a POV choice. That's why I prefer to stick with my alleged religious faith in the Chicago MoS. Rkitko 05:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Identification request[edit]

I've uploaded the following photos to the Commons. They were made on a trip passing through Sines, a coastal town in southern Portugal (birthplace of Vasco da Gama). I'm not sure what species this pine is, perhaps Pinus nigra laricio or Pinus strobus, but I could be completely wrong The leaves are all pointing upwards, giving it a surprising habit. Commons:Image:Sines07.jpg, Commons:Image:Sines08.jpg, Commons:Image:Sines09.jpg, and Commons:Image:Sines10.jpg JoJan 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was fast ! No wonder, I didn't recognize these trees, my book "Trees of Britain and Europe" (Hamlyn guide) only mentions Araucaria araucana (Monkey Puzzle). I'll change the captions of these images in the Commons. JoJan 19:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Box Elder[edit]

All four of the references given with the Acer negundo article list "Box Elder" as its primary common name. When we look at almost any reference, the name Box Elder is given first. Box Elder is, by far, the name most used for this species...and I know that you know this. Please justify this Manitoba Maple business. HouseOfScandal 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You helped choose Cactus as this week's WP:AID winner[edit]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Cactus was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

MER-C 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Mind explaining why you reverted my change on leaf? I failed to see any whitespace issues generated by it. Of course, I define whitespace only as vertical, and whitespace between text and the vertical sides of the screen doesn't count for me.

My change fixed,as the summary clearly stated, bunched up links caused by the three images. Also, it allowed the second image to be in a section where it was actually relevant. Circeus 15:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh dear... Yes, it does create whitespace in IE, but not in firefox. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. What do you think of removing the autumn leaf image from the article to solve that? It might be nice, but it doesn't seem to do anything useful there (and besides, it,s from commons). Maybe it can be moved to autumn, autumn leaf color or deciduous? Talking about it, I can't, for the life of me, figure a good way to incorporate a link to autumn leaf color in leaf, what do you think? Circeus 16:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, we can keep that third image,but move the placement one right before the list of terms too... Circeus 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And actually, i figured where to link autumn leaf color too!Circeus 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American Black Bear[edit]

You moved the article back to American Black Bear, citing WP:TOL, but I see nothing in that page (other than the statement that genera should be capitalized to support the suggestion that the title should be entirely capitalized -- and this is a species, not a genus. Please explain further. --Nlu (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi MPF. Great work you are doing here. I am in total agreement on your ideas about improving the treatment of yams here on WP. Steve Dufour 16:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted your confusing edit to Bermuda cedar, as you deleted practical information (common name). Also, your edit to the talk page seems to be utterly meaningless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

As an addendum, the picture you keep posting on the article is not an example of the tree.

Now who was it who keeps saying that the people of a plant species' native land should be given deference when it comes to common names for that species? Insisting that "Bermuda Juniper" should be the "correct" common name seems like another case of "cultural imperialism" run amok to me... MrDarwin 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have changed "also often" to "usually". 11,000:90, official use, scholarly use..."usually" is more accurate.


Should it some up again, the fauna capitalization rules are spelled out quite clearly here, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna).--Peta 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assistance at Verbascum thapsus[edit]

Do you think you could help me with the North American bias in Verbascum thapsus, like you did for Large Hop Trefoil? I was practically unable to find web references for Europe at all. I'm pretty sure the plant is also fund in North Africa, but I can't locate a good source (it's mentioned in passing in a Flora of Algeria, and that's all...Circeus 19:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As far as I can see, there is no mention on the plant link you gave in which it says Caps are permissible. If you go to Oak, for instance, you will see that the white oaks link to White Oak but that otherwise they are referred to in the text as white oaks, NOT White Oaks. Ditto for Elm, Cedar, and Pine, which were the first three trees I thought of at random. If your wrong capitalization is indeed in use elsewhere in Wiki articles, please point me at a couple of them. And, of course, just because something wrong is repeated in multiple articles, that doesn't make it right.... Hayford Peirce 01:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, do you know if this is a legitimate tree and, if so, could you help develop a taxobox for it? Badagnani 06:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you might have a look at List of palms of the Caribbean and see what you think of it. I am especially interested in what you think of the format - do you like the distributions the way they are formatted, do you think the comments at the end of the genus sections are useful (and do you think they would be better at the top of the section, or as they are at the end)? Thanks for your input. Guettarda 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much - quite useful suggestions (now I just need to figure out how to implement all of them). Guettarda 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the redirects - I was working towards WP:FL standards - list items aren't supposed to be redlinks, so I made them redirects. I agree with the issue of redlinks vs redirects - so, obviously, I realise that creating the redirects leaves me with the obligation of creating all those articles. Guettarda 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some circular links (for your amusement)[edit]

Chicory, Cichorium intybus, and some others in that neighborhood have those odd "species referring to genus" thing going on. I started trying to look into it, but it's too big a mess to even think about cleaning up without the admin tools. In case you're looking for a fun project..... --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for the suggestion; I've cropped the borders and labeled the species of lupin in that photo (lupinus perennis). Theendofforever 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unexpected ally?[edit]

Guess what. I am writing to express agreement on a matter you advocate that has met some resistance. I researched and found recent printed and electronic text sources from Smithsonian Institute and Harvard University using the convention of capitalizing the common names of species. Your recommendation that we Wickipedians do the same seems wise. In a few cases, however, maybe this rule might be meant to be broken. For example Gorilla beringei graueri is the Eastern Lowland Gorilla. But should Canis lupus dingo be Dingo? It looks strange capitalized, doesn’t it? I wouldn't know how to judge that one. Anyway, I wanted to let you know about Harvard and the Smithsonian and I didn’t want to miss an opportunity to join your camp on a matter since we’ve worn different colored...correction: coloured.... hats a few times in the past. Best wishes. - HouseOfScandal18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted text from Christmas tree[edit]

Hi again. I just deleted the following addition to the "Arificial trees" section of Christmas tree, which I think came from an IP earlier today:

Artificial trees don't carry the risk and incovenience of introducing into a home many types of aphids and other insects and bugs that either feed or live certain species of Christmas trees, especially ones cut fresh and brought home directly from the wild.

Aside from needing clean-up for style and grammar, it seemed out of place in the artificial trees section, and of course cited no sources. Still, the environmental section seems to have related text. I figure you're infinitely better qualified than I to judge whether a version of this belongs in the article, so I'm leaving it on your virtual doorstep. Cheers! (And Merry Christmas!) -- Karen | Talk | contribs 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, okay. I was focused more on the idea that live trees do have bugs than the likelihood that plastic ones don't. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal bias as an excuse to remove valid content[edit]

Thank you for taking interest in the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia. But, it appears you recent edits of Cytisus scoparius are violating the Wikipedia NPOV policy in unilaterally removing factually accurate content based upon a personal bias. It is a well documented fact that this plant is known as "Scotch Broom." Your insistence upon censoring the article serves no appropriate academic use and actually weakens the quality of the article. Further, this type of behavior is considered by many in this community to be a form of vandalism in this project. Please remember Wikipedia is not censored, further vandalous attempts to deface the article may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Davodd 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where did you get info evergreen needles rarely persist over 5 years?[edit]

Would you be able to find an article or table that cites that "However, very few species show leaf persistence of over 5 years." I would like to use the info, and its bib, in my project.

Thanks, Onionmon 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am writing to ask a favour. Would you please take a look at the article "Boston magazine" and tell me the name of at least one similar "lifestyles magazine" in the UK? I have an article about lifestyles magazines in my sandbox but want to gives some non-North American examples. Thanks very much. HouseOfScandal 21:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving most Pinaceae to sci names[edit]

Greetings. Would you oppose a proposed multimove of most Pinaceae, too? I simply lack the admin powers required to move the pages to an existing redirect or I would do them all (well, most) myself. I agree conformity within a category is nice, but I don't think it's required or necessary. We can keep the category listings as sci names or common names, but I assume we'd like to go with sci names for the very reason we chose them as article titles. Perhaps that's another can of worms. Why oppose a move of a single page? It's not like we'd move one then forget about the rest. The goal is to move most plant articles to their sci names and they would get done. Your reason for opposition seems silly to me, but I'll go along with it for not wanting to start another controversy. So how about it? Would you allow me to propose a multimove for most of the species in Category:Pinaceae and have another admin go at it? I would, of course, first discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants to figure out which of those articles meet the exceptions put in place in the flora naming convention. Sound reasonable? --Rkitko 04:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and I'm still wondering if you have anything in response to my last statement above about capitalization? I've made the same point twice about field guides and both times you haven't responded. Just wondering if you have any thoughts on what I said. Thanks. --Rkitko 04:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Florida Keys[edit]

Do you know of a species list for the Florida Keys? Specifically I am wondering about palms. Thanks. Guettarda 15:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cytisus scoparius[edit]

Re your request for assistance at WP:SCOWNB I had a look at this page and I am not sure I follow all the ins and outs. When you say : "trying to enforce US name usage" do you mean they are trying to change the name of the page - or are they objecting to the phrase in an earlier version of the article about ' Scotch Broom' being an offensive term? Or ...? Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I apologize. I'd still rather work with you and gently convince you that common names are important aspects of plants and tell the history of their relationships with human beings, then take the attitude I took and defend it. Your comments in plant articles sound as if you are making disparaging remarks about American culture. I personally think they have blinded you to useful research and comments in this area, especially regarding American common names, and I would appreciate greatly if you would simply stop making comments of any sort, unless quoting directly from a source, about American common names of plants--and even if you quote, please just provide the quote on the talk page so others can put it in the text. You don't take the same tone with Brittish common names or other common names. American culture isn't stupid or inferior to your culture, and our common names are not, either. They're just common names, handy names to use for plants, and they often have stories behind them and questions that need asked, that get lost in the battle to remove your negative POV against American culture from the articles. Please, just leave American common names alone, and leave editing them alone. KP Botany 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been watching this debate with interest, I have no comment to make on the substance of the differences of opinion expressed however I would like to say that I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Your work here is of huge value.The Boy that time forgot 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Darwinek wishes you a Merry Christmas!

Hi! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 10:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as James Donn, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Knifle 10:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do you have any black or white spruce cones? I live in Alaska so I could send some your way. That's a crazily overwhelming list of contributions you've added to Wikipedia, by the way. I hope to become that skilled on here someday... Grillo7 11:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey MPF, Maybe you would like to take a look at Inkscape :) The graphic would go much better in that format. — 14:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC) de:Benutzer:LivingShadowReply[reply]

Tallest trees of Tasmania[edit]

Hi MPF! After our short talk at 21.11. I sent a question to the Tasmanian Giant Trees Consultative Committee regarding reliability of the Giant Trees Web Site and the survey of 2000. Now I have got an answer:

" Dear Kouta,

I'm sorry to be slow in answering your question; Is the survey of the year 2000 really only reliable data about tallest trees in Tasmania?

The Giant Trees Website is a great improvement on the survey of 2000. The latter included some trees measured with theodolites and using the tan method while the GT website is based on the superior approach of laser range finders and sin methods which are verified before lodgement on the Register.

The 92m tree reported in 2000 was measured by theodolite and tan methods but when remeasured by laser/sin proved to be only 87m. The tree is called the Styx Bigger Tree on the GT website and is TT87 (by coincidence). It is located in the Styx Big Tree Forest Reserve.

The 97m tree is a different tree. It occurs in the new Styx Tall Trees Forest Reserve and is a rediscovery of a tree measured at 324 feet in 1962. It is now known as Icarus Dream (TT326) and has been measured by laser and climber-deployed tape drop at 97m.

I have no hesitation in referring any interested parties to for the best information on Giant Trees in Tasmania. The Register is reviewed and updated regularly with the next update planned for Autumn 2007.

I'd appreciate your advice on the best way to edit the item on wikipedia to summarise this information (I'm very happy if you do so, otherwise I could probably learn how to do it).


John Hickey Manager, Planning Forestry Tasmania 79 Melville Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7000 ph: (03) 6233 8173 email: "

So, I think we can trust the Giant Trees Web Site. As Mr. Hickey writes, the 97m tall tree has been measured both by laser and by tape drop, and that makes the species currently third tallest on the Earth. You sent me at 21.11. a link to a talk between Robert van Pelt and some other, and therefore I suppose Mr. van Pelt is an authority who you do trust. If you are still suspicious of Tasmanians' methods, please ask him. According the Giant Trees Web Site, the volumes of some eucalypts are measured by him. I am not sure but I think there is even his photo at: .

I find the Tasmanians' project generally MORE reliable than that on the another side of Pacific because Tasmanians tell LOCATIONS of the trees with accuracy of 1 metre. Theoretically van Pelt & Co. could tell they have found a redwood 400 ft tall but they must keep the location secret... Best wishes! Krasanen 15:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article[edit]

Good work on Dioscorea. Thanks. If only more people cared about our friends the plants as much as they do about video games, etc. :-) Steve Dufour 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I hope you can specify the source for one of your pictures I uploded on Commons. Please reply on commons:Image talk:Smallarctern.jpg. Thanks! //Knuckles 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi MPF, I just want to asks you if you know the species Araucaria excelsea who I've find in a guidebook of decorative vegetation in La Réunion (near Madagascar) of the CIRAD, a french agronomic research center. He is not in the articles araucaria. It is a real species ? Maybe an hybrid ? Thanks to answer Tio Ré 11:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elm page redirection[edit]

Dear MPF, Troubled by an American contributor, Cocoaguy, who has redirected my page Morton (Accolade™) to deliberately omit the TM suffix on the grounds that it made it look like spam. I've read the Wiki rules on tradenames, and am still none the wiser, but believe the TM distinction is justified. If you agree, could I ask you, in your role as Administrator, to reverse this redirection? What is particularly annoying is that there are about another 10 such suffixed elm cultivar names, and he hasn't bothered with those. Moreover, on reading the rules, I note that the use of upper case throughout a name (eg elm hybrid LUTECE) is discouraged, yet I am under very strict instructions from my French suppliers (and patent holders) that this nicety should be observed on ALL occasions. Of other things RBG Edinburgh is offering me rooted cuttings from Wych Elms around Edinburgh they think may be resistant to DED, as they've not succumbed but their neighbours have. Interested? Regards Ptelea 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV tag on Apricot kernel[edit]

Hi MPF, it looks like you added an NPOV tag to the above article on 20th August 2006 but you did not add any explanation why on Talk:Apricot kernel. If you want to keep the tag there could you please add an explanation per WP:NPOV. If you don't want to, just leave it and I will remove the tag in a few days. Thanks. Phaedrus86 03:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for MPF[edit]

Greetings from Cluj-Napoca Romania. I was searching for information on Walnuts and came across your comment on the Wikipedia site of that subject. I've been a Wikipedia fan for some time but never have figured out how to use all the access points, including this one. But my question is in regards to germinating Walnuts. Is there an online guide to such a subject. I am familiar with germnation of oaks, particularly the burr oak of North American, but wondered if there were different methods for the Carpathian Walnut.

I'm also not sure if your reply would be to this page (I'll mark it as favorite). Thank you in advance for the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Survey Invitation[edit]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to meReply[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Mespilus.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded from stock.xchng or altered, Image:Mespilus.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC_images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OrphanBot 03:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

03:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Comm_broom.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Comm_broom.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot-assisted new article announcements[edit]

Hi MPF! I think you might be interested in

Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/New articles

Colchicum 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, thought you might want to participate in a discussion at Talk:Ephedra regarding whether the genus article or medicine article should be at Ephedra, and what to call the medicine article if there is a switch.--Eloil 04:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ID, Hawk[edit]


Hello MPF,

While photographing in nearby reservoir, this hawk suddenly flew over. I identify this as youngish Accipter Gentilis. However, could you confirm if I am correct (Wouldn't like to attach falsely identified bird to articles)??? Unfortunately the situation was over so fast, that I didn't manage to frame the bird better. --Thermos 12:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salsola species[edit]

Hi. I've gotten dragged into the subject of which species belong in Salsola. I think you're the editor who added several dozen species names to the Salsola article some time ago. However, there are only 6 distinct species listed as "accepted" at ITIS. The much longer list you gave seems closer to the list at the GBIF, but all the additional names are "unreviewed." I would guess that there are lots of claims for new species that have never been confirmed. It seems like the Salsola article needs at least a reference to explain; even better, if there are really only 6 accepted species, the article could be greatly simplified by deleting the dozens of names that aren't going to lead anywhere, perhaps in favor of a link to the list at GBIF. Let me know your views!EAS 02:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Not sure if you're just visiting, but good to see you're inputs again--Melburnian 08:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back, MPF, but I would advise extreme caution with "correcting" the name Stewartia to Stuartia. Linnaean names are not quite sacrosanct, but in the absence of something like a clear typographical error, they come close. I would especially point to ICBN Art. 60.3 and Ex. 6. The fact remains that Stewartia is still the spelling accepted in virtually all published and online references, including publications by Theaceae specialists (and I find the references cited in the article less than compelling; the most influential is probably the Kew list, but I am always suspicious of outputs from databases that do not explicitly identify the sources of their data). I believe the article would be better to treat the name as "Stewartia" with a note regarding the orthography and proposals to "correct" the name to Stuartia. MrDarwin 13:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Taxobox_printscreen1.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Taxobox_printscreen1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new text added to this article sounds copied from the book. Can you check it as soon as possible? Thanks. KP Botany 18:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I'll just generally edit for readability and you can edit my turgidity. I did catch the spelling change in one article and thought of you when I saw it, but simply reverted it explaining the need for consistency and that it was a British native. KP Botany 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you check your source on the size? This is described as a small to medium sized tree with a canopy width of 10 meters. This seems to be a medium to large-sized canopy width, or something should be added about its unusual habit. Thanks. KP Botany 18:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salvia pratensis[edit]

Where I live S. pratensis is really extremely common, and listed as CC (very common) in the refernce book for the Italian flora. It also grows vigorous in highly anthropised landscapes e. g. city gardens, so I can't imagine how it could possibly be listed as vulnerable. Please, check it. Thank you very much Aelwyn 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe it's to be considered vulnerable in England. The same book lists it as Eurimediterranean, so probably in a more northern country as in England it can be a rarity. Don't know, perhaps it's a matter of global point of view. Aelwyn 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need botany help![edit]

Hi, I've made an article for the Southeast Asian tree called "poontalai" in Thai (given variously on the Internet as Sterculia lychnophora or Scaphium macropodium. I've made a WP article under the former name, but I wonder where the latter came from, and whether the sources you have access to might say which is the correct Latin name. I appreciate your expert assistance, as always! Badagnani 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The genus Scaphium now goes by Sterculia. There is a Sterculia macropoda Hook. ex Kloppenburg-Versteegh which is now Carpophyllum macropodum Miq., known from Sumatra (doesn't mean it's not also Thai). There is a Scaphium macropodum Beumee ex K.Heyne which is also now Carpophyllum macropodum. You can find this information at IPNI,[3] but it can be a bit hard if you're not used to looking for botanical names, and it doesn't include everything. It appears, though, that neither of your names are correct, and the genus might be Carpophyllum. The family Sterculiaceae has undergone drastic changes due to DNA research which revealed it was seriously un-monophyletic, meaning that plants that were once grouped together could no longer be held to have an evolutionary relationship with each other and had to be moved around, have name changes, and the like. KP Botany 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MPF, I suggest we look around a bit before moving this to Carpophyllum macropodum, however I'll support a move if you have time enough to research it and conclude it should be done. KP Botany 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the delay! Not a species I have any very useful info on, unfortunately. Probably best to look up in Flora Malesiana], I don't have access to this. - MPF 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll post on plants, and see if we can get some input. KP Botany 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carpophyllum macropodum Miq. is not a valid name; Carpophyllum is a brown algae genus. (Carpophyllum Neck. in Cactaceae also preempts Carpophyllum Miq.). IPNI says that Sterculia macropoda, Carphophyllum macropodum and Scaphium macropodum are all the same. K&B retain Scaphium as a seperate genus, and specifically mentions S. macropodum as a member, and as a source of a beverage.
I found a Laotian site [4] which has affinis, beccarianum, lychnophora and scaphigera as synonyms of macropodum. If this is correct (and macropodum does seem to be the oldest name), then we should move Sterculia lychnophora to Scaphium macropodum, but it's not easy to tell whether Malva Nut Gum is extracted from the seeds of a single species, or a group of related species. Lavateraguy 14:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all the input; I've just noticed your response here. I'm particularly interested mainly in the use of this tree's seeds as a jelly-like drink in Southeast Asia, and in this context most of the websites give Sterculia lychnophora as the species name. I don't know much beyond what the seeds look like (I have a package of them but don't have any way to do a DNA test on them! Badagnani 06:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

I only just notice you're around the place again. Welcome back. Hesperian 00:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day mate,

Can you drop back in to this discussion some time please?

My position is that 2-dimensional works of art don't have to be absolutely flat. Many impressionist artists used to slap on great wads of paint, creating thickness profiles that varied by up to half an inch, but no-one would argue that these are not 2-D works. I think a 2-D work is a work that is intended to be treated as a flat object and viewed from directly in front, irrespective of whether or not it is perfectly flat. In the case of the V. thapsus sheet, it would be ludicrous to photograph it from any other angle, so I think it qualifies as a 2-D art.


Hesperian 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to intrude on this discussion but I have to agree with MPF on this one. The website that the image was taken from has a clear statement of copyright; see their terms of use where it states clearly and explicitly:
NHM or its licensors or contributors own the copyright and all other intellectual property rights in the material on the Site. You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, adapt or otherwise use any material on the Site other than for your own personal non-commercial use.
That seems pretty clear to me. Moreoever, under the image itself is the statement "Image reproduced by kind permission of The Linnean Society of London", suggesting that it came from a third party who probably owns the copyright and was used with permission. If there is any question of copyright violation, and in lieu of explicit permission, an image should not be uploaded to Wikipedia.
I have to question what this image provides to the article in the first place; it's not essential to any information provided, but if it were, it could be listed under "external links". MrDarwin 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright claims are a dime a dozen. Virtually every library in Australia claims copyright over images that everyone knows to be in the public domain. I emailed my state library over this, and they admitted that the images I was querying were in the public domain, but declined to stop falsely copyright tagging them. And this is not by any stretch of the imagination a problem unique to Australia. Hesperian 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion is becoming badly fragmented; please comment at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vthapsus sheet.JPG. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I inform you that the Canary Islands are a part of Spain. It is not a dependence but a Spanish region. Please, excuse me my English level. Arzautz 13:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wait, I thought we were supposed to do the family?[5] KP Botany 19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I asked this question, wanted to keep something at the genus, and got told I had to move it to the family. Now I'll go back and see what it was. Maybe it was one of the Brya ones. KP Botany 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]



A question was recently directed to the Help Desk regarding the move of Ruppell's Fox and similar pages to a location with an umlaut in them. An editor expressed a concern that the font was causing problems for British typefonts, and relevant policy], while rather ambiguous, seems to frown on it. Is there any light you could shed on the matter? Thanks.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 20:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Michael, is the flood devastating the north of England, there in Northumberland? Berton 16:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page at Triphasia trifolia -- would you be able to add anything? Badagnani 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GoogleGib.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:GoogleGib.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added back; not an orphan, had been removed from Google Earth article (where it is a valid fair use pic for review of the subject) by suspect vandal. - MPF 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I had you covered on the capitalization of common names, but thanks for posting the specific sources, and commenting. I did mean to post a note to your talk page, but forgot, sorry. KP Botany 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can you help with a taxobox at Garcinia livingstonei? Badagnani 23:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's an article you may be able to add to from a native perspective. KP Botany 02:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice. I figured it was a plant article you could readily upgrade a bit. KP Botany 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article[edit]

Hi, can you check the new article (and taxobox) at Peristrophe roxburghiana? Badagnani 03:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flora naming convention discussion[edit]

Hi, MPF. I wasn't sure if you had Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) on your watchlist so I just wanted to pop by and let you know that I found an archived version of the Vienna Code online ( saves the day) and left the links at the discussion on the flora naming convention talk page. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully it is now less US - centric. Novickas 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Taxobox begin[edit]

Template:Taxobox begin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Verisimilus T 13:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Jaroslav_Malina.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Jaroslav_Malina.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 21:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prunus arthurella[edit]

Thank you very much for help :-), Wiktoryn 16:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Poplar[edit]

Thanks for help! I can find which culivar is it. --Beyond silence 23:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I spotted your edit of Dillenia indica and realized that I had found someone who knew the subject. I tagged Brownea coccinea and tried to find some stuff. What I "think" I found is a reference that shows the picture is incorrect for the heading. If you are interested, could you look at the above and the picture at [6]? Thanks in advance! --Stormbay 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for the interest and effort. I was totally out of my league. I'm sure someone will do a proper job on it. I spotted your edit and took a shot. Cheers!--Stormbay 21:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prunus Grayana[edit]

OK. Sometimes it is hard to know where the note gets placed to reference exactly the thing you want referenced but since I know what you are looking to verify I can use a note exactly for that provided I can find the thing again. I did see it. I use Google Books a lot so it probably is in there somewhere. I will look for it. Meanwhile the workaround you hit on is fine. If I never turn it up why it isn't visible and can be excised after a time. I regard the information as interesting but marginal so it is not of substantial impact. I will look. Right now I am lining up 9 other articles on my system to dump in Wiki when they get to a reasonable state. I thought it might be more efficient to do them in batch. I'm using the template of mahaleb except in the notes I'm putting more formal citation formats. So you will be having more work to do on these. From my point of view, Prunus is important. We all eat prunes (yuk). My basis for doing these 9 is that they have pictures in commons but no article. If you can find more pictures we can line up more to do.Dave 14:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More grayana and Gray[edit]

It seems that Google Books pulled a fast one and changed from downloadable to snippet view. They put on this big altruistic act but I happen to know that they are anything but. So, usually I do not put in links to Google books no matter how convenient at the time. I can't now get to where I was. But, I am finding the gist of it elsewhere and when I complete that will probably put back much of what I wrote. The problem with what you wrote is that the plant was not named in HONOR of Gray. It would have been named in honor of its discoverers. Gray was the first one who published it and he did so in the list of new species represented by the dried plants brought back by the expedition. I just have to find where the plant is listed in that list. Meanwhile I have found what I probably looked at and did not cite on the Gray's connection views:

"Gray wrote (1859, p. 440), "... it will be almost impossible to avoid the conclusion, that there has been a peculiar intermingling of the Eastern American and Eastern Asian floras, which demands explanation." On page 444 he wrote, "The discovery of numerous closely related species thus divided between two widely separated districts might not, in the present state of our knowledge, suggest former continuity, migration, or interchange; but that of identical species peculiar to the two inevitably would." Gray suggested further (p. 442) that the interchange between "the temperate floras of the western part of the Old World and the New had taken place via Asia," an idea that he attributed to Bentham. Gray (1859) credited Bentham with pointing out that interchange between all of the Old World, including western Europe, and the New World had taken place via Asia. Gray thought the statement may have been made in conversation or in correspondence between the two for Gray did not believe these thoughts had been published. Gray cited as evidence to support this theory the fact that such large North American genera as Aster L., Solidago L., and Eupatorium L. (Compositae), Euphorbia L. (Euphorbiaceae) and Solanum L. (Solanaceae) "... are represented in eastern Asia by a small number of species, which gradually diminish or altogether disappear as we proceed westward toward the Atlantic limits of Europe, while the types peculiar to the extreme west of Europe (excluding of course the Arctic flora) are wholly deficient in America." [7]

Concerning the list there is this worthy site even though they misspelled dried: [8]. If you want to know why I'm pursuing this, well, you can find excellent Internet write-ups on a good many plants. I was hoping to make Wikipedia different by adding the culture history, so one can see, for example, why grayana is grayana. Most dictionaries do not do that. I'll keep you posted.Dave 17:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


1) OK. I will not put the date back. Personally I think Wikipedia should be consistent without having to follow a pre-determined external convention of which the typical reader knows nothing but you have to have rules and a rule is a rule. 2) As to whether the citation should be included at all, I'm proceding on the theory that it is better to say something informative rather than nothing. Therefore putting the full citation in seems like a good idea. But, they can get that from GRIN. The problem is, unless you know the language and the conventions what GRIN says is not comprehensible. That brings up the issue of whether these Wikipedia plant articles are only for the trained savants who can read the ordinarily incomprehensible or should anyone be able to read them. I think you know what the answer is, as there are some templates, not used here, complaining that an article needs translation into ordinary language. Titles consisting of standard abbreviations whose meaning can't even be known without extensive Internet research or ownership of specialized books are not that. One solution of course is just not to mention it at all. You start and end with nothing. Unfortunately nothing tells us nothing. That is mainly what we began with, a list of red links to nothing. So, my theory is, we need to say something to communicate information, and we need to say it in such a way that it can be understood. Botanists don't need us, they got GRIN and a bookcase full of books from college. I'm getting verbose no doubt but I think the point is worth making. So if you would like to say a word or two on how grayana got its name and how we ordinary folk can know that I think it would be an improvement. Maximovich was a Russian far from the American scene. How on earth did the plant get the name grayana? Gray was an American professor! Nor did he go to the far east to discover the plant. What's the answer to the mystery? "Diagn. plant, nov. asiat." does not tell us very much, don't you agree? 3) Gray's views. Here is what Gray has to do with the plant. Perry went to him and asked him to look at the specimens because he was a known scholar in the field with views on and interest in the plants of the Far East. Perry did not trust his own field workers. That is how Gray got involved at all. Maxim. (there I go doing it too) didn't pick Gray's name out of a hat. He must have seen Gray's list, which Gray embedded in some multi-volume publication. That is why he chose Grayana, "Gray's", and not Grayae or Grayii or some other such Latin form. Gray did not define it himself and that is why Gray is not the publisher. Maxim. could not claim credit because Gray already had published it. The list must be the Grayana. The problem is I cannot find it although all the circumstantial evidence points to it. I don't have the multi-volume set and I can't buy the articles that describe it. Academia has the public right by the you-know-what on this one. Sum all the costs of all the universities and book publishers and divide by the number of facts to get the price per fact. Multiply that by the square of infinity to get the profit and you will have the vaguest idea of what I am talking about. 4) What I will do then is put in what information I can explain in readable languge (bio. abb. no. read.) to provide some culture history to the thing. I can't put in what I don't know and can't find out. If you could help round out that section from your resources I'm sure whoever looks it up would know more. Meanwhile I will keep looking for the connection between Maxim. and the list. If you can think of any marginal but interesting information by all means throw it in, and with links to other Wikipedia articles. No Wikipedia article is an island, apart from the main ....Dave 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over and Out for now (Dave)[edit]

Well, buddy, I did the best I could. I cannot find substantiation that Maxim. read Asa gray. I guess it will just have to stay "after Asa Gray" which I notice some of our Chinese and Japanese weasel-worders have. If we cannot find our way there is no sense in proceding in the dark. We're in the dark, here. And we are just because we can't pay the high price of information. I left the set-up and the stuff you commented out just in case we get lucky and the information turns up. Eventually it may have to come out. Also I put a call for help on the discussion page of the article. That's the best I can do and I dare say it is frustrating. But, I need to get on to the 9 articles. See you there.Dave 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unidentified feather[edit]

Do you happen to know what bird this feather might have come from? It was found in my garden in the semi-rural South East of England and is 9 cm long. --MichaelMaggs 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That would make sense - I've seen those about. (The feather is 9cm). --MichaelMaggs 20:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acacia karoo Range Map[edit]


The original range map that I created for Acacia karoo showed that the tree is also in places like India and Australia (the data is from ILDIS, a very respected source for data on legumes). Your range map is nice and it has more detail about Africa, but it doesn't show the other places. It could still go in the article as a range map specific to Africa. The general rangemap in the Taxobox is to show the global distribution of the tree. Like it says in Wikimedia Commons, it's not a good idea to overwrite an image there without consulting the original author. The original page on Wikimedia Commons still has my name on it, but then your image overwrote mine. I would suggest uploading yours again to a different file name (with your info) and clicking on "undo" on mine to restore it.

From WP:Taxobox : "...the purpose of the map being a rough global overview; more detailed maps can always go to the article body..."

Thanks and thank you so much for your nice contributions to Commons/Wikipedia.

WriterHound 02:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bald eagle[edit]

FYI, re:map - [9] -Ravedave 05:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I just made Cissampelos; can you help fix it up? Badagnani 00:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I wonder whether this might be the same as Abuta rufescens? Badagnani 00:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can you determine the species for Kinnow? If not, do you know who the citrus specialists are here who might know? Badagnani 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fire scares crosscut[edit]

Hi, I am planning to write an article in about forest fire-history in sv:WP, so I am searching a good picture of a crosscut whith beautiful fire-scares. I may have a few crosscuts myself, but they are not the best ones, so my question is if you may know any good such pictures already in Commons? (it is so many species-galleries to look throw, so just if you know, I would appreciate your help) sv:Användare:Taxelson 08:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answer at sv:Användardiskussion:Taxelson / sv:Användare:Taxelson 09:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Updated DYK query On 5 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Acer lobelii, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 09:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christmas trees[edit]

First of all, thank you for your edits, they were helpful. I have quite a bit of work before I think these articles (there are several subarticles) are ready for the light of day. Eventually the structure of the article "Christmas tree farm" will be affected by the content of the subarticles, during which time I will heed your advice to give the tree information higher placement, I will make a few tweaks in the article that most of that section will eventually be part of. Thanks again. IvoShandor 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No big deal, it's just a paragraph that works better in a different article, I can just remove it again. I figured that was the edit conflict. IvoShandor 10:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Californian tree - Quercus?[edit]

Have you seen Image:Unknown plant-90.jpg (link to foliage-image in the description-page) I think it is a beautiful tree (oak I suppose), but do you know which one? sv:Användare:Taxelson 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine! Here is another oak one by the same photographer: Image:Unknown plant-5.jpg Do you know that too? [looking a bit more I think it may be Quercus chrysolepis, but I do not know if there may also be any other possible species there] sv:Användare:Taxelson 11:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bird images[edit]

I think you might have missed the main question of my post. Most of the images are of people holding birds in their hands and I was wondering if held birds are acceptable images. If they are, then I have over 100 images of 30+ species that could be useful. Here is an example: Image:Yellow Warbler.jpg. -- Scorpion0422 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Plum article received heavy editing today by unregistered users, which I noticed at The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

on Kowhais[edit]

Dear em-pi-ef I comment on oncop53 user page, that phylogeny and taxonomy companion-doublette must work out, I mean three genera (fide Yakovlev) is it not enough for Sophora

--Penarc 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lavatera arborea nomenclature[edit]

There has been some disagreement with Ray's names. The Australian state/territorial herbaria are split pretty near 50/50 between Ray's Malva australiana and the older Malva behriana, for the former Lavatera plebeia, and I've seen a site that said that Malva wigandii should have been Malva africana (but it seemed to me that the same argument gave Malva maritima priority as the name for Lavatera maritima). Until today I hadn't seen any disagreement with Malva dendromorpha, but on checking IPNI I find that the 2005 Italian paper that sunk Lavatera in Malva used the name Malva eriocalyx for Lavatera arborea.

I checked Ray's paper. Ray did exclude some names as being invalidly published, or not being of completely clear application, but didn't explicitly consider Lavatera eriocalyx or Malva fastuosa. Checking IPNI I find that there is a Malva eriocalyx (= Phymosia umbellata) that would preempt that combination, except that it apparently wasn't validly published. I see no obvious reason to exclude the earlier Malva fastuosa (but the publication is in Google Books so I can look further).

I'd don't understand all the intricacies of the ICBN regulations. Lavateraguy 21:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, after further study I've come to the conclusion that the correct name for Lavatera arborea L. is Malva arborea (L.) Webb & Berthol., but this is original research, and I'm looking for a journal to publish it. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You probably want to check this and related page moves. I'm pretty sure it's wrong but I won't revert because I don't know the naming conventions by heart and defer to your treefulness. :) Katr67 00:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MPF, I'm not going to fight the tide on hyphenating the term "Douglas fir," but I will remind you that the average person seeing the term "Douglas-fir" will not recognize the hyphen as an indication that the tree is not a true fir, but will think it's a typo or an attempt to make the reader pronounce the term incorrectly (with the stress on the first word). Only the community that decided to hyphenate the term knows why the hyphen is there; it's lost on the rest of us. There are plenty of non-hyphenated terms in English that contain technically inaccurate words--I wish I could think of one now!--whose meanings are made clear by context. No matter how deeply institutionalized this hyphen may be in publications, it is still unnecessary and, from a technical English language standpoint, incorrect. No good English teacher would spare "Douglas-fir" or "Poison-oak" the red pen. I work for a government agency, and I would write very badly indeed if I used their official publications as a vocabulary guide instead of the dictionary. I'm not trying to give you a hard time--I just didn't want you to think I made those changes on a whim. -Eric (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No good science teacher would allow you to use a dictionary as a reference to the name, even a common name, of a taxon, over a scientific source. KP Botany 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Flora of North America hyphenates the name. --EncycloPetey 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The number of people who write or say something a certain way does not necessarily determine what is correct. You can listen to business people and American government representatives use the word "impact" in place of "affect" all day long and that still doesn't make it right. Plenty of people in the nuclear industry and in the military pronounce "nuclear" "new-kew-lur"—it still ain't right. -Eric (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very true. No amount of people calling it 'Douglas Fir' will change it from a Pseudotsuga to an Abies, however much they might think it will - MPF 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MPF, you know I'm not lobbying to change a scientific name. I'm just saying it looks like some people in the botany community got into the habit of hyphenating some plant names in a way that English does not typically use hyphens--maybe as a wink and a nod to each other that they know the common name is technically deceptive--and then the habit became institutionalized in some botany publications. Plenty of organisms have compound common names that include a technically inaccurate name without needing a hyphen to "clarify" their meanings; Spanish moss, prairie dog, sea lion, and sea lettuce are a few examples. Sorry to be adding to the 'new message' notices... -Eric (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants for wider discussion. For now I'll just say that I don't like the hyphenation and this kind of argument is one reason why I support placing plant articles under the somewhat more objective botanical rather than the extremely subjective common names. But contrary to claims, there is no consensus among botanists and other plant professionals that this is the one proper or correct way to represent common names and as Eric notes, the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia will find the hyphenation quite odd. "Poison-ivy" is one of the most egregious offenders that continues to grate on me. (BTW I just looked in my copy of Heywood's "Flowering Plants of the World" and "poison ivy" is not hyphenated; nor are "African violet" or "silk oak"; and I'm just waiting for somebody to use "Norfolk Island-Pine"!) MrDarwin 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quick check of a couple of fairly influential references reveals that both the New Royal Horticultural Society Dictionary of Gardening and Hortus Third (also a horticultural reference, but prepared by botanists at Cornell University) use "Douglas fir" without hyphenation. I also checked Cronquist (1981) and he also does not use hyphenation in such names as "poison ivy" and "African violet". So I guess my question is, whose lead are we following on this, why are we following it, and where are these guidelines spelled out? MrDarwin 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whose lead? The United States Government, through its agencies the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Forest Service. And, as already pointed out above, the Flora of North America. BTW, yes, please do remove it from here, I'm getting sick of all those orange 'you have new messages' notifiers!! - MPF 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The foregoing discussion was copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants at the suggestion of MrDarwin (above). Please discuss further on that page. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pink, A. (2004). Gardening for the Million[edit]

Hi MDF - I think that the disambig page is necessary. I didn´t create Alfred Pink article. Best wishes, --Ricardo 11:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


According to MoBot, there appear to be several valid species. A quick search turns up references to species other than frutescens as well. I am only familiar with the one species though (which your article captures quite well; it's a species that I knew really well, and have collected both with flowers and fruit). Guettarda 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I found a number - Acevedo's Flora of St John, US Virgin Islands (1996) says 16 species and has a (very brief) genus description. Guettarda 14:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crap! It was late. I was half asleep when I gave up searching and clicked "save".  :) Guettarda 16:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blue Grouse[edit]

Thanks for the improvements to Blue Grouse. The link to Barrowclough et al. and your comments on that paper were particularly helpful.[10] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies. The code was a little screwed up; it should be fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Calocedrus decurrens-1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for help on Image:Calocedrus decurrens-1.jpg! Looks like the botanic garden use false name. I uploaded as Image:Cedrus deodara Lokrum.jpg. --Beyond silence 09:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Re your edit to Llangernyw I don't have a detailed photo as proof but there are a plaque and a certificate on display within the churchyard attesting to the age of the Yew. Confusingly the ages, if I recall correctly differ, but they cover the range 2000-4500 years. The plaque was erected in association with an oil company (maybe Esso) and the certificate I think comes from a UK university.

The location of the plaque, unfortunately not readable can be seen in the far right of the following shot (not mine but I took an almost identical one!)

Hopefully I might be visiting in the next few months and if so I'll get a good quality photo of both the plaque and certificate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M100 (talkcontribs) 20:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Google Scilly.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Google Scilly.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VegitaU 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rating articles[edit]

Please be sure to rate articles as "Mid" rather than "Medium". While both values will display correctly on the talk page in the assessment box, "Medium" does not categorize or read correctly when the bots do the assessment summary. --EncycloPetey 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plant Sexuality[edit]

  • Subdioecious, a tendency many species of monoecious conifers show towards dioecy (that is, a female plant may sometimes produce small numbers of male cones or vice versa)[1].

The above text does not make any sense, think about it for while. If the normal condition of the species is to produce plants with separate sexs (male and female plants) then they are dioecious NOT monoecious.Hardyplants 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be good if you added your info and refernece on Pines under the "Plant population" part of Subdioecious ( the next section below the above text) I will beef up the two different sections later this week. when I have more time. Thanks.23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


  1. ^ McCormick, J., & Andresen, J. W. (1963). A subdioecious population of Pinus cembroides in southeast Arizona. Ohio J. Science 63: 159-163.

New tropical fruit[edit]

Would love some help filling out Dracontomelon, if you have access to sources. 22:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


MPF, I see you're still using your heading preference when you add information to articles. I still disagree with you that it's acceptable to do so. See WP:HEAD again, along with Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Headers and paragraphs. The few replies I got from people watching WP:MOS indicated that they also agreed with me, but we could again take it up on the talk page there. The guides appear to be very clear to me and I still don't understand why you continue to edit in this manner. Any comment on this would be appreciated. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rkitko - it looks like it has been removed now, but there at least used to be something which said that (particularly in short articles) where heavy ==Underlined headers== made the page look unwieldy, they didn't have to be used. I still consider that to be the case; an ==Underlined header== splits the page so heavily that it looks like it is to be regarded as completely separate from the page above the underline (much like the sections above here on this talk page are about completely separate topics). Contrary to popular belief (as implied by the mos#headers), lower ===Headers=== do not upset the page formatting, and look much better as they don't split the page apart with underlines; tables of contents are generated equally well with them. I can see no reason why heavy underlined headers have to be used. - MPF 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, MPF. Where and when did you see this suggestion? I'd like to read an older version of the page to see what you're talking about. Perhaps it's been removed for a reason. Regardless of personal preference for page layout, the guides appear to be quite clear. Before you continue to disregard them, perhaps you should ask for opinions on the guides.
And, quickly, I would also urge you to move the page Chinese Chestnut back to Chinese chestnut. As it says in WP:CAPS, either capitalization is appropriate. When capitalization isn't very clear I believe we're to defer to the first major contributor's choice. And since you initially moved it from the original author's capitalization to your preference, I would suggest that it be appropriate that you move it back. Maintaining your POV capitalization is unacceptable. --Rkitko (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pic caption / reference[edit]

Why did you remove the caption and reference for the image I added to Prunus maackii? I've taken great care to document my specimen photos, and I'm sure you'll admit documented images and references for specimens are in heinously short supply here on Wikipedia.

Your caption "Bark on a cultivated plant" is, unfortunately, typical for low-quality Wikipedia work. Anyone can see this is bark, and what, in particular, are you trying to convey by the adjective "cultivated"? And why is that important?

The caption you replaced conveyed very specific information on the provenance and location of the specimen. I don't see why an encyclopedia would choose to replace facts with nondescript captions. I suspect perhaps you might have some issues with the reference I placed with the image. Is that the case? I would appreciate some communication on this topic before I spend vast amounts of time and effort supplying Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons with something they desperately need - quality, documented, scientific content; and the credibility that goes with it. Nickrz 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The irrelevance of a "cultivated" specimen's location and provenance: is that wikipedia policy, or your personal opinion? Are you implying that cultivated specimens are somehow inferior or less important as representations of the species simply due to their location? (Were this true, animals in zoos would become irrelevant to our articles). I find this argument as misguided as those who argue "synthetic" chemicals or drugs are somehow inferior to "organic" or those found in nature; the fact of the matter is, they are identical.

I think you might be missing the point of my insistence on location information: It is because of the location of these specimens the provenance and documentation occurs; The Morton Arboretum is one of the premier botanical collections in the United States, indeed, the world. The fact a specific plant exists in, and is documented by this institution is my whole purpose: credibility and certainty.

And one final thought. Had I not identified the location of the tree in question, would you have found it necessary or accurate to label it "cultivated"? Would you question the identification of the specimen and make notes of such? There are far too many (almost all poor quality) images of "identified" organisms in Wikipedia which, in fact, have no other authority than the photographer's guess. Why then downplay or banish to the obscurity of an image page the credible location information on the quality images this encyclopedia needs?

All articles should include information on native range; the argument someone might mistake the plant in the picture as native to the specimen location as outweighing the value in certainty of a specimen's identity. Do we label all images of animals in zoos "ZOO ANIMAL" because someone might think a polar bear native to San Diego, CA.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Marlin (talkcontribs) 15:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Nickrz 16:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I have listed List of palms of the Caribbean as a Featured List Candidate, and was wondering if you might have the time to give me some feedback on the nom. Thanks. Guettarda 21:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you remember where you got the sizes for the species? The figures aren't matching sources I have to hand (Flora of China, Flora of Japan, Hillier). Lavateraguy 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Lavateraguy 09:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - re the photo I had inserted here - removed because misID ? - are you sure - this would make the tag in the park incorrect. LawrieM 20:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Ta LawrieM 6 Nov 2007Reply[reply]

Picrasma quassioides[edit]

I'm wondering why you have replaced an image of a documented plant specimen in the taxobox of the article Picrasma quassioides in favor of one with no supporting documentation save the photographer's caption. Indeed, your caption in the taxobox "Foliage and immature fruit, Japan" recites facts with no source or reference whatsoever.

You have also removed a reference to a very carefully researched and documented account of this species which I had included in the stub when I began the article: . Why is that?

Please forgive me for wondering if you are somehow biased against information and photographs I place on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. It seems to me you favor images with no references as long as they are by a different photographer, and remove from my image captions very pertinent information in favor of vagaries and unreferenced assertions. You told me you would have captioned the "Bark on a cultivated plant" in the Prunus maackii article even had I not provided location information; I ask you: How could you have known the plant was not growing in its native location without any documentation to support your claim? Perhaps by the same method you've discerned the Picrasma quassioides taxobox image was photographed in Japan?

I take great care in documenting my specimen images and providing references and even geopositioning data, yet you seem to follow me around and undo my efforts in favor of unreferenced sources. Perhaps I'm wrong and other Wikipedians can point out the error of my ways, but I'm perplexed by your actions. Nickrz 13:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Morton Arboretum contains thousands of native, wild trees, shrubs and forbs, many surrounded by acres of lawn or other tended landscapes. Are you saying the presence of the lawn somehow changes the value or identity of these specimens? The presence of a lawn somehow magically changes the tree or shrub into a "culivated" specimen?

And I still don't understand how or why you are ascribing all sorts of supposedly factual qualities to images you have no information about, save the photographer's name, and (perhaps) location. Certifying to the public a tree is of a certain species and growing in a certain location simply because a photographer is (supposedly) located in Japan seems an incredible stretch to me. Your asking the photographer for additional information after the fact only increases my wonderment. Such a practice would seem to me anathema to an editor of an encyclopedia.

I have studied your other suggestions and criticism of my editing. The value of my contributions depends heavily on my images and research concerning those images and the organisms they represent. If, in the course of adding valuable credible information to the Wikipedia I cannot reference my site, then the Wikipedia is lessened for the exclusion. I am taking steps to reference my fair use and other permissions on copyrighted materials used in my site. Nickrz 13:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can/should this be moved to the binomial? I can see there is some naming confusion so Im not sure which spelling it would go to, I think Acoelorraphe. I wasn't sure if this page was stuck at the common name because of the spelling issue or if it just hadn't been moved yet. Any thoughts on this one?Mmcknight4 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK well contrary to what I said above I think it is Acoelorrhaphe (with the additional h). The other genera with the same greek root Rhapidophyllum and Rhapis have the h after r so I'd bet thats whatthe author intended. Mmcknight4 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Updated DYK query On 13 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tilia tomentosa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Rigadoun (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peregrine map[edit]

Great piece of work (I just noticed it) but Falco peregrinus nesiotes (number 17) is excluded on it from Fiji, which is where it was described from, and only includes Vanuatu and New Caledonia. The map also has peregrines breeding on the Solomon Islands, where they don't, at least according to Doughty, Day & Plant 1999. Cheers! Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for your work in translating the Japanese for us, and providing very precise and descriptive information about this tree. Woohoo! :D Alastair Haines 03:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barn Swallow[edit]

Your map puts the finishing touches to the article, many thanks. I'm now starting on House Martin (very unimaginative)/ Any chance you could kindly oblige again? thanks, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brilliant - I just need to get the rest of the article up to scratch now! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a DRV discussion here related to the Japanese citrus category that may benefit from your input in view of your contributions to the Citrus article. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acer barbatum[edit]

What was your justification for moving Acer barbatum to Acer floridanum? I haven't seen anyone ever site it as such, and it's listed on the USDA and GRIN databases as Acer barbatum. Could you let me know what you are basing this on? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Furthermore, you really shouldn't be replacing my preferred style for an opening line with yours just because you're doing work on the article. This has been discussed before and we've decided that what's there first should stay. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know I'm not going to be able to convince you based on past experience, but what you've done will probably do more harm than good. Almost no one is familiar with the name Acer floridanum, and despite the fact that recent publications suggest that Acer floridanum might be preferable (the conclusion of that paper wasn't entirely confident as I recall), it's a bit premature to be moving it. Aside from the one publication in a relatively unimportant botanical journal, there isn't much supporting the name. It's not considered accepted by the vast majority of sources (including ITIS, which I think is our standard). Besides, the taxonomy of the species is simply too volatile to be moving it around. DNA work could reveal tomorrow that it's a variety of sugar maple. It's best to wait until a name is more or less universally accepted. I would wait until the publication of volume 13 of the Flora of North America, which will include the Sapindaceae. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what have you done to the introduction? Any particular reason you chose to remove the description section and put that information in the opener where it certainly doesn't belong? And it's an understory tree in almost all cases, so saying medium-large is misleading. I will assume good faith, but you have not improved this article. Please discuss major changes next time. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologise if my comment seemed aggressive, but every substantial plant article has a description section, and I can't figure out why you would remove it. It's much less tidy now than it was before. Opening sections are never meant to contain an entire description, which is clear in the MOS and based on any good or featured plant article. It's just hard for me to understand how you could possibly consider that tidying. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to apoligise further about my response to your edits on this article. My reaction was much too strong and unhelpful. Perhaps it was because Acer barbatum was one of the first articles I put a lot of time into, but regardless I realise that it's not my article and opinions will differ as to how the information should be interpreted and presented. I assure you that I won't let it happen again. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 00:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salix nigra[edit]

Once again, you have chosen to add unverified information to an article in your crusade to label plant specimens "cultivated" or "planted." You have added the extraneous "Specimen planted at" to the taxobox image for Salix nigra. How did you determine the specimen was planted? And, once again, why is it essential to point out a specimen that is growing within its native range has been cultivated? Nickrz (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits to Salix alba, Salix fragilis, etc[edit]

I saw your excellent work on rewriting these articles. The articles are much improved. I noticed you also added and removed some photographs in Salix alba. I propose to restore the S.alba illustration and catkins photograph, and to make the gallery's photographs a bit nearer the original sizes. If you should have any comments or objections, please discuss them. Please reply here to keep the thread of conversation together in one place rather than split between your talk page and mine. Thanks. - Neparis (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note! I took out that catkins photo as it is (a) rather low resolution (150kB) compared to the others (2MB) I found at commons, and (b) it looks a little odd, I'm not 100% certain its identification is correct. So that one is I think best left out. The illustration, as you like; if adding just one pic then perhaps move one of the gallery pics to right-aligned in the 'Uses' (there's space there) so as not to have an asymmetrical gallery. On using larger pic sizes in the gallery; with four abreast currently it almost fills the width of my screen, if they were much larger it might give formatting problems (unless they were put three to a row instead). My general feeling is that it isn't worth it, as if anyone wants to see a photo in more detail, they'll click on it to see it full size anyway; whether the thumbnails are 150px or 200px won't have much influence on that. Also I've an idea the default thumb sizes are settable in 'my preferences', whereas specified size thumbs aren't (certainly applies to normal [[Image|thumb|etc]] pics, less sure if it also applies to galleries). - MPF 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it matters particularly whether or not the catkins in Image:Salix_alba(02).jpg are of S.alba, although my impression is that they are, and the photographer evidently thought so too. I think what matters is that it is quite a good, well-composed photograph and the 600x900 resolution is more than adequate for screen viewing. It has a less distracting background than Image:Salix_alba_006.jpg (which is a good photograph too), though it suffers a little from the limited depth of field. Since publishing costs don't apply here per WP:PAPER, my preference would be to show all three catkins photographs in a catkins subsection, or even a separate gallery just for catkins. I think it is worthwhile because catkins are obviously one of the most distinctive and interesting features of willows.
As for the gallery, although I would agree that readers will click on photographs that interest them, I think we should consider how well it works for visually impaired readers, many of whom do sadly have much greater difficulty in initially viewing and choosing from a gallery that is composed of very heavily reduced photographs. I tried setting the default thumbnail size in my preferences to the maximum possible value, 300px, and it doesn't affect the sizes in a gallery. They are still small enough to be unnecessarily hard-to-see at a glance, and it is actually quite tedious clicking one-by-one on them just to get a good idea of what each looks like. As it stands, I can only imagine the wonderful convenience of being able to see the gallery, as you presumably do, at a glance without having to click to see each photo full-size. I'm not aware of any gallery layout guidelines, e.g. for number of photos per row. I'd happy with fewer per row if it would enable us to increase the size of each photograph quite significantly — and larger thumbnails still wouldn't account for much bandwidth. In the end, I tend to think accessibility should take priority. Since <gallery> is a very simple environment with limited scope for fine tuning the layout, I boldly changed it to a table with three photos per row and increased the sizes by a small but useful amount. The overall width of the table is narrower than the gallery was. I could continue tweaking the layout, but I think it is working reasonably well now. Please have a look and let me know what you think. - Neparis (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I'm OK with it the new layout - MPF (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks for having a look. I have restored the illustration too, putting it at the end of the photographs. It's probably not ideally positioned, being the only component of the final row of the table. Feel free to adjust the layout or move it into the main text of the article.
There are still two uncited statements in the article regarding ancient medicinal use of willow bark. I'd like to resolve them, but I don't have access to any appropriate references that could be cited. Do you? - Neparis (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikibooks Garden Book (you're a contributor!)[edit]

Hi MPF. While setting up a contributor's page for the Wikibooks gardening manual, your name came up as a top contributor due to the magic of Special:Import (the book is largely based on imported Wikipedia articles). This list (or updated versions of it) will be included in print versions for attribution purposes (since there are of course no "history pages" in print versions).

I'm sending this note to see if (a) you would like your real name used rather than your username, and (b) to make sure you have an account on Wikibooks. If your username is "taken" there and there are no contributions (or if perhaps you just lost your password), please feel free to leave me a note so I can help you fix the problem (I am a b'crat).

We're working on ways to make this attribution work better in the future, so also let me know if you want to be kept up to date on that. Thanks for contributing to the plant, insect, and other articles that have been so helpful in the creation of the garden book!--SB_Johnny | talk 19:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Updated DYK query On 14 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salix triandra, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Why are you opposed to creating the subcategory Paeoniaceae under Saxifragales?

I am not a biologist - i was just trying to bring the make the categorization in Hebrew Wikipedia closer to English, but discovered that Catgegory:Paeoniaceae already existed and you deleted it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for making those somewhat tedious moves for Cercis canadensis, Cornus florida, and Liquidambar styraciflua. I completely see your point to not moving the oak or pine articles, but had hoped for it anyway since most of those seem to have been created in or before 2004, maybe before the naming conventions were fully developed?? Some species (Quercus phellos, Quercus falcata, Pinus echinata) are listed by scientific names, but like you said, most are not. As a new fellow member of WikiProject Plants, I really appreciate you assisting me to get some of them moved. Altairisfartalk 01:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 03:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hybrid disambiguation[edit]

Hi MPF - thanks for your comment on my talk page. Please note that this move was proposed last April on the Hybrid talk page, and received no opposition. I come at this from the engineering point of view, so I had not idea that WP:TOL even existed. But this would have been a very biology-biased forum to discuss this anyway, so I don't think that would have been appropriate. I was indeed concerned about the issue you raised, and I began discussing an automated fix here, but I was basically told not to do that because the problem supposedly didn't exist. (JLaTondre's final concession that overwhelming jobs could be left to the bots came too late.) So I don't feel I've bypassed the discussion process here, I've just been bold in editing.

So the real question is just where do we go from here with the Hybrid page, and that's a primarily a content issue that we can discuss on the article talk page. I'll start a thread on Talk:Hybrid.--Yannick (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Huygens landing01 L.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Huygens landing01 L.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Updated DYK query On 4 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chamaecyparis taiwanensis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exceptional contributions[edit]

The Barnstar of Life
in recognition of the exceptional contributions of MPF to articles on plant species. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)