User talk:Rkitko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Feed the Nepenthes
Nepenthes villosa Macfarlane illustration without text.jpg
2006: February to December
Now archived quarterly:
2007: 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th
2008: 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th
2009: 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th
2010: 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th
2011: 1st • 2nd • 3rd

Plumcot, Apriplum, Pluot, or Aprium[edit]

Hi, I agree that the title of this page is clunky. The reason that I didn't go with something about interspecific prunus or IS plum, is that the fruit of these three (or four, since two of the names are synonymous) have become agriculturally important and are often confused with one another, but there are potentially many many more hybrids, including completely inedible ones. There are already wikipedia pages for peacotum and nectaplum, hybrids involving peach. I'd been trying for some time to improve those three separate pages, but it was difficult to get away from the hard distinction between plumcot and pluot that I find unattractive (as a botanist with the bias that later generations get the same name as the first-generation hybrid). Nadiatalent (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Color-related merger discussions[edit]

Hello! I've seen you commenting on various color-related AfD's and merger discussions, and thought that you might be interested in taking a look at some of the current discussions for mergers and redirects of color articles. The discussions are located at Talk:Redwood (color), Talk:Lion (color), Talk:Camel (color), Talk:Wine (color), Talk:Redwood (color), Talk:Flame (color), Talk:Brandeis blue, Talk:Byzantium (color), Talk:Amethyst (color), and Talk:Robin egg blue.--Slon02 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Image problem[edit]

Hello again, I've moved an image from Gallery to Taxobox, to replace one deleted because of licencing problems. Alas, in doing so, the image has rotated 90° of its own volition, leaving it horribly distorted, and there's nothing I can do to remedy it. Any ideas? See: [1] Regards Ptelea (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a good one. I can't easily figure it out. I wonder if it's something to do with this image in particular or a software glitch. I asked for more advice here: Template talk:Taxobox#Image rotation. It seems like a technical issue to me and might be best to take it to WP:Village pump (technical). Sorry I couldn't help. We'll see what the other folks have to say. Rkitko (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Hi Ryan,

I noticed that you deleted Chamaebatus, stating that it was an improper redirect. I do not see what is improper about it; it seems very useful to me. Would you mind if I recreated it?

Neelix (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Neelix. Sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, that redirect may have been a casualty of my cleaning up and moving a bunch of improperly titled infrageneric articles. Per WP:FLORA, subgenera and sections, etc. should be titled at their Genus abbr. Infrageneric-name title, e.g. Rubus subg. Chamaebatus. The rationale behind this is that many times the bald name without the genus can be shared among many different taxa. But you're right, it should be a redirect for now (a disambiguation page later if another taxon shares the name) and I'll reinstate it. My apologies. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rita Milla[edit]

Rkitko, I had a Wikipedia page and have noticed that you deleted it. I did not create the page but since it was about me I would like to know why you deleted it. it was deleted 4 years ago but I just became aware of it now. Thank you, Rita Milla Rita Milla (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rita. The page was deleted under the speedy deletion criterion regarding unambiguous copyright infringement. The article was clearly copied and pasted from other sources that did not license their text so that Wikipedia could use it (e.g. Creative Commons license) or release it into the public domain. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, so the appropriate action to take was to delete the article. There was no non-infringing content, otherwise the infringing content would have just been removed. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Rkitko! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rkitko. You have new messages at Atama's talk page.
Message added 23:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hi, I see that you removed the taxobox from Marionberry. Is there some other template that can be used for a cultivar? I can't find such a thing. I'd hope that it could list the higher taxa to which it belongs. (There is a template for cultivar group, but that isn't really appropriate.) Nadiatalent (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nadia. Yes, as far as I could tell, the subject of the article is more of a cultivar and not a taxon, so the taxobox shouldn't be present on that article, especially since it just displayed the higher taxa. The only infobox that exists for cultivars that I know of is {{Infobox cultivar}}. It has parameters for cultivar group, yes, but you don't need to use that. Since this is a hybrid cultivar, use the |hybrid= parameter. Personally, I don't think cultivars need an infobox that displays all the higher taxa. The rationale behind including higher taxa on species articles is that it put them into the hierarchical context, whereas the context necessary to understand a cultivar is the hybrid origin and the genus or genera involved. However, if you feel strongly that the higher taxa are necessary, you could open a discussion on the template talk page and argue for including higher taxa (and advertise the discussion widely at WT:PLANTS, for example). Rkitko (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't found the Infobox cultivar template. The hybrid Rubus pages are quite a mess, so I might not get to this in the near future, but it is good to have an idea about what to aim for. I doubt that the higher taxa are needed when presumably the hybrid line can cover the parentage. It would be good to have a visual resemblance between the taxoboxen and what is done with these lower taxa, to show the connectivity. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I applied the cultivar infobox to Marionberry and hope that is ok. For the |origin= parameter, I used the release date and location, but you could also insert the location and date of first cross. The latter makes a bit more sense to me for this parameter, but there's no guiding documentation on how to use that parameter at {{Infobox cultivar}} (perhaps we should come to some decision and include a note on this). Overall, the cultivar infobox does have some visual similarity to the taxobox, and I'm glad it does. I'm still working my way through the Rosales to convert all the leftovers to APG III, so please let me know if you see any other edits that need addressed. If I remove any other taxoboxen, I'll be sure to convert them to the cultivar infobox if appropriate. Rkitko (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


I've started the APG-III cleanup for monocot pages (both on the English Wikipedia and Wikispecies). However, I'm not sure what to do about the page for Limnocharotaceae. This family has been submerged back into Alismataceae, but the information on the page for the family is far more detailed than Alismataceae, and much of it is too general to split into generic pages (which do not yet exist). What do you suggest? And feel free to take action yourself, if you like. I can already see the APG-III cleanup of the monocots will be a larger task than I initially expected, since taxon authorities also have to be updated and corrected for some of the orders and families, in addition to the family mergers and checking correct placement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Perhaps the easiest thing to do is to remove the taxobox and tweak the lead to include a mention that APG III sank the family back into Alismataceae. Any descriptive info that is in the article may not apply more broadly to all Alismataceae, so it's hard to merge, as you noted. You might also want to check in with User:Peter coxhead as he was handling some aspects of the Asparagales, I think. Rkitko (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just noticed this. I have been all through the Asparagales – all pages should have automatic taxoboxes with the correct APG III placement – but the advantage there is that subfamilies have been provided for almost all the families which have been submerged. So e.g. the old "Alliaceae" page was moved to Allioideae. If there really are no subfamily taxa provided for a merged family, it's more difficult. A short-term solution could be to have a section "Former Limnocharotaceae" on the Alismataceae page. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Do we want all the monocot taxoboxes to be automated? I know that for the liverworts it would be a watse of time given the inevitable overhaul the classification is likely to undergo soon, but monocot taxonomy seems reasonably stable at this point. I intend to update all the taxonomy and authorities while I'm at it (both here and on Wikispecies), but only intend to do the non-aroid Alismatales for the time being. I'm finding that there's a lot more to be corrected than I initially thought, and can't bring myself to simply fix the taxoboxes and leave all the other problems be. Look, for example, at the changes and basic cleanup I did for Zostera (which included merging Heterozostera per recent authorities and publications). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Is MOBOT unreliable?[edit]

Hi Rkitko, I recently edited the article Vangueria madagascariensis, showing that the author was J.F.Gmel., and filled out the synonyms. I cited as a reference for both, the online site of the Missouri Botanical Garden (MOBOT). Today a user eliminated the citation, and in the edit summary said it was an 'unreliable reference'. Maybe it is, and if so, I will not use it. Do you agree with the editor that it is 'unreliable'? Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Happened to notice this, so I looked at the article. I'd be interested to know why Tropicos is "unreliable", although the Kew World Checklist of Rubiaceae is probably more reliable. I'd also like to know whether the editor in question followed WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT when using Systema Natura as a reference... Peter coxhead (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
>to Peter: I agree that Systema naturae is the source, and, speaking for myself, I showed where I got it from; this is what my two (now removed) Tropicos citations looked like:
<ref name=trop1> ''Vangueria madagascariensis'' was originally described and published in ''Systema naturae per regna tria naturae … editio decima tertia, aucta, reformata'' 2(1): 367. 1791. {{ cite web |url= |title=Name - ''Vangueria madagascariensis'' J.F.Gmel. |work=Tropicos |publisher=[[Missouri Botanical Garden]] |location=[[Saint Louis, Missouri]] |accessdate=November 4, 2011}}</ref>
<ref name=trop2>{{ cite web |url= |title=Name - ''Vangueria madagascariensis'' J.F.Gmel. synonyms |work=Tropicos |publisher=Missouri Botanical Garden |location=Saint Louis, Missouri |accessdate=November 4, 2011}}</ref>
I guess I could have said "fide" in my citation, as that would be more accurate. Hamamelis (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking in detail at selected entries for IPNI and TROPICOS, and am finding lots of errors. I haven't noticed an incorrect authority yet, but wouldn't be surprised to see one. There are a lot of obsolete species and genera lying around in there without annotation to that effect. By contrast, the Kew checklists are double-checked and reviewed as they are assembled. FWIW, I've also noticed a couple of odd authorities in the FNA, in the sense that the FNA citation differs from every other published source I can find, without explanation. Weird. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I find that the Tropicos editors are very responsive to well-researched nomenclatural corrections, IPNI editors less so, apparently because they don't have time to consider these matters as promptly. I don't know what you would mean by "obsolete" species and genera; Tropicos states its mission as "All of the nomenclatural, bibliographic, and specimen data accumulated in MBG’s electronic databases during the past 25 years are publicly available here." those matters are not taxonomic. There are a lot of mistakes still hanging on from older codes of nomenclature or literature that has priority but has been overlooked, but corrections are happening. FNA may well have corrected something that has been copied unthinkingly through many other sources. ... Nadiatalent (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ulmus minor[edit]

Dear Rkitko, I notice the entire History page for Ulmus minor has been deleted: Don't know how to correct this, can you help? Regards, Ptelea (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


...for your (attempted) contribution to the article New Guinea Singing Dog!Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Frustrating, isn't it? Chrisrus (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful Move[edit]

Dear Rkitko, I have tried to change the title of the article on the Japanese beetle to its correct scientific name Popillia japonica, but for reasons unspecified, 'Move' won't allow it. Can you assist once more? Regards,Ptelea (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If the target you're trying to move the page to has more than one edit, the move must be performed by an admin who can delete the target page in order to make way for the move. In this case, Popillia japonica has two edits: [2], so that's why your attempt at the move failed. I, however, will decline to move this for you. As far as I know, Japanese beetle is a really well-known common name for the species. Moving it to the scientific name would probably run afoul of WP:COMMONNAME, in that "Japanese beetle" is the most commonly used name to refer to the species in reliable sources. It would be like moving Oak to Quercus. I don't feel comfortable doing that move for you, but you are more than welcome to open a discussion using the requested move (under the controversial heading) procedure. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment request[edit]

I posted a couple of questions in response to your posting at WT:WikiProject Tree of life#The place of the New Guinea Singing Dog on the canid branch of the tree of life and would appreciate any comments you may have. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Dioecious plants[edit]

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to populate this category. Just be careful in your application of it, for example, not all species in the genus Juniperus are dioecious, so the category should not be placed on the genus article. Only categories that describe the higher taxon should be included, e.g. we also do not categorize genera into categories like "Flora of North America" if not all species are native to North America. For the most part, I see you applying it correctly, so please do carry on. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am an educator and paleobotanist, so this has been very helpful to organize my research. I apologize for not logging in, I have not logged into Wikipedia in many years and do not remember my log-in information. I'm not sure what you meant about the "Flora of North America" category. I have not added anything to that existing category. As for the junipers, that makes sense even though most juniper species are dioecious. Similarly for the genus Buddleja, I am unsure how to categorize this since only the New World species are dioecious. As for uncategorizing Juniperus, were there any others that you uncategorized? I'm trying to keep track of everything in the category and I've been thrown off by what articles have left the list. I noticed Cucurbitaceae isn't there anymore, which is good since I did not agree with it being in the category in the first place.-- (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Drosera capensis[edit]

... cultivar names, such as Drosera capensis 'Albino', always use single quotes as a matter of convention (ICNCP).

Says who? Some educationally-challenged Brit? I haven't checked into the history of this particular area of publication practice, but I wouldn't be risking much by saying this is a recent development, within the last 40-50 years, mirroring the horrible degradation of punctuation and grammar with which the UK press has become rife today. It's interesting that the Wikipedia ICNCP article, referenced in your comment on my Talk Page, contains multiple typographic and stylistic errors. See if you can spot them. — QuicksilverT @ 15:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. It seems you haven't come across this before, so let me explain. Within the discipline of botany, single quotation marks are used to denote a cultivar. I'm not sure how long it's been the standard, but it is. If Wikipedia were to ignore convention and use double quotes for our plant cultivars, it would appear as if we don't know what we're doing. The ICNCP is the authority, not simply a style guide. If written any other way, you're doing it wrong. Your opinions on the "degradation of punctuation and grammar" are irrelevant. The usage of single quotation marks for cultivars is standard within the discipline and all I was trying to do was alert you to that fact. This particular usage was recently incorporated into WP:MOS#Quotation marks after this discussion. I admit that I struggle with typography, style, and grammar, so if you see a problem at the ICNCP article then WP:SOFIXIT. Rkitko (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that what Quicksilver regards as "typographic and stylistic errors" in the ICNCP article are in fact prescriptions of the Code, which can look rather odd if you aren't used to them (e.g. "Group" is always capitalized whereas "grex" is not). As far as I can tell (and I've checked the article carefully) the article's use of quotation marks, capitalization, etc. follows either Wikipedia guidelines or ICNCP rules. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Image problems[edit]

Uploading a photo of a hawthorn bush, I notice the process of its own volition rotates the image through 90 degrees; very annoying. Can anything be done to right this? Crataegus monogyna, Ports Down.jpg. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some uploaded images recently that had this problem, and they were tagged with a "rotation request" template. I can't recall offhand where I saw this last, but it might give you a start on looking for the template. Presumably, someone able to correct the problem then performs the requested rotation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

More JSTOR[edit]

Help again, please! At User talk:Magister Scienta#Book of Habakkuk there are six bulleted articles that were recommended to me, and all should be available on JSTOR. I'm looking to work heavily on that article over my winter break and would like to have as many references at hand to ensure broad coverage. Thanks again for your continuing assistance to others in improving Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Linda D. Thompson[edit]

I note you deleted a facebook page reference showing a group whose aim is in seeking the resignation of the mayor citing it as an "unreliable" source. Why? It was not a reference to anything that she is doing but simply a viewpoint of citizens. Also as far as "unreliable" goes wouldn't that by necessity include the deletion of wikipedia? Most educational institutions will not allow the usage of the site as reference material. Thanks, Paul. (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

To understand the removal, see WP:RELIABLE where our criteria for reliability of sources is explained. For articles about living persons, there are even more stringent criteria. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly as 'Petey said. You need a reliable source that discusses the existence of citizen opposition to Thompson. Surely there is some newspaper article on this (if the journalists are doing their jobs correctly). Rkitko (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS discussion that may be of interest[edit]

Because of your previous input on various iterations of the debate about the lower-casing vs. capitalization of the common names of animals (domestic cat, blue whale vs. Domestic Cat, Blue Whale), you may be interested in this thread proposing key points that should be addressed by the guidelines: WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 05:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision history of Sequoia sempervirens[edit]

Hi, we're the first company to do commercial-scale propagation and planting of Coast Redwood in New Zealand, which is the culmination of about 15+ years of research. Until yesterday, the Sequoia sempervirens page referenced our website so people could learn more, and we would regularly get a good amount of traffic from Wikipedia.

We recently updated our website which caused the Wikipedia link to be pointed at a page that had been deleted, so I updated the link on Wikipedia yesterday (no additions, no content change).

User Tom Hulse then completely erased the entire passage, marking it as spam. As the passage had been there for a couple of years, our website is informational in nature, and we don't sell anything to the general public, I undid that edit this morning, only to have it deleted again.

How would you suggest I reinstate the link in a manner that's consistent with Wiki-etiquette? I don't understand your comment "don't link in-line like that ([[WP:EL), and the reference given doesn't say any of this that was added)"


-Dan Dan Kruger (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dan, thanks for your note here. First, I might mention that you appear to have a conflict of interest, a guideline that you should examine. Beyond that issue, external links are discouraged from being presented in-text that way. There is an external links section at the bottom of the article for that purpose. You may also want to check out our external link guidelines, paying attention to links to be avoided. As a commercial link, I agree with Tom that it doesn't seem to belong on the article. However, if your research or company has been written about in reliable sources like newspapers or in scholarly journals, it would certainly help expand on the content already present in that cultivation section. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey thanks for the info- we'll be working to expand that section soon Dan Kruger (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Carnivorous plant books[edit]

Yeah, I figured there was a gap to fill, especially with Taylor's work and all the articles that cited it. I've got a few more CP book articles lined up (Lowrie's Carnivorous Plants of Australia being next on my list), but I received McPherson's humongous New Nepenthes just yesterday so will be preoccupied with that for the time being (lots of changes and additions to be made!). I'll take a look at the collapsible list discussion. mgiganteus1 (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Rkitko,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert of banned user[edit]

Re [3] The ban is here [4].


I note that although this word does seem to be used (uncommonly) in mainstream biology texts it seems to have an entirely different meaning to the definition given. The claimed inventor of this term Pierre Franchomme seems to be associated only with the pseudoscientific topic of Aromatherapy. In it's current form the article is pure nonsense. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you removed the reference to aromatherapy. I support that. The rest of it is pretty close to my understanding from the sources I reviewed. Yes, it needs a bit of clean up, but I wouldn't call it nonsense. It's far from that. And the term is fairly widely used. Google Scholar shows > 12,000 hits, including this one from Nature [5]. I'll see if I can clean it up a bit since I'm now curious where the term comes from. Rkitko (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, lets let it stand. Thanks. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening invitation[edit]

Pieskowa Skała ogród zamkowy.jpg
Hello, Rkitko:

Thank you for your contributions to Horticulture – or Gardening – related articles. I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a WikiProject to improve horticulture and gardening articles on Wikipedia and coverage of these topics.

If you would like to participate or join, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Northamerica1000(talk) 04:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Drosera uniflora[edit]

Greetings Rkitko. I and my two classmates are relatively new to editing Wikipedia. Anyway, we were assigned the task of finding an article to improve, and we found Drosera uniflora. It was rather scant and inactive so we chose it. One of the team members apparently uploaded a photo lacking proper licensing. I noticed that you removed it and are also interested in carnivorous plants. We are searching high and low for information on this plant and are finding very little. As this seems to be an area of interest of yours, I was wondering if you could point us to any web accessible information, or where we might find a suitable photo. Thanks for any help you could give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G1956w (talkcontribs) 11:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I'm new to this and forgot to sign. G1956w (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for leaving a note here. I'm glad you chose Drosera uniflora for your project. Yes, the photo that was uploaded to Commons was originally uploaded to Flickr under the Creative Commons license, but Wikipedia has to make sure it's the proper CC license. The one on flickr stipulates the image must be used noncommercially and there must be no derivative works. While Wikipedia itself is non-profit, such a license is not "free enough" and thus all would be deleted. There are a few acceptable licenses, but one of the easiest ways I've found to get permission to post images is to ask the person from Flickr to change the license for that image so Wikipedia can use it. See more about image copyright licenses here: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing.
As you've already noticed, there is usually little information out there on specific plants, especially ones that are not cultivated. Perhaps you've chosen the wrong article if you're not interested in diving into the library records. Finding information on some plants is often difficult and requires waiting on inter-library loan requests to arrive. I profess ignorance on the material available online about this species. You might try the articles that have been written in the Carnivorous Plant Newsletter that could have tidbits of information: Best of luck! Rkitko (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I was not expecting such a speedy and helpful response. We will try your Flickr advice! Amazing that you would mention an inter-library loan request; I just received my first book that way today. Thanks for the good advice! G1956w (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello again! I hate to bother you but I was hoping you could help with two more questions. It was suggested to me that with the recent additions Drosera uniflora could be upgraded from stub class to start class but I am unfamiliar with this. Is this something that I am expected to do? Also, I think we can get the proper permission for a decent photo, but I have seen better photos. Do you think it would be appropriate to link to them in the "External links" section? Thanks again. G1956w (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Utricularia setion names meaning[edit]

Hey Rkitko. I'm translating Utricularia entries to Chinese. With mgiganteus1's help, I get most of species name meaning of Utricularia, but lack setions meaning. So I hope to get some information about Utricularia setion names meaning. Could you help me?乌拉跨氪 (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm so glad that you are working on the translations. I'm sorry, but I don't think I can be of much help on the section name meaning. I know many of them are named in honor of people and others, like sect. Aranella, were formerly genera that were reduced to sections. I briefly looked at Peter Taylor's 1989 monograph on the genus and he doesn't provide much (or any) information on the etymology of the section names. In particular, I tried to look up the origin of Aranella further by going back to Barnhart's 1913 description and even he provides no reason for choosing the name. For others, it would require going back to their original descriptions, some of which I may not have immediate access to their articles and I'm afraid I don't have much time to work on this at the moment. Good luck, Rkitko (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much.乌拉跨氪 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted![edit]

Science lovers wanted!
Smithsonian logo color.svg
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Input for proposed deletions[edit]

Hello Rkitko - as someone who has been involved with Nepenthes, do you have any impartial feedback on the discussions regarding the proposed deletions for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart McPherson (geographer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alastair Robinson ? Keeping those pages up to date has been a pet project of mine, so I can't really be called an impartial party, though I'll try to respond myself. Any thoughts either way welcome. Thank you for your time. Jeljen (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


Cactus Does this still need to be protected? If you need to respond, please do so at my talk--otherwise, I think it's reasonable to simply remove protection from this page. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

List of x species question[edit]

Hi, where would Salvia hybrids go - on their own list page, or on the List of Salvia species page? I'm being asked at User talk:First Light#Salvia hybrids, so if you have a thought to share on it, could you do it there? thanks, First Light (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


Dear Rkitko, thank you for your kind message on my talk page, which caused email to tell me to sign in again even though I've retired from the English wikipedia. I had no idea that you and Hamamelis were engaged in hand-to-hand combat for the dehiscence categories, if I'd known I would have tried to add some more, but I had given up in the face of the narrow-minded opposition. It is quite incomprehensible why they would be so determined to stamp out creativity in what is supposed to be a creative enterprise. Perhaps you are already familiar with Monty Python's "Self-Defense Against Fruit", which so perfectly captures what goes on in wikipedia, including the shrillness; it is an almost perfect dramatization of the dehiscence category story! This indehiscent fruit also seems relevant, it simultaneously shows why grenades are called grenades and that indehiscence is a more difficult term to pin down than one might have expected. I've just been explaining at Choess's talk page that I'm considering coming back in a small way with a non-gender-marked signon, but it is difficult to summon the enthusiasm to do very much work. Stay well, and best wishes, Nadiatalent (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nadia, it is an unfortunate reality of online endeavors, including Wikipedia, that has been documented. It is overwhelmingly male-dominated, which has influenced its argument-centered focus. So yes, I completely understand that one might always feel under attack here. I was disappointed to find that User:Alan Liefting, after his assault on the dehiscence categories, found a few articles on books by Neltje Blanchan that in the midst of automated editing he somehow found the time to thoroughly assess them as non-notable and nominated them for deletion. I'm thinking of gathering my thoughts on this, specifically in relation to WP:BEFORE as it seems he'd rather assume an article is non-notable (a typical deletionist) and send others scrambling to do the legwork that he should have done in assessing its notability before opening frivolous deletion nominations. Discussions for the relevant book articles are here, here, and here, if interested.
Again, thank you for your endeavors. I really enjoyed our discussions and interactions. And do stay in touch. Feel free to use the "e-mail this user" function. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Category Schiedea[edit]

Hello! I started to create a page just now for Category:Schiedea. It's a genus of plants in the family Caryophyllaceae, commonly called the pink family or carnation family. But when I went to do it, I got a message that you had deleted such a category in 2010. It said something about how you'd upmerged a small category; it also referred to an empty category.

If I counted right, there are 16 species of Schiedea on the page Category:Caryophyllaceae. I thought it would make sense to bring them into their own category, as a subcategory of the larger one. But since you've already deleted a page, I wanted to ask you first; maybe it WAS empty then. Do you have any problem with me creating this category AND populating it?

Thanks. Uporządnicki (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I remember these. I had been cleaning up after User:Polbot. The bot created thousands of new plant and animal articles and also created new categories. Often these categories would only contain one or two articles at the time, so it made sense to upmerge. (IMHO, the bot made the mistake of not checking first to see how many articles would populate a category before creating it and setting a lower bound. But hindsight, etc. etc....) Generally, I think I upmerged anything with less than 10 articles. 16 is certainly more than enough to be split from the large Caryophyllaceae. Go for it! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I might get back to it as soon as I finish Orobanche. But for now, I'm calling it a night. Uporządnicki (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge enlarged Dipterocarpaceae[edit]

Hello, How are you? I need your help. I ask you if you could enlarge Dipterocarpaceae more making better known this group of trees in Wikipedia, adding links to "Dipterocarpaceae" and information about "Dipterocarpaceae" existence on topics as trees articles in tropical articles or botanical or biodiversity articles. Do you know people that could be interested about Dipterocarpaceae article? They are welcome too. Thank you very much. Curritocurrito (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad this user brought it up. I see the category page on Dipterocarpus (a genus within that family) badly needs rearranging. That's what I'm here for! Uporządnicki (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry I can't be of much help. Dipterocarps are a bit out of my knowledge base. If I have the time I'll take a look. If you have reliable sources you could certainly be bold and begin to expand it yourself. Otherwise there are interested plant editors at WT:PLANTS that might be willing to help. Consider, however, that there are likely thousands of pages that need our attention. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

Hi. First, please understand that this note is not in the slightest intended to be offensive, indignant or anything adversarial, either overtly or snidely; it is a request for information. Secondly, my apology to Nadia has somehow got through to her in the context of a note from Choess, and been accepted, much to my relief. My question is because I found this remark from you on her talk page and I simply do not understand it; so much so that I am wondering whether there might not have been some interference with message content. You said in part: "...just now caught up with the offensive comment by JonRichfield. The mind boggles!" I do not ask you to justify this, but could you please refer me to the comment you have in mind, with or without elaboration? I realise that the intention of remarks in print might easily be misinterpreted, but I have no clue what you or anyone else might have in mind, and it bothers me. Thanks for your attention. JonRichfield (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Jon, it was this comment. It clearly upset Nadia and I have to agree that if it was said of me, I would be offended. You begin alright by telling the newbie (Curritocurrito) that the other party (NadiaTalent) is "competent and conscientious." You could have stopped there. It's ok to have disagreements on content without suggesting the other party is impatient. Referring to impatience, you then go on to say, "some women are, you know!" A confusing statement, indeed. What was this meant to convey to the other editor? That Curritocurrito could disregard Nadia's edits because she's an impatient woman? You must understand that Wikipedia is not a very comfortable atmosphere for many women contributors. And further, our science of biology, including the discipline of botany, is still struggling to free itself of gender biases in its institutions. There are gender gaps in faculty hiring rates, men still hold more tenured positions in many institutions, etc. Can you see how such a comment generalizing women and impatience, belittling Nadia's contributions in the process, could be unwelcomed and perceived as offensive? I certainly thought it was. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Rkitko, I am sorry it came out that way. Without getting myself into still deeper waters by explaining what could no longer do much good, I really hope that it is clear to you that the impression I gave you was not the way I intended it. Please put it down to insensitivity rather than ill intention. My own attitude towards women since I began emerging from my first childhood has been one of comradeship and respect where earned, perhaps because I have largely been in a position where my contacts with them (mainly in biological and computing connections) have been such as to foster those views. I do not understand the roots of the WP/women problem and it saddens me that a prominent and competent woman participant should contemplate changing her ID to a gender-neutral one. Not that the gender of the ID matters in theoretical terms, but there must be something wrong where that can seem an attractive idea. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories, plants with dehiscent (indehiscent) fruit[edit]

Hi, I'm contacting you because I saw the CfD discussion about these categories. Wow. If the problem is that the categories need populating, do you think that the additions that I've just made in a rathe clueless fashion are a help or just too dreadful? I've tossed in some fruit types such as Achene as well as random taxa at ranks that are probably not the best choices for the list, in the hope that those could later be refined. More along those lines might present themselves as time goes on, so it seems advisable to ask your opinion before cluttering the category with such material. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the major problem was that the categories weren't populated. Some folks don't heed the advice that Wikipedia is a work in progress. I was actually thinking about how we might incorporate the different fruit types, but because the category names are "plants with..." perhaps the articles are fruit types aren't natural fits. On taxa, I was mostly working with genera, since the indehiscence/dehiscence character is usually stable within genera. You must be vigilant in finding good reliable sources that state the taxon is always indehiscent or dehiscent. If one species in the genus does not share that character, you shouldn't add the category to the genus article. Sometimes, a higher level taxon like family would be appropriate, but again be careful. There's more guidance at Category:Plants with dehiscent fruit. I hope that helps. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wild Flowers Worth Knowing[edit]

Thanks for your work. I've made a start on the even more notable Bird Neighbors. -- (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't notice the other nominations. I'm rather annoyed at the seeming lack of effort on the nominator's part to search for notability, instead choosing to send other editors scrambling to do the real work while he puts up three articles for deletion and quickly moves on. Nice work on Bird Neighbors, by the way. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I expanded it a bit more -- it really was a pioneering book. I've also started on Wild Flowers: An Aid to Knowledge of our Wild Flowers and their Insect Visitors, which also passes WP:N, though it wasn't quite as notable as the other two. It was confusing because it had multiple titles. -- (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just a note: it seems to me that the Little Nature Library series was published by the Doubleday company run by Blanchan's husband. Blanchan wrote Wild Flowers Worth Knowing and Birds Worth Knowing, but not Garden Flowers Worth Knowing, Trees Worth Knowing, or Animals Worth Knowing. I've modified the article accordingly. -- (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


Present for you on my user page. 512bits (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This category is too long[edit]

I think the name of this category is too long: Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.)‎‎, I think it should be named Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.) just like Category:Fauna of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.), we have to consider that there is other Sierra Nevada in Spain: Sierra Nevada (Spain). --Noder4 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection conflict[edit]

There needs to be some sort of protection conflict warning. I guess it doesn't happen often... -- tariqabjotu 03:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the first time that has happened to me, too. Sorry about the mix-up. I agree with your three day protection, given the next-day airing of the show. Thanks for being on top of it! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

New Source[edit]

Hi Ryan, the worlds of plants, birds and fish seem to have well accepted the huge role of hybridisation in the formation of new types (species). The publication by Eugene McCarthy proposes that all speciation events are hybridisation driven rather than by the gradual accumulation of random genetic changes for reference.

How do you feel this will influence the form of The Tree of Life?

DerekSmith (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Derek, may I kindly ask that you stop flogging this particular publication? I made my feelings on it clear at Wikipedia talk:TOL in the discussion you started. The ideas McCarthy presented are nothing new and it's far from a complete discussion, so it, as a publication, will have little or no influence on the Tree of Life, as you say. I found it to be a poor publication that could have used a good deal of editing to rid it of so many block quotes. Further, he didn't even mention incomplete lineage sorting as a source of homoplasy. Further, it was identified as a self-published source and the author come to the previous discussion to defend himself, but at first anonymously in the third person, a clear conflict of interest. I see you haven't made many other edits recently than to push this publication. Your efforts as such are being wasted, especially since Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is not for promotion, which is essentially what you're doing here. Please stop it. Thank you, Rkitko (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Ryan, thank you for your courtesy. While I agree that the anonymous contribution was embarrassing, the document is nonetheless an important source of critical new thinking, and as such, I feel it is a source which should be widely referenced. At this stage of exposure to radical new views, the steps are going to be small ones, but they are steps which must be taken in order to develop the full implications of this work (we should not forget that Darwin's work was also self published).
In your rely you stated "Further, he didn't even mention incomplete lineage sorting as a source of homoplasy". I wonder, could I please impose upon you to expand on how you feel this refutes McCarthy's hypothesis?
Thank you for your patience. DerekSmith (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Derek, I disagree that McCarthy's publication is "an important source of critical new thinking." The ideas are not all that new and they certainly miss some very key points. Overall, my assessment of it is that it lacks a coherent argument and isn't backed up very well with data. By pointing out his omission of lineage sorting, I was noting an incomplete argument when I pointed out that he didn't mention incomplete lineage sorting. As others pointed out in the other discussion, much of what McCarthy identifies is not ignored by systematists when dealing with their data. If McCarthy were presenting a full argument of his idea, you'd think he'd want to mention all sources of confusion in the Tree of Life, including lateral gene transfer, incomplete lineage sorting, and yes, hybridization. However, he ignores the first two and places much more importance on the last one without much reason. It's clear to me from reading this that McCarthy doesn't have a firm grasp on the methods of building phylogenetic trees, including character weighting. And that's ok! He's a geneticist, not a systematist.
Anyway, consensus among editors at WP:TOL was generally that the publication was not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as a reliable source and that it wasn't really anything new, different, or all that rigorous. By continuing to shop the pdf link around to people (just on my talk page so far in July since the discussion at TOL), you're wasting your time and violating WP:NOTSOAPBOX. So, friendly advice? Cut it out. If you want to discuss McCarthy's ideas further, do so elsewhere on forums or in a biology department symposium. I feel like I'm wasting my time by saying this again, but Wikipedia is not the place to decide which ideas are worth further study or whether they will "influence the form of the Tree of Life." That's what forums, posters and talks at meetings, other academic papers refuting or concurring with the original publication are for, not a Wikipedia talk page. Wikipedia talk pages are specifically to be used for building the encyclopedia - and since we can't use McCarthy's publication, there's no point to this discussion. Reply if you want, but I'll say no more on McCarthy or his work as I think it's all been said. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ryan for explaining your viewpoint. Yes, I would like to discuss my understanding of MaCarthys work further, especially with your good self, but I respectfully acknowledge your decision not to do it here. Could we perhaps converse through some other medium? Thank you for your patience thus far. DerekSmith (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm to discuss the topics and I'm sure it would be a decent discussion, but my focus is already split and I don't have the time to devote to it. Perhaps another time. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I understand. Cheers DerekSmith (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Change added in the light of the addition since I posted: I was agreeing with Rkitko, not DS! Hear hear! The proposition (to dignify it with such a clear term) seems to be embarrassingly simplistic for anyone with pretensions to being a trained biologist, and even if it had merit, it needed decent independent support without bad-faith misrepresentation of sources. JonRichfield (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Jon. Appreciate your thoughts. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nepenthes IPA[edit]

Hey Ryan, any thoughts on the query I raised on Nepenthes IPA on my wall (talk) with Mgiganteus (talk)? Would rather field some opinions. The pronunciation was originally what we are considering reverting to, but was unilaterally changed by Kwami ages ago. Even so, Kwami did capitulate that that the original character (schwa) used made more of a difference to non-American speakers of English, but never got around to changing it back. Thoughts, further discussion? Cheers! Attenboroughii (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Slow Aging[edit]

Hi Ryan, I would like to create a new article with all new content that makes more sense. Could you please provide the link to the deleted article or deleted article archive page so I can obtain a copy of what I had originally. Do you have any suggestions regarding this? TIA. Pilot03 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Pilot03

I could move the deleted page to a subpage of your username so that you could work on it there, but I would encourage you to start from scratch. The source that worked from (and received OTRS permission for) would need so much work it would be much better, in my opinion, to start over and ignore that first source. Identify reliable sources (read that guideline) that focus on the topic. Scholarly journals or books published by reputable publishers (not self-published), news articles sometimes make the cut if in widely read papers. Write objectively with a neutral point of view and an encyclopedic tone. Describe the concept, but say nothing more than what your reliable sources say because you want to avoid original research. Think of the kind of article on the topic that you would expect to find when opening a printed encyclopedia like Britannica and emulate that. And again, work on the article first in your userspace, perhaps at User:Pilot03/Slow aging. Then when you're ready, you could move the article into the main article space. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Please move to the subpage under my username. Thanks a ton for explaining in detail. This is great information and very helpful.Pilot03 (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Pilot03

Taxobox taxonomies[edit]

Well, obviously I should use APG III for fam. nov. in APG III; thanks for the corrections. When I look at the taxobox for a taxon, though, I find archaic, mixed, novel, and variable taxonomies for the same taxon in different articles. I have read some info on taxoboxes, but it is dense and often designed to answer questions set to only two types of users, absolute beginners and programmers. Should I change taxoboxes to be consistent across the taxon, all Caryophyllales APG III (I just created these articles copying and pasting the boxes from other families in the order)? Should I leave existing ones as is and create new ones according to taxonomic system? Is there a stiandard for plants? Algae? I appreciate help in this matter; biology on Wikipedia is confusing, in spite of a large number of excellent organism articles in plants, animals, and microbes. Eau (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help, and no worries. Several editors at WP:PLANTS (if you're interested in plants, many botanists are gathered there and discuss issues frequently at WT:PLANTS, so it might be worth putting on your watchlist) recently endeavored over several years to change taxoboxes to the APG III system. It's still a work in progress. I got deep into Rosales and then life happened, so I don't have much time to continue, but I thought I had captured all of the Caryophyllales articles. I may have missed a few,i new articles could have cropped up with the older Cronquist classification, or as I've seen a few times anon. editors will change an APG III taxobox back to the apparently more familiar but now inconsistent Cronquist system. I can't monitor all the changes, so yes, I'd say wherever you see an angiosperm taxobox sporting anything but APG III, be bold and change it, explaining why in the edit summary (I usually just say something like "Updating taxobox classification to APG III system" and rarely get reverted).
Yes, there was consensus to shift to APG III among WP:PLANTS members. We've gotten very little comment on the switch, so it appears that all is well. I'd like to see us eventually switch to the {{Automatic taxobox}} which has the advantage of hosting the classification on a common back end. If a genus changes families or a family is broken into subfamilies, all that's needed are relatively few edits to the taxonomy templates instead of hundreds or thousands of edits on individual taxoboxen. It's still a bit controversial, though, and hard to get used to.
I must confess my ignorance of algae, fern, and bryophyte taxonomy. User:EncycloPetey isagood one to ask for advice on the latter two, I believe. I'm not sure who to ask abut algae, but someone at WP:PLANTS might know. Let me know if I can help in any other way. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I can do some algae (mostly Phaeophyceae), but there isn't anyone here who I know is both active and familiar with current algal taxonomy for other groups. The greens, reds, and diatoms have all undergone major revisions in recent years, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know which changes have been accepted by the phycological community, and I was never any good with reds to begin with. So, browns I can do, and for other algae I might be able to assist in a few select circumstances. For what it's worth, I've done most of the updates and revisions on Wikispecies for algae, but I have to rely heavily on AlgaeBase and they're not always up-to-date. Their quality depends upon the review of specialists, so some taxa are well done while others are in poor state. I discovered quite a few problems in their Klebsormidiaceae, for example, and Eau has already brought up the issue of the Oocystales. So, not all the Wikispecies algae pages have been updated.
Otherwise, yes, bryophytes and pteridophytes I can do, and Peter coxhead can help greatly with fossil plant taxa. There has also been a recent overhaul of the cycads, although I didn't get a copy of the article at the time I first noticed it. It may be the Hilton & Batemann (2007) article listed here at Wikispecies, but I'm not certain of that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC
I am capable of doing higher level taxonomies on algae groups/clades including the green algae, red algae, glaucophytes, cyanobacteria, diatoms, coccolithophores, and the chromalveolata, sensu Cavalier-Smith, including non photosynthetic clades. I suspect I will spend more time discussing things we agree upon than actually editing, though. The issue I raise here is that these groups have mixed taxonomies, some deprecated decades ago in the same taxobox with taxonomies tied to single papers, superceded by later works by the same authors, mixing clades, with morpho and eco groups in articles describing a clade only vaguely related to the taxonomy in the box. My suggestion is to use the basics of the four or five latest textbooks on phycology and sort these out top down. I do get it that you disagree with me. But I disagree that the solution is to use a single pre higher level taxonomies of the eukaryotes textbook, and I am so tired of discussing instead of correcting errors. So, what I was asking User: Rkitko is what taxonomy to use for the algae on Wikipedia. I am also fine with non-conifer gymnosperms and some ferns, but not bryophytes (all in the broadest sense), and for these I know which taxonomies to use where. I know this for the algae also, but I am trying to find some agreement, not a battle. Eau (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
That's how Wikipedia works. You can be bold with your edits, but if someone disagrees with you and reverts, that's part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. And especially with getting consensus on which classifications to use in the taxobox, you'll find that you will need to engage in discussions (not an argument or battle). I understand that the situation with algae is rather ugly - many of the articles were created automatically with imported data from AlgaeBase, I think. It took many editors a long time to clean up to the point we are at with angiosperms and there's still work to be done! Occasionally I still come across a taxobox that uses Tracheophyta as a phylum! Anyway, ask around with other editors who might know more about algae. Try seeing if some of the users listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae are still active. Best of luck, Rkitko (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It doe not really seem to work, you know. I got into a battle with Petey about sourcing an existing statement. He disagreed with my adding the statement, which was already there, based on information he thought was in a 25 year old textbook, while I was trying to source it from more up-to-date textbooks, but this was a minor issue compared to my major concerns which became lost over this pseudoexchange of nothing. Wikipedia seems to function in this Twilight Zone rather than working, leaving editing in weird states--edit all the algae, but leave the browns alone, so that at least 95% of the articles have correct taxonomies? But it seems to me, from reading other talk pages, that this is how much of it came to be, editors corrected parts to avoid stepping on toes, then disengaged from discussions to avoid these odd battles. Thanks for the input. I will APG III angiosperms and avoid brown algae and the main article. I will also look over higher level taxonomies in the gymnosperms and count myself successful that at least I got some flowering gymnosperms out of the tree article this week; maybe I will get them out of the algae next year. Eau (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I would just say that I wouldn't be so quick to give up on discussions. I have come to value EncycloPetey's contributions and if there was a disagreement on content or sourcing you could have asked for a third opinion in the conflict resolution setting. Sometimes discussions do get a bit heavy, but they never have to. You seem to have some fair criticisms of Wikipedia, but don't forget that disengagement could be for many reasons. And finally, I would just like to say that if you approach every discussion as if it's going to be a battle, you'll probably get one. Discussions are useful and so are disagreements. Every discussion I've been in I've learned something from it and I think the article has gotten better for it - and that's the goal, really. If you think that's getting lost or the focus is becoming drowned in details that you felt weren't exactly important, raise that point and bring the discussion back to the wider issues. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi. As Heins9100 has been repeatedly vandalizing your user page from various IP addresses, I've taken the liberty of protecting it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure I've done anything to provoke that user and I must say that I find the comparison to Rowan Atkinson a little amusing. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes - it's not exactly the worst insult in the world ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

move request[edit]

If you also deem it to be uncontroversial (which it is, based on searches), could you move the Button cactus article to the generic name, Epithelantha? Moving it is impossible for those of us without an accepted name. thanks, First Light (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Looked uncontroversial to me. Happy to help anytime. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, First Light (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Online Ambassador[edit]

Hi! Here's the page that describes the basics of the Online Ambassador role. If that sounds like something you'd like to do, you'll find instructions for applying on that page; it's a pretty lightweight approval process, which I expect you'll have no trouble with.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection for Cactus again?[edit]

Cactus was protected at one time. This dif suggests it might be worth protecting it again for a while to save a lot of time reverting vandalism and nonsense. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it had been protected for the very specific reason of a dynamic IP constantly ignoring WP:ENGVAR and protection being the only way to block the unconstructive edits. It's been really quiet at the article since your big effort to improve it. Just two vandal edits today (and really minor ones) probably don't warrant protection. I'll keep an eye on it, though, and re-protect if the vandal volume increases. Rkitko (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine, I bow to your judgement. I just thought that 26 edits with one net change (as the dif above shows) suggested quite a bit of vandalism and hence time-wasting. But it is over a long period. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
How about this dif? 10 revisions by 7 users over little more than 24 hours to get back to the beginning? Peter coxhead (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your action on this one! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi Rkitko, I see that you have deleted {{WPPLANTS}} twice in the past. Do you mind if I recreate this redirect to {{WikiProject Plants}}? I know that I, for one, would tag more plant articles if this 12-keystrokes-saving shortcut existed. jonkerz ♠talk 20:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There's already {{WP Plants}} and {{WP Plant}}. I've been too busy to really care, so I have no problem with it. Back then I was having trouble with maintaining the assessments for the project and my bot would hit these redirects and not recognize them. That just meant I was a crappy coder since I didn't know regex coding; now that I do, I don't have the time to run the bot! As an aside, I recall seeing a bot running around somewhere changing these redirects to the full template name but perhaps that was my imagination. Ah well, it seems a silly point now. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It never occurred to me to check {{WP Plants}} or {{WP Plant}}, pretty silly I know :) I went ahead and recreated the template anyway, because when it comes to tagging, I'm lazy and usually gamble by typing an all-caps shortcut such as {{WPAUSTRALIA}}, {{WPFILM}}, {{WPBOOKS}} etc. etc. If no such shortcut exists, I usually give up and move on. I'm glad your bot is working better now :) Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 00:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ignaz Pilat[edit]

Hi Rkitko, would you review an article for moving over redirect? The landscape architect (and aparently a botanist who is a naming author, though I have yet to find a plant he's an author of): Ignaz Pilat to Ignatz Anton Pilát. I've made some changes to the article, replacing "Ignaz" with "Ignatz"/"Pilat" with "Pilát". If you think I should change them back, I'll trust your judgement. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Sorry that took a few days. That is strange that IPNI has the author in the database but when you do a query of plants authored under that abbreviation you get no results. I generally trust IPNI and this seemed like an uncontroversial move, so it's all done. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what's going on here, but I found at least one mention of the author abbreviation in fungi (Steccherinum): [6]
  • Steccherinum pulcherrimum (Berk. & M. A. Curtis) Banker
  • Steccherinum pulcherrinum (Berk. & M. A. Curtis) I. A. Pilat
An orthographical error published under his name and thus he was given an abbreviation? Perhaps he authored other legitimate names. Rkitko (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the move, and for trying mightily to find an example of his authorship. He inventoried a lot of plants in New York's Central Park (as explained in The naturally occurring historical and extant flora of Central Park, New York City, New York 1857–2007) and possibly made a few errors there, too, according to the text. Thanks once more, Hamamelis (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Piranha plants[edit]

Like you, I don't want an informative page on carnivorous plants to turn into a long list of video game references, and I guess I should take the fact that somehow the ubiquitous Mario Brothers enemy does not have a Wiki page as a sign that it's not as notable as I thought. What I don't want to find out is that you think triffids and Audrey II belong because books and movies are serious art, but video games are not as important. You mentioned reciprocity, so are you saying that a well sourced Piranha Plant page would be a prerequisite? Because, of course, this isn't just some video game reference (I didn't mention the ones in Duck Tales!) but a frequently recurring enemy from the top-selling and best known video game series of all time. Due to this, Google hit counts are very close for "Audrey II," "Triffid," and "piranha plant." (Argh: original research!) Now I want to find a reference wherein many people's first exposure to carnivorous plants is thru piranha plants. (This would be unlike turtles, fish, squid, plumbers, and other ubiquitous examples of Mario enemies, since I imagine (yes, unsourced again) that people encounter those notions before SMB.) One final note: one of the top Google searches involving piranha plants is "are piranha plants real?" which makes me think there would be a benefit to a nice reciprocal link between two pages, one of which has yet to exist. --Signor Giuseppe (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I, along with others, originally cleaned up the popular culture references in 2006. This is what it looked like before we did that: [7]. You'll notice there had been references to SMB included. In complying with WP:IPC, specifically the suggested criteria in WP:IPCEXAMPLES, we removed those mentions. Has it ever been stated in SMB canon that Piranha plants are meant to portray carnivorous plants? I couldn't find a reliable reference to suggest such a relationship. And no, reciprocity is the idea that, if Piranha plants are portraying carnivorous plants, it is much more important to link to carnivorous plants on a Piranha plant page, if one existed, than it would be to mention Piranha plants on the carnivorous plant article because they have little to no meaning of the overall topic of the article. Popular culture sections do not exist to force non-reciprocal links like that into the article and are usually considered WP:CRUFT or unnecessary WP:TRIVIA.
If you want to search for reliable sources that seem to fit the suggested criteria at WP:IPCEXAMPLES, I'm willing to reconsider. If you do locate any, bring the issue up at Talk:Carnivorous plant instead of my talk page so that others who watch the page can also discuss it if they want to. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality scale Hypnales[edit]

Hi, I've extended the Hypnales article. You may wish to reassess it. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice work on expanding the article with decent information, but I notice you didn't WP:CITE any of your sources. Might have just been an oversight, but it's crucial that we include references to the original sources to verify the accuracy of the statements. It also helps guard against vandalism in the future since I could check that indeed the sources did not suggest some odd fact for that moss. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm aware, and I usually cite meticiously. However, these additions I translated from the nl:Hypnales. I don't know why, but other wikis don't often have in-line citations. I know two bryologists that may be able to help, but it may be months before I'll be in contact with either. The reason I extended the article is that I specialize in trilobites, and in looking for sources on Weymouthia I found out it is also a moss genus from within the Hypnales. I'll see if I can reconstruct something shortly. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I have added some information on emerging insights in the relationships within the group. This and my previous additions have now been sourced. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle[edit]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


Coming soon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Drosera regia[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Drosera regia know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 10, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 10, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Drosera regia

Drosera regia is a carnivorous plant in the sundew genus Drosera and is endemic to a single valley in South Africa. The tentacle-covered leaves can capture large prey, such as beetles, moths, and butterflies. The tentacles of all Drosera species are specialised stalked glands on the leaf's upper surface that produce a sticky mucilage. The leaves are considered active flypaper traps that respond to captured prey by bending to surround it. The genus name Drosera comes from the Greek word droseros, meaning "dew-covered". The specific epithet regia is derived from the Latin for "royal", a reference to the "striking appearance" of the species. It has many unusual relict characteristics not found in most other Drosera species, and these factors, combined with molecular data from phylogenetic analysis, contribute to the evidence that it possesses some of the most ancient characteristics within the genus. Of the two known populations of D. regia, the higher altitude site appears to be overgrown and is essentially extirpated. The lower altitude site is estimated to have about 50 mature plants, making it the most endangered Drosera species, since it is threatened with extinction in the wild.

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Carnivorous plants
Thank you for quality articles, with research background in plant systematics and ecology, on Carnivorous plants, such as Drosera regia, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

漢の高祖の話  [edit]

--えいえすあい (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for moving the pages back. Teammm talk
04:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't move them all back, but they did end up with the natural disambiguation instead of parenthetical and with the word state in Washington State capitalized as I do think that is correct from what I've read in style guides. And for precision and consistency, at least, I do agree that LGBT rights in Washington State should be explicit in the title even though there is no parallel LGBT rights in Washington D.C. to distinguish it from yet. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
ETA: And, of course, anyone may disagree with my move or the original move and may revert back to the original title per the WP:BRD cycle and we'll go discuss the best titles then. Rkitko (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello, thanks for the edits on the entry for rutabaga -- I saw, though, that you reverted the commas on the section:

Finns cook rutabagas in a variety of ways: roasted (to be served with meat dishes), baked, boiled, as a major flavor enhancer in soups, uncooked and thinly julienned as a side dish or in a salad, and as the major ingredient in the ever popular Christmas dish Swede casserole (lanttulaatikko). Finns use rutabagas in most dishes that call for any root vegetable.

Should semicolons not be used in the list to remove ambiguity and improve readability? Grammar and Punctuation: Using Semicolons #Link lists where the items contain commas to avoid confusion between list items Asisman (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Each item in that list is independent and separated correctly by a comma. There are no internal commas set off by clauses like in the example at your link. That is the only time you use semicolons in a list, when, if not used, there would be confusion between whether the clause is the next item in the list or a clause of the last. That did not seem to be the case since you reconstructed the sentence to essentially replace all commas with semicolons.
I'm willing to entertain the idea that this is a poorly constructed sentence from the start and it should be:

Finns cook rutabagas in a variety of ways: roasted (to be served with meat dishes), baked, boiled (as a major flavor enhancer in soups), uncooked and thinly julienned as a side dish or in a salad, and as the major ingredient in the ever popular Christmas dish Swede casserole (lanttulaatikko). Finns use rutabagas in most dishes that call for any root vegetable.

That changes the meaning slightly. Boiled would make sense being tied to the soup phrase. What do you think about that? Is that what the original writer was going for and what the vegetable is used for? I'd rather like to see some reliable sources on this, but I'm no cook. Rkitko (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

There's agreement at Talk:Guernsey Lily that the article should be moved to the scientific name Nerine sarniensis, since the common name is ambiguous. Could you move it please? It needs an admin. Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done It's now at Nerine sarniensis. Please feel free to do with Guernsey Lily what you think is best. Dab page? Redirect (as it is now) with a hatnote? If you plan on a dab page, take note of the incoming links and make sure they get redirected to the proper species article. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll go through the links now and see what seems best. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mount Vernon Grapevine[edit]

Hi I was surprised that you've taken the link down as there is a link on the same page for "Mount Vernon News" which is a newspaper also the only difference being that the Mount Vernon Grapevine is an online newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headphones1971 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC) There is also information for tourists -- Headphones1971 --

I would encourage you to read the external link guidelines to see what would be appropriate. The link you added is not, by any characterization, a newspaper - online or otherwise. It is personal website run by, it would seem, two people at this point (a husband and wife team). There are very few articles in the wireframe website, so it would appear they have aspirations to be something, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote such a website. The comparison to the Mount Vernon News isn't appropriate since the MVN has had a long history as an established news service, has advertisers, employees, a brick-and-mortar office, and paid subscriptions. Regardless, this new endeavor is not an acceptable external link. At the moment it's no different from a blog or personal website that unfortunately calls itself a newspaper. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

cn template[edit]

Hi, I think I put too many {{cn}} in Carnivorous plant, but there are whole sections without references, like Cultivation, Flypaper traps, Bladder traps, Lobster-pot traps; or section with one or two references, like Pitfall traps, or the end of Ecology and modelling of carnivory. Do you think {{Unreferenced section}} and {{Refimprove section}} may be better suited? --KDesk (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yucca brevifolia[edit]

I think that we could use some admin intervention at the talkpage for Yucca brevifolia. The climate change debate has gotten completely out of hand, and is rapidly degenerating into accusations of dishonesty and rule-lawyering. I don't see any sort of constructive editing or even discussion happening in the near future. I bring this to you because you've edited the page before, but if you'd prefer it be taken to the noticeboard then let me know and I'll do so. Thank you. Euchrid (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've lost too much patience with the editor in question to be able to phrase things as calmly or clearly as that, hence recusing myself from the discussion. Euchrid (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for suggestion[edit]

Thank you for all suggestion Sir. I have got little more now. Actually we (Nepali wikipedians) are unknown to these rules so I started working in English to know about how it works. Now its good knowledge to me I will try work in the same way in my language too. Hoping for further suggestions.... -Krish Dulal (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

*sigh* Mishae[edit]

Hey, Rkitko. If Mishae agrees to not remove any more whitespace, would you be cool with me unblocking them? Frankly, I'm not sure how much GF we should have left for them. I tried to make it clear what I meant in my post to them, but apparently I didn't do a good enough job; I'm sad that I dropped it from my watchlist. Hopefully it's clearer now. Writ Keeper  04:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Writ Keeper: At what point is it his last chance? He seems incapable of heeding advice that doesn't affirm his view. His misinterpretation of your message could be innocent but is part of a larger pattern where he's twisted the advice of several other editors to justify his disruptive behavior. I don't believe it's malicious but a failure to get the point and a selective hearing situation. During the AN/I a few editors wondered if it might be time for an indef block because of that. This has been a long standing issue and if Mishae falls into the WP:IDHT range, it might be time to consider that.
That said, in his last message on his talk page he said he'd "minimize" taxobox condensing and that he didn't think his behavior was disruptive. I don't have high hopes for the next message after your note, but I'd need to see a few things from Mishae before I'd consider unblocking: 1) of course, committment that he will not remove whitespace unnecessarily, 2) acknowledgement that his edits were disruptive, and 3) at bare minimum a pledge to help clean up the mess he has made.
By the way, your comment on his talk page, "To be frank, I'm not sure why it's so important to either of you..." wasn't exactly helpful. I have explained numerous times why consistent display of the taxoboxes is important. Until you've gone through and edited several parameters in thousands of taxoboxes, updating them, you wouldn't know that the current display with newlines is always preferred over a condensed version for consistency, ease of editing, and less frustration in finding the same parameter over thousands of articles. We also know exactly why Mishae wants to display the taxobox this way: some silly notion of saving server space, even though he's been told again and again that it will not make a difference and not to worry about it. It's an obsession he will not drop. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Plant Evolution Cladogram[edit]

Any suggestions?

Hei! Thanks for your input on the plant cladogram diagram which I placed in plants and that the creator placed in other articles. So would you be okay with the plant cladogram image if the time axis was removed? Can you suggest any other improvements? This image is a student of mine's educational project and I'm sure she'd like input. Thanks. Earthdirt (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Earthdirt. Yes, certainly, an updated version would be fine. I just didn't want a misleading image on such highly visible pages. This might be a great learning opportunity for your student to investigate phylogenetics and cladograms and investigate why time isn't on the horizontal axis. To begin you could lead by explaining that at each branch point there is a node; we can rotate around this node freely and flip the order at the tips (but not the relative relationships) of the groups, so the horizontal axis is rather meaningless. Time, here, is from the past (last common ancestor) to the present (present-day species or in this case groups at the tips) so it would be on the vertical axis. That is the main improvement I can suggest. The rest looks broadly fine. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Earthdirt (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


I beg you not to harass me with the following up thing it makes me agravated. If I will see your comments on my talkpage again I will go to ANI, got that?!--Mishae (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've replied at Mishae's talk page, but linking the reply thread here for context since Mishae sometimes deletes threads. Rkitko (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to add parameters to taxobox templates[edit]

I'd welcome your input at Template talk:Taxobox#Taxobox bug with image maps. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


So, from what I can tell you decided to revert my edits to Rhus virens because of deitalization! Question, how does that template affect the article? I tried both ways and it doesn't do anything. If your are talking about taxobox then it doesn't do anything because the title is italicized through binomial.--Mishae (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That "taxobox hack" - the non-intuitive way of italicizing an article's title - only works under certain conditions, such as when the binomial parameter = the article title and |name= is not used. This is not ideal because it's easier to break: all an editor needs to do is add back |name= and article title italicization is gone. It's best to leave {{italic title}} in place, in my experience. See Wikipedia:TX#Bold/italic markup for some more info. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, if it works under certain conditions there is no point in it. As far as experience goes, I have no such experience, but I would like to know about yours. Care to share?--Mishae (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
See what you did to Cotoneaster franchetii? The article title is now no longer italicized. Please replace the italic title template. Rkitko (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
At the time of your message I went to bed. I looked at it before and after, I don't see a difference, call me blind if you want.--Mishae (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
That's because when you looked at Cotoneaster franchetii this morning, your edit had been partially reverted by User:Kevmin. He put the italic title template back on the article. But I assure you that before he did that the title was not italicized. Rkitko (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that partial revert. Now I decided to remove it again so that I can see what the difference is (I will put it back in as soon as I will get the point in it (so far of which is non)). So far I am confused what exactly does it italicize? The title is italicized from binomial and species and it carries that italization to the top of the taxobox as well. Now as for the article title, I see that its italicized either way...--Mishae (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Categorizing plant articles for Wikiproject Plants[edit]

I noticed you assessed a couple set indices as DABs for the plants project assessment. I've been working through Category:Disambig-Class_plant_articles, and reassessing SIAs as Lists (and converting DABs to SIA). I'm not sure that something like Black raspberry is described as a list very well, but it seems clear to me that most of DAB assessed articles aren't technically DABs. I'm fine with assessing them as DAB, as they perform a similar function; I just wanted to be clear on best practice.

More broadly, do we want to be tagging all the SIAs at Category:Plant common names (and any common name SIAs not yet categorized) with Plants project assessments? Is it also worth tagging common names that redirect to a scientific name? I'd guess that tagging redirects could easily triple the number of plants project articles if they all get tagged. Plantdrew (talk)

Hi, User:Plantdrew. Sorry about that - I only assessed a few that way. I momentarily forgot that SIAs were lists and not disambiguation pages, even though they often serve that function. We could always add a new category to our assessment template and make them SIA-class since we have a lot of them... that would be one option. To be honest I've never given it very much thought. What do you think we should do?
I'd say generally, yes, project banners should go on the SIAs in Category:Plant common names and others. When Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality log gets updated, any pages that are tagged with our banner that get moved or reassessed will show up there, letting us more easily monitor those pages. And if any of those pages are put up for deletion or a requested move or any other major change, they'll show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts if they have our project banner on the talk page. On redirects: I haven't made it my priority to do so, since when people turn redirects into articles they often forget to reassess on the talk page (e.g. a common name is also the name of the plant product and a decision is made to split the article into botany info at the sci name and plant product info at the common name). But I suppose it's up to you. I'd love to hear your thoughts, though. Rkitko (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been mulling it over, and I think classifying them as Lists is the way to go. The other Wikiprojects I found using a SIA template (Category:Set index article templates mostly have SIAs classified as Lists (however Ships and Surnames are large classes of SIA that are classified as DABs for a Wikiproject). None of them have a SIA classification.
I'll make an effort to get the project banner on common name SIAs. I'm not inspired to spend time adding the banner to existing common name redirects, but I may add it to new ones I create.
I'm thinking scientific names currently classified as Plants Project DABs might also be better handled as SIAs/Lists. These are mostly articles covering homonyms or auct. non. senses of a name. As I understand DAB policy, a redirect of Nepenthes rubra auct. non Hort.Van Houtte ex Rafarin: Nichols. (1886) to Nepenthes distillatoria, would be the better format of a DAB page entry (vs. the current blue link to N. distillatoria in Nepenthes rubra. There's also WP:2DAB. I'd rather not to try to fit scientific name DABs into a rigid DAB format, but would prefer to go with the more flexible SIA.
Finally, I added a child category, Category:Set indices on plant common names, to your Category:Set indices on plants to cover the common name SIAs I've been working on. Plantdrew (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you edited Aranella fimbriata, replacing {{Species Latin name disambiguation}} with {{SIA|plants}}, reducing the population of Category:Species Latin name disambiguation pages from 47 to 46. Of the remaining 46, probably over half are plant-only disambiguations. Is it your opinion that all of the plant-only disambiguations in this category should be marked {{SIA|plants}}? Also, do you think that disambiguation and quasi-disambiguation pages that list only genus-and-species binomials should have italic titles? I'll look for your response here. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo requests[edit]

Via User:Moe Epsilon/Administrators by location, I just noticed that you're in Mount Vernon. Do you have time+inclination to take and upload some photos? National Register of Historic Places listings in Knox County, Ohio is missing photos for some sites (yes, some are missing locations, but several have precise coordinates and addresses), and we also have some holes in the parallel lists for Licking, Coshocton, and Holmes counties. No need to reply; just start adding photos if you feel like it, or ignore me if you don't. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, I'll see what I can do. My partner is on vacation at the moment with the decent camera, so I'll start to fill in some photos when he gets back. It's clear you have already done quite a good deal of work on this, being responsible for many of those photos - nice! The one thing I'm now most curious about on National Register of Historic Places listings in Knox County, Ohio is the mysterious McLaughlin Mound, which has no address and isn't mentioned in either history of Knox County that I have. I pass by the Knox County Historical Society every day; I'll check their hours and see if I can get any leads from them on it. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! As far as I can tell, McLaughlin and the Melick and McDaniel Mounds in far northern Licking County are virtually unpublished except in the archaeological literature, to which I don't have access. I'd love to get images of them, as I've done for sites like the Rawley Mound at Fredericktown and the Dixon Mound in northern Licking County, but I've just not found a way to find them yet. I have just one suggestion — perhaps you could try to see whether McLaughlin is another name for the mound in the city cemetery. I've never been to the cemetery (I've only seen the mound mentioned online), so I have almost no clue about its nature. I do have a couple small sources on it, so I'll put together a stub on it for you; a fuller article would require that you or I request its National Register nomination form from the National Park Service, which would redact location information before sending it. Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A request and a question[edit]

I've got around 120 articles on plants titled by a vernacular name that I've bookmarked/watchlisted, which I believe could be moved to a scientific name title uncontroversially, but which I can't move myself. I noticed you moved three of my watched articles recently (Temu lawak, Bitter melon and White Bryony), and I see you've entertained requested technical moves in the past. I was wondering if you'd be willing to make some moves for me, and was wondering whether even asking you to do so is appropriate (I'd rather not hassle with the RM process for what should be uncontroversial moves, but I don't want to lead to accusations of a Plants cabal moving everything to scientific names). I've got a preliminary list at User:Plantdrew/sandbox#Retitle to scientific name?, but I'm not asking you to investigate and move all of these at once. Some certainly should go through the RM process. If I give you were to give you batches of ~10-20 articles with similar rationales for a move to scientific name would you be willing to consider executing the moves?

I haven't done much with classifying articles for Wikiproject Plants, but I've been looking at the 500 most popular plant articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Popular_pages over the last few months. It seems to me that many of these highly viewed articles would be best classified as High importance, and should rarely be classified below Medium. I should figure out how to use AWB first if I'm reclassifying a large number of articles, but does it seem reasonable to you to assume that the most viewed plant articles are (with few exceptions) best classified as Medium/High importance? Plantdrew (talk)

User:Plantdrew, sure! I'd be happy to help with any uncontroversial moves to scientific names that require the admin tools, e.g. moves over redirects with more than one edit and history merges if any are needed. I don't think a project maintaining articles within its scope by following article naming conventions could ever lead to accusations of a Plants cabal. In fact, in my request for adminship, many folks supported granting the tools to gnomish editors focused on different narrow areas to fulfill requests just like this. If anyone has a problem with any particular move, they can revert and we can go through WP:RM instead for that one. I'm a bit busy off-wiki lately, but if you want to throw 10-20 at me and let me get to them in a few days, I'll be happy to.
I just saw the popular pages report on my watchlist a few days ago, I think. Many of them should be medium or high importance and certainly number of views could be one component of how we rate it. Perhaps we should update Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Importance assessments with more advice. I generally rate plant articles that have a large distribution as Mid, endemics or ones with smaller distributions as Low, and if a plant is or has been used for its products, I usually rate it Mid or High depending on how widely known it is. Number of views should line up well with this, but it will be seasonal so we'll have to keep an eye on it and add ones that we didn't catch earlier. Rkitko (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Dates for plant families and orders[edit]

While atypical, I think it is very useful above the genus. Let's discuss this at the plant project before reverting everything I have done. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is unusual and when we have had discussions on this before at the plants project, the point has been made that doing so makes it look like we don't know what we're doing - a fair criticism. But you're right that the information is useful, which is why I usually include a sentence or two about the taxon's first formal publication in the literature within the body of the article. Still, I don't think it should be part of the author citation in the taxobox. However, search the archives at WT:PLANTS for similar discussions and bring up the issue again if you think it remains unresolved. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Most Wikipedia conversations look like this, with similar results (none). Thanks for the warning. I am going to try anyhow. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Author citation dates in plant taxoboxes (above genera)[edit]

I have been adding dates to taxobox authorities for plant families and orders. I had seen this done in a few taxoboxes, and I am working on citing all of the authorities for plant families and orders. A discussion had taken place about this before, here, although the focus of this discussion was on all taxa, inlcuding genera and species. As you participated in a past discussion, and are actively editing Wikipedia now, I am posting this link in case you wish to comment.

Thanks. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Category hierarchy for "Plants described in YEAR"[edit]

Hi, the category hierarchy for "Plants described in 2009" goes up to "Plants described in 2000s" then to "Species described in 2000s". But it also goes up to "Species described in 2009" and then to "Species described in 2000s" again. My edit summary wasn't quite right, but the current arrangement seems to involve unnecessary redundancy. (Maybe I'm wrong, but it offends me even taking a C++ rather than a Java view of inheritance!) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and there's good reason for that. Wikipedia:Categorization#Category tree organization does not indicate that category structure must be a linear sequence; instead, they can and should overlap in places where it's logical to do so. This seems reasonable to me and all of the other categories are set up this way:
Redundancy is not the enemy in situations like this. It's nice to have not only the plants-only hierarchy up to the 21st century category to see what other plants were described in that decade or century, but also the categories of each year included in species of each year so that users can browse easily to see what other species (animal, fossil, fungi) had been described that year. If that leads to overlaps, that's ok because there's no clear single hierarchy like there is with taxonomy (we hope!). Instead we have at least two hierarchies: years and groups (species category contains the categories for just plants, just animals, just fungi, etc.). Rkitko (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
First, let me be clear that I accept that my edit was wrong and that you were quite right to revert it – I should have said this first of all above.
I think my difficulty (and I've had it before) lies in understanding WP:SUBCAT. Consider this part of the category hierarchy (where I've abbreviated the category names):
     |                  |
 Spp. 2000s <–––– Plants 2000s
     |                  |
 Spp. 2009  <–––– Plants 2009
             A plant sp. described in 2009
There are two category trees, one for species, one for plants, with cross-links at every level above the lowest.
Now we cannot put an article on a plant species described in 2009 into both "Plants described in 2009" and "Species described in 2009", because that would place it both in a category (Plants 2009) and in the parent of that category (Spp. 2009). But we can place Plants 2009 into two subcategories (Spp. 2009 and Plants 2000s) of the same parent category (Spp. 2000s).
Is this a correct explanation? I'm just not used to thinking about category hierarchies as only partially ordered in this way. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That looks accurate. Plants 2009 is a subcat of both Spp. 2009 and Plants 2000s. So perhaps the crosslink that you have a problem with is Spp. 2000s <---- Plants 2000s. Take a look at Category:Species described in the 2000s, though. You've got the ordered subcats of species by year, and then fossils described in the 2000s and plants described in the 2000s, both of which make sense to me as subcats there. Am I correct in my assumption of where you think the problem lies? I get that it's a little funky and it's not set in stone, of course. Do you think there's a way to improve the category structure without losing some browsing function that could be reasonable? By the way, this sandbox I have may be useful. I had been using it to track redlinked categories and notice now there are very few. Category:Plants described in 1943 sticks out in the middle, oddly. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Now I've studied it, the category hierarchy is exactly as it should be. The problem was that I'm a visual thinker: once I'd drawn the diagram showing how the categories inter-relate, I could see that it made sense. To help people like me, I've added a diagram to WP:PLANTS/Description in year categories. I've also expanded the text a bit along the lines of our discussion at WT:PLANTS. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


Special:WhatLinksHere/Asteridae has a few articles that should be APGIIified. What are your thought on what to do with the Asteridae article itself? It has a merge tag (to Asterids), but no discussion about merging. I'd be inclined to remove the taxobox and tweak the language to present it as a historically recognized taxon. I'm a little at a loss as to how the language should be tweaked though (I know there are some other pages on historical taxa that might serve as a model). Plantdrew (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Happened to see this. I would treat it like Hamamelididae. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


what do you think molecular based taxonomy is except gene sequence based? I am providing more understandable words, which is desirable in wikipedia. APG is useful for genetic relationships. Big but is that most plants cannot be classified this way for lack of sequence. So Cronquist system will live on for many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talkcontribs) 18:56, 6 July 2013

At each article you edited, the information that APG is based on gene sequences is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it's a more modern classification system. The respective articles on the systems are the correct locations to direct edits that would correctly identify criticisms of each, but remember that this must not be undue weight, nor original research, so you must provide reliable sources that say what you're paraphrasing or describing. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and it is not a crystal ball, so we cannot assert that Cronquist will "live on for many years" or have lasting influence. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverting plant article names[edit]

I became rather confused by the nomenclature of a series of dwarf Buddleja hybrid cultivars raised in the USA. The series is named Lo & Behold, which I'm now informed is neither part of the cultivar name nor a selling name. Alas, I included it in each title, eg. Buddleja Lo & Behold Blue Chip; I have tried reverting the title to the original Buddleja 'Blue Chip', but the system won't allow me to do this. There are three cultivars involved: Buddleja 'Blue Chip', Buddleja 'Ice Chip', and Buddleja 'Miss Molly'. I would be much obliged if you could change these article titles back to their original form. Thank you, Ptelea (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispsacales (etc.) may need updating to APG III[edit]

Hello Rkitko, noticing this edit at Sambucus nigra, I decided to check on the editor's accuracy, but was left mostly confused, and didn't know if it should be reverted or not. I'm not trained in the subject, and don't have the time right now to do all the research required to feel 100% sure enough to make any changes; so at the risk of looking foolish, I'll say this: it appears that the Dipsacales article (and probably others in the web that it is part of) is out of date, seemingly discussing APG II as the most current agreement (though APG III is mentioned in a footnote for the authority, saying it was from 2009, but the access date is from 2006 (how could that be?)). If you feel my amateurish assessment has any merit, could/would you be willing to bring this up, in more professional language, at the WikiProject Plants talk page? I understand that I could be vastly misinterpreting this. I contacted you because I see your edit summary ("Updating taxobox classification to the APG III system ...") a lot on my watchlist. Thanks in advance for taking a peek as time permits. Hamamelis (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Drat - and here I thought I was very nearly done with the updates when I finally get around to finishing off the Ranunculales (less than 200 articles there to do). Good catch, though. I've reverted the classification change at Sambucus nigra since the editor cited the USDA (I assume the PLANTS database, which is notoriously out of date and terrible for classification). Strictly speaking, the APG III system doesn't, in most cases -- unless there's a clearly unplaced genus -- discuss placement of genera, but the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website does host lists. The Plant List website is down at the moment (at least for me) as is the Kew Checklist (don't know if they include Sambucus), so I'm not sure if they confirm that classification. Anyway, unless there's been a change post-APG III, Adoxaceae is correct. But you're right that Dipsacales needs to be updated to reference the APG III classification, which changed fairly radically with the broader circumscription of Caprifoliaceae. Thanks for putting that on my radar. I'd have missed it otherwise and it probably would have gone unchanged from APG II for quite a while. I'll get to it soon-ish? (Also, sorry for clogging your watchlist from time to time!) Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for helping because it's important :), but sorry if the light at the end of the tunnel just got a little dimmer :( Hamamelis (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of article title of Whitebark pine[edit]

You are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Whitebark pine#Requested move to scientific name. —hike395 (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Help moving monogeneric families to genus title[edit]

Would you mind making the following moves for me?

All are families with a single genus, and should have the article titled by genus name according to WP:FLORA. Admin tools are needed to make the moves. Plantdrew (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

And another admin request. Could you delete Category:Thymus (genus)? There's also an insect genus Thymus. I made a new category Category:Thymus (plant) and moved all the entries over. Having "Thymus (genus)" hanging around seems like it will invite errors with HotCat (and I can't see much of a point in having a category for Thymus (plant) and Thymus (insect)). Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Kiko4564 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I do in many cases, but not in one-off IP vandalism cases where the IP has clearly already moved on where the IP may be dynamic, shared, etc. Not doing anything useful there unless the message is within moments of the vandalism, which this was not. But well aware, thanks. Rkitko (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot to check links to SIAs[edit]

In case you don't see it, I've suggested at Talk:Nettle (disambiguation)#Alternatives that, as an admin, you might be the best person to raise the issue of a bot to check newly added links to SIAs. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Converting Notes to References section[edit]

Hi Rkitko,

I am sorry for the inconvenience caused. I thought that "reflist" was supposed to go only into "Reference" section and that was the only reason i changed the section names. I am new to wikipedia editing. I want to sincerely contribute in making wikipedia a better platform. So kindly guide me on the same. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks in advance! :) Trixie05 (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Plant article importance assessments help needed[edit]

Discussion you may be interested in about plant article importance assessments. Click! --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Move request[edit]

Could you please move Aphyllanthoideae to Aphyllanthes? Its a monogeneric subfamily with a monospecific genus, so should be at the genus name according to WP:PLANTS guidelines. (My mistake in creating the stub in the first place.) Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Saw this, so I did the move. Guettarda (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Guettarda. I may decide to put up a semi-wikibreak banner on this talk page since I haven't been very active. Too much to do offline recently with candidacy preparations and planning my first field season in Australia. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Field work in Australia? Cool. Are you going to be anywhere near Cas (or any of the other Australian PLANTS people)? Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Cas? Yes. Haven't mentioned it yet, though. The others are, I think, mostly in Western Australia if I'm not mistaken except for Melburnian (I think -- I've always guessed from the username). I'm pretty much taking a big tour of the south and east from Adelaide east and north to Queensland along the coast in search of Dipodium. (Our article on the genus is crummy and I intend to do something about that... one day. Recently took a whack at Bromheadia which has been a problem genus, phylogenetically, but I could do more.) Would definitely be neat to meet up with some PLANTS people and maybe head into the field? Nice photo opportunities. Rkitko (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I am in Sydney - happy to meet up any time. 21:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm in Melbourne (no surprises there!) and would also be happy to meet up.--Melburnian (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Eudicot orders pie chart[edit]

Can you review my File:Eudicot-orders.svg? Now it's better readable, and the classification used before was not APG II but just mixed.--Kopiersperre (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Angiosperm genera[edit]

I'm not really sure what's going on with Category:Angiosperm genera (and now I see you've made it not a container category). Would a Category:Basal angiosperm genera be worthwhile (I presume the contents would be the ANITA grade genera)?. The category name "Angiosperm genera" doesn't clearly indicate that the contents should be basal genera. Is there anything else that belongs in the category (surely it not intended to include every genus of angiosperms). Plantdrew (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd thought too that articles categorized into Category:Angiosperm genera shouldn't have been until I realized how the category is used. I think it would be useful to design a set of categories for genus articles which did allow this category to be a container. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
There's Category:Plant genera as a container above Category:Angiosperm genera. We sort of have two parallel systems of taxon classification. There's rank based categories (i.e. Foo genera or Foo families), and rank-less categories (Fooaceae, Foooideae, Fooeae). Obviously, the rank-less categories usually correspond to articles on a formal rank, but the category itself could admit all sorts of subranks. Fooaceae might have subcategories that correspond to subfamilies, tribes and genera, while also directly including (not subcategorized) articles on genera and species. It seems more straight forward to me to have the rank based categories as containers. And I think I've managed to confuse myself, and probably you as well (as I'm now realizing what I called "rank based" could be organized by informally ranked nested clades; but still, "Eudicot genera" says something pretty clear about the rank of articles so categorized, in a way that "Eudicots" does not). Plantdrew (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
@PlantDrew – categorization of plant articles is one of those issues we've discussed at WT:PLANTS, but not written up well on a project page, so it gets lost. The scheme is supposed to be as at File:Plant_categorization_actual.svg so far as I understood it at the time. Levels above order aren't shown but it goes up in the same way. There are in effect several parallel systems: one which follows the APG hierarchy of taxa from species upwards, another for genera, another for families, etc. The complication arises when levels are skipped, e.g. there are genera not placed in a family, families not placed in an order, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I found the discussion associated with your diagram, and don't have much to add to that; you were seeing the same thing as me (your "brown categories" being my "rank based categories"). I'm not quite sure what the benefit of container categories for taxon classification is, but it seems that the "brown categories" could be containers, at least above the lowest level (i.e. "FAMILY genera" categories would not be containers as they would need to directly include articles on genera). Plantdrew (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
(Ryan, sorry to take over your talk page!) Actually on reflection, the main complication is different from what I wrote above. It arises because of the view that categories should not be very small, although I can't at present find where this is written down. Suppose order Xales has one family Xaceae with two genera Y and Z. The articles on Y and Z need to be put into a "... genera" category. They can't go in either "Xaceae genera" or "Xales genera" because there aren't enough. So they have to go higher, which instantly stops that category being a container.
One solution would be to accept very small categories, even of one member, for the special case of taxonomic hierarchies. Then the higher level ones could be containers and the category structure would be much cleaner. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, folks. Yes, sorry for the delay. I've been a bit busy as of late, but I saw Plantdrew's edits and wanted to at least note in an edit I undid why the category didn't seem like a container to me. I think Peter's last post here is on the nose. I'd rather not have small category exceptions for taxonomy categories; categories are for browsing related articles, so a rigid hierarchy that produces small categories for the sake of maintaining every rank leads to a more frustrating browsing experience. I don't particularly like clicking through to small genera categories, especially if a family contains only ~10 species - they should all be in one category at the family rank. Likewise, Amborella would be the only article in Category:Amborellales, so it is instead (and I just did this) added to Category:Angiosperms. Since "basal angiosperms" is a grade and could not clearly be a taxon, I'd rather not have those be included in something like Category:Basal angiosperm genera. So really the only option for some of those genera, if there are not enough genera to create a large enough Category:Chloranthales genera, for example, would be to include them in Category:Angiosperm genera. Instead of a container category, it could get the {{Diffuse category}} tag. Hope that makes sense on my perspective. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A {{Diffuse category}} tag would be helpful. I did notice when I started clearing out Category:Angiosperm genera that there were a lot of basal genera included, but didn't quite make the connection that this was really intentional (having the container category tag at the time certainly misled me). I think I would have figured out the intended contents if the tag had been diffuse category. Plantdrew (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that whatever is done, it isn't entirely satisfactory. A 1:1 match between the taxonomic hierarchy and the classification hierarchy produces a large number of very small categories, which isn't desirable and is frowned on within Wikipedia. (Can either of you point me to where this is written down? I'm sure I've seen it.)
On the other hand, having some genera listed at the top level category Category:Angiosperm genera and others in subcategories of this like Category:Ranunculaceae genera (which is 3 levels down) is confusing, and may imply that Ranunculaceae genera are somehow "lower" or "less important" than those listed at Category:Angiosperm genera, whereas the reality is simply that there are at least 9 genera in this family but not in the families of the genera at Category:Angiosperm genera.
The present set-up is probably the least worst solution, but does need clearer explanations of how the categories should be used. The "diffuse" tag is useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dorothea Dix[edit]

Four years passed, and I'm sure that some trusting IPs can edit this page. But you can lower to "pending changes" if you want. --George Ho (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've pending changes protected it per a request at WP:RFUP, but please see my comments here. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Carnivorous plants
Thank you for quality articles, with research background in plant systematics and ecology, on Carnivorous plants, such as Drosera regia, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 330th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 330th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi there

You undid a revision of mine on Heliamphora, citing that the geo info is already in the infobox, so there would be no need for the category. But that was not the reason I did it; it's my understanding that the category permit us to list all pages under it, so, in order to list all South American carnivores, the article must be part of that category, right? I do not want to be rude, and I know I'm not a frequent user or anything, but unless there's a previous rule I'm not aware (and I admit that's quite possible), I don't think that a revert was necessary...

Jack O'Neill (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! So sorry if my edit summary was hard to understand -- there's only so much space for a concise explanation. To clarify, every article in Category:Heliamphora is already included in the categorization hierarchy that you added to Heliamphora because Category:Heliamphora is already a subcategory of Category:Carnivorous plants of South America. Because the geographic category contains the genus category, it is unnecessary and redundant to add Category:Carnivorous plants of South America to the article page, as well. We only operate this way when the whole genus is endemic to that region; e.g. we couldn't do this for Drosera since it's so widespread, so instead each species article gets the geographic category. I hope that makes sense -- it's a bit late for me and I'm not exactly writing clearly at the moment :-) Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, that's much more clear. Glad I've put that "something-I'm-not-aware-quite-possibly" bit, since I do misunderstood the category system after all. Thank you for this clarification, and sorry about the bitterness of my last message - I see It had no reason to be ;-) Jack O'Neill (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I'm just glad someone is working on the carnivorous plant articles. Lots of room for improvement here! If there's ever anything I can help with, let me know. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Trees of Ukraine[edit]

Hello! I study of woody plants at home! Why Some species of trees that we grow hto cleans from the category. I created a new category of trees Ukraine. I flora Ukraine and delete them Tavlya in this category Trees of Ukraine . Subsumes only woody plants. That grow with us in the Ukraine in the Parks, forests, city. Garden will not include. Sincerely, Vitaly!

Dipodium and Kew[edit]

Hi once again, I have received a message via Wikispecies from Orchi (talk). There is definite interest at Kew about your work on Dipodium and to cut a long story short they seem to be willing to talk to you about your results and I guess modify WCSP and other databases at the very least. This all started when I mentioned our earlier Dipodium conversation to Orchi, who is very active on WS particularly Orchidaceae, as you can see with a couple of clicks.
Philip Cribb is Orchi's direct contact, but he has suggested that Andre Schuiteman is the person to contact at Kew, as he now heads this section. Orchi can provide an email contact if needed and I am sure that you two ought to talk anyway. Well over to you in the spirit of six degrees of separation. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Drosera by synonymy[edit]

Category:Drosera by synonymy, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Plants etc by year of first description[edit]

Re Category:Plants described in 1753 being in both the decade and century categories, a decade of 10 years is too small to be convenient; which is why for countries the year eg Category:1864 in Australia is in both Category:1860s in Australia and in Category:Years of the 19th century in Australia so that the latter category displays all of the years for a century. Perhaps just delete the intermediate “decade” categories? Hugo999 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Drosera rotundifolia[edit]

hello buddy, I have reverted your reversion :P. You said that the change is not supported in the body of the article, that's true. But Im basing my category additions on this list which is sourced. Have a nice day. -Elias Z 10:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think, for a category to be included it must be mentioned in the article and well-sourced. As List of plants of Lebanon already exists, it is unnecessary to duplicate that effort in the category. And since this is a widely-distributed species, we only need include the highest level category that approximately corresponds to its natural range. This prevents too many categories from being included and stems against arguments to delete all state/province/country categories. Those smaller geographic categories are used mostly for endemics and species that occur in only a few countries. Wikipedia flora categories should strive to follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions -- see WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD for an outline of the unfinished work. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood, thanks -Elias Z 05:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Plant Categories[edit]

I noticed you have recently edited a number of plant's category listings. As wikipedia isn't strictly a plant database as defined in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions but rather an encyclopedia, I don't see the appropriateness of trying to strictly follow those guidelines. Rather, the removing of these categories makes the pages bit less useful IMHO.

For example, if I'm interested in trees native to a particular state and I go to the category Trees of <insert state name>, I will not find a large number of trees native to that state as you've removed those categories from a number of plants. Now that category becomes largely useless. Further on plant pages without the benefit of distribution maps, it becomes quite unclear in which areas or states plants are indeed native.

If you want to follow the guidelines laid out in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions in the distribution sections of those particular plants, then that may be more appropriate than wholesale removing of categories from plant pages, but even then that convention allows for the mentioning of states when listing a plants distribution as is noted, only used for very large countries, which the United States indeed is. Even the Flora of North America North of Mexico as well as the Flora of China both list states/provinces when describing plant distributions. Kmanblue (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kmanblue: see WP:SUBCAT – "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". It's not clear to me why "trees of ..." would be an exception. You always need to work up the category hierarchy to check for all entries. So, for example, to find those trees categorized as native to Quebec, you go to Category:Trees of Quebec, then to Category:Trees of Canada, then to Category:Trees of North America, etc. Of course, the quality of the categorization in Wikipedia is such that it's doubtful that all or even most trees native to Quebec or anywhere else will be correctly categorized! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: That's fine that a page should rarely be placed both in a category and a subcategory. I understand that, but that's not the case for many of these plant pages. Also, your last point illustrates my point. Shouldn't the Category:Trees of Quebec contain all the trees known(on wikipedia) to be native to Quebec? Otherwise, if one is looking for an encyclopedic listing of trees native to Quebec, then wikipedia is just about useless in this regard. Especially if said trees are instead merely listed as Category:Trees of Canada or Category:Trees of North America as those are such broad categories they list large numbers of trees not only not native to Quebec but in many cases trees native thousands of miles (or km if you prefer) and a few countries away from Quebec. That seems like we are unnecessarily making things more confusing and less accurate for the sake of trying to make the categories section look nicer. Kmanblue (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the category system is described at WP:CAT as "to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages" not to provide a substitute for "List of ..." articles. If you want a list of trees for a particular political or geographical entity, then create a list article. Anyway, no more hijacking of Rkitko's talk page from me! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kmanblue, I agree with Peter on this. Categories are not meant to take the place of lists. If we don't follow the strict hierarchy of the WGSRPD and include species with wide distributions at the highest category level (regions, large countries, and continents) that closely approximates the distribution, we risk losing the entire flora category hierarchy. There are folks out there nominating fauna categories for deletion -- mostly in Europe -- with silly notions that it's not WP:DEFINING. They also complain about WP:OVERCAT and category clutter, produced from being included in too many small level categories. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 18#Category:Amphibians of Albania for one open discussion like this. The best way for flora projects to argue against deletionists like that is to have a clear categorization hierarchy, one that reduces category clutter by using regional categories and is not defined by political boundaries but rather geography. By the way, most "Trees of..." categories will likely be deleted as there are very few tree taxa limited to a few states or provinces, thus falling under WP:SMALLCAT -- we can maintain the regional categories, such as Trees of the Northeastern United States. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert on carnivorous plant[edit]


This is a recent endemic specie (2003)

Rivadavia F (2003). [http:// "Four New Species of Sundews, Drosera (Droseraceae), from Brazil"] (HTML). Carnivorous Plant Newsletter 32 (3): 79–92. 

I would include this... but ok, ty

I'm tired of wiki

Lauro Sirgado (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Lauro Sirgado:. Just to be clear, I reverted the edit because MOS:IMAGELOCATION suggests we avoid sandwiching the text of the article between two elements like the video and the image you added. Additionally, the article carnivorous plant is already well-illustrated. I will add your image to List of Drosera species. We don't yet have an article on Drosera tentaculata but we should! And your image would fit quite well there. Why not take the time to write the article on the species? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
03:22, 4 June 2014‎ Rkitko (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,494 bytes) (-143)‎ . . (Undid revision 611470107 by Lauro Sirgado (talk) - not the best image to illustrate this article; already well-illustrated, also we're not to sandwich text between media like that) (undo | thank)
The reasons do not seem strong (sry my opinion).
Only stub are open for editions? I stop my editions.
Do not want to get into edit wars and Manors.
leave for others
thank you
Lauro Sirgado (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: page on epiphyllum oxypetalum[edit]

Hi Ryan:

Thank you for rewriting the introductory paragraph for the page on epiphyllum oxypetalum. I am not a botanist. I became interested in 昙花, and found this wikipedia page on epiphyllum oxypetalum. The sentence about this species is not a variety of nightblooming cereus is very confusing as it directly links to the page on nightblooming cereus, which lists epiphyllum oxypetalum as one of the species. So I removed the word "not" in that sentence for its logical contradiction. Thank you for the rephrasing the sentence. It is a lot more clear now.

Minghua — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minghuanie (talkcontribs) 00:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Flora of the San Francisco Bay Area[edit]

I was not aware we used that system officially at WP. your turning this into a redirect lost the area specific categorization for the plants that ONLY have distribution in the bay area, at least according to the articles. You could have at least decided to placed them in Category:Environment of the San Francisco Bay Area. I dont see why this information on bay native plants needs to be lost here, especially as the local environmental movement has been massively focussed on bay native ecology for something like half a century.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see we have Category:Flora by distribution categories that follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, an administrative category. how is that category to define what other categories we have, and why have decided unilaterally to remove smaller categories, and redefine what "flora of california" means. i see the value in using this WGS scheme, but we are not the WGS. was there a discussion somewhere implementing this decision?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently rolling out the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions as a continuing effort to clean up the proliferation of these overlapping and unnecessary categories. (For more info, see WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD.) Many fauna categories are under discussion for deletion and merging upward, mostly be editors concerned with European countries (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 19#Category:Insects of Andorra, for example). This category purging in the fauna categories also happened in 2007. As a way to justify our flora category structure, a few members of the WP:PLANTS project decided to use a published hierarchy for recording plant distributions that's used in other secondary sources, such as GRIN. While I agree that California is a large and varied area with many endemic species restricted to small and well-defined regions, I'm not certain we could justify sub-areas in the category tree. Categories are for navigation and browsing; what you seem to want would best be served by a List of plants of the San Francisco Bay Area (or perhaps already mostly exists as List of San Francisco Bay Area wildflowers), which can include red links to plants we don't yet have articles on and references. Flora of the Santa Monica Mountains is a decent template for such a list article.
If you're interested in creating the list article, here's the list of articles that was included in the category before redirection:
Vitis californica, Viola pedunculata, Vicia hassei, Verbena lasiostachys, Vaccinium parvifolium, Vaccinium ovatum, Vaccinium cespitosum, Triphysaria floribunda, Trifolium wormskioldii, Trifolium obtusiflorum, Toxicodendron diversilobum, Thermopsis californica, Streptanthus niger, Streptanthus batrachopus, Solidago canadensis, Solidago californica, Solanum douglasii, Sidalcea hickmanii, Sanicula arguta, Sambucus cerulea, Ribes victoris, Ribes sanguineum, Ribes menziesii, Rhus trilobata, Quercus wislizeni, Quercus agrifolia, Pseudognaphalium californicum, Potentilla hickmanii, Populus fremontii, Polypodium scouleri, Polypodium glycyrrhiza, Pluchea odorata, Pleuropogon californicus, Plagiobothrys chorisianus, Pityopus, Piperia transversa, Phoradendron macrophyllum, Phacelia viscida, Phacelia phacelioides, Phacelia malvifolia, Phacelia douglasii, Phacelia divaricata, Phacelia ciliata, Phacelia californica, Phacelia breweri, Pedicularis densiflora, Paronychia franciscana, Papaver californicum, Orobanche californica, Oenothera californica, Navarretia rosulata, Navarretia hamata, Monardella viridis, Minuartia pusilla, Minuartia douglasii, Minuartia californica, Microseris sylvatica, Microseris paludosa, Microseris elegans, Microseris douglasii, Mentzelia micrantha, Mentzelia lindleyi, Mentzelia dispersa, Mentzelia affinis, Marah oreganus, Malacothamnus fremontii, Malacothamnus fasciculatus, Malacothamnus davidsonii, Madia anomala, Lupinus truncatus, Lupinus hirsutissimus, Lupinus albifrons, Lomatium repostum, Lithophragma cymbalaria, Lilium pardalinum subsp. pitkinense, Lessingia micradenia, Layia platyglossa, Layia hieracioides, Layia gaillardioides, Lasthenia conjugens, Lasthenia burkei, Juncus phaeocephalus, Juglans hindsii, Iris fernaldii, Horkelia californica, Holocarpha virgata, Holocarpha macradenia, Holocarpha heermannii, Heteromeles, Hesperolinon micranthum, Hesperolinon congestum, Euphorbia spathulata, Erysimum franciscanum, Erigeron supplex, Erigeron foliosus, Encelia californica, Elymus elymoides, Elymus californicus, Ehrendorferia chrysantha, Dudleya lanceolata, Dudleya cymosa, Dryopteris arguta, Douglas fir, Dodecatheon clevelandii, Dittrichia graveolens, Dendromecon rigida, Delphinium parryi, Delphinium nudicaule, Delphinium californicum, Deinandra bacigalupii, Cyperus eragrostis, Cuscuta salina, Cuscuta pacifica, Coreopsis hamiltonii, Collinsia multicolor, Clarkia purpurea, Clarkia franciscana, Clarkia biloba, Cirsium quercetorum, Cirsium occidentale, Cirsium hydrophilum, Cirsium fontinale, Cirsium douglasii, Cirsium andrewsii, Chorizanthe valida, Chorizanthe robusta, Chorizanthe cuspidata, Chlorogalum pomeridianum, Cephalanthera austiniae, Ceanothus masonii, Ceanothus jepsonii, Ceanothus gloriosus, Ceanothus foliosus, Caulanthus coulteri, Castilleja neglecta, Castilleja foliolosa, Castilleja exserta, Castilleja attenuata, Camissonia strigulosa, Calystegia subacaulis, Calystegia purpurata, Calystegia occidentalis, Calystegia malacophylla, Calystegia longipes, Calycadenia multiglandulosa, Calochortus tolmiei, Calochortus tiburonensis, Calochortus splendens, Calochortus luteus, Calochortus clavatus, California buttercup, Calamagrostis ophitidis, Brodiaea terrestris, Brodiaea appendiculata, Blepharizonia plumosa, Blennosperma bakeri, Balsamorhiza macrolepis, Baccharis pilularis, Artemisia douglasiana, Arctostaphylos virgata, Arctostaphylos tomentosa, Arctostaphylos stanfordiana, Arctostaphylos regismontana, Arctostaphylos pallida, Arctostaphylos montaraensis, Arctostaphylos hookeri, Amsinckia menziesii, Amsinckia grandiflora, Alnus rubra, Allium serra, Allium lacunosum, Allium falcifolium, Allium campanulatum, Acmispon glaber, Acanthomintha lanceolata, Abronia maritima
For some reason, when I scraped the data to get the list above, it gave it to me in reverse alphabetical order. If you want to create or update a list article, a quick sort of the names in a text editor or Excel should be fairly easy and reduce your editing effort. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


...for sorting out the mess made by the creation of Infraspecific name (botany and mycology) via a move. I was about to ask an admin to deal with it when you did. (I think I've fixed the double redirect it left.) Not sure about which R templates to use on the redirect pages. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I think there are a few bots out there that come along to fix double redirects. And I suppose infraspecific name (botany and mycology) isn't exactly a realistic redirect, so I'll delete it. Rkitko (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Buddleja davidii 'Tobudviole' = Buzz Lavender[edit]

Hello Rkitko Maddening isn't it? I include the selling name in the title, reasoning that it is this name that most if not all enquirers of Wikipedia would use in their searches. The American nursery practice of grouping cultivars in series such as Lo & Behold is equally trying, but I include the series name to distinguish the plant from others of the same or similar cultivar name, eg. we have Buddleja davidii 'Peace', released in 1945, and now Buddleja (Flutterby series) 'Peace', raised by Pete Podaras circa 2012. As for adoption of the = symbol between registered cv. name and selling name, this is simply copying the practice of the Royal Botanic Gardens here in their accessions lists, possibly based on IPNI? Ptelea (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I copied your reply over to Talk:Buddleja davidii 'Tobudviole' = Buzz Lavender#Article title. It's probably best to keep the discussion in one place. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Calappa calappa[edit]

Try telling me things in your own words instead of just copypasting paragraphs from the MoS - stuff I already know. The degree of similarity between my source and my contribution to the article, calls for some degree of judgement, a quality in which you have shown yourself to be lacking. Your propensity for issuing threats, on the other hand, has not diminished with the passing of years.Paul venter (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PLANTS progress graphic[edit]

In the graphic at File:WPPLANTS_article_assessment.png, do you remember whether "article" meant everything included in the total at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality statistics, i.e. including categories, redirects, etc., or did it just mean articles (and perhaps lists)? I was curious about progress since the end of your graph. If you meant only articles, then today there are about 58,500, making the rate of progress about 14 a day since April 2009. If you meant all assessed pages, then today there are about 66,000, increasing the rate of progress to just under 18 a day, which seems quite impressive. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. If I recall correctly, we weren't assessing categories and redirects in the initial assessment. When I scraped the numbers of assessed pages from the reports, I didn't have an easy way to sort out categories, redirects, and lists, so it should represent everything our project has added a {{WikiProject Plants}} banner to. If you want the spreadsheet, I can send it your way. Rkitko (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I've realized that comparison is difficult, because the way the assessment system worked has changed. However, Template:WikiProject_Plants/class was created in January 2009 and it did allow for classes such as categories, redirects, etc. So in April 2009, there would have been separate lines in the summary table for these classes, although I don't know if they had to be explicitly labelled in the WikiProject Plants template (they seem now picked up from the namespace if not given). I'd be interested to see the spreadsheet; I think you have my e-mail address from previous exchanges. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, it looks like 8 May 2009, just after I finished the graph, was the first Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality statistics to incorporate the feature list and list assessment lines. And the 20 January 2010 update didn't have lines for SL, Book, Category, Disambig, File, Portal, Project, Redirect, Template. Since then, the bot has been updating the table at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Plant. The 4 January 2010 table in the bot's userspace does have a line for categories, of which WP:PLANTS had around 1300. It would appear that in the older project space table that the bot ignored WP:PLANTS items assessed as anything other than the traditional article assessments, e.g. it only filled out the lines for lists, stub, start, etc. Compare the numbers between the 20 January 2010 versions for the reduced table (project space) and the full table (user space). The exact difference between the totals in those two tables are the assessed items in the category, disambig, portal, project, template, and other lines. So no, I'm fairly certain that the numbers I used were just for lists and articles.
The spreadsheet isn't anything fancy or great, but I'll send it along anyway in case you care to update the graph :-) Rkitko (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure that we've corresponded by e-mail before. At least I can't find an archived e-mail among my messages. I'll send a quick introductory note now. Rkitko (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anomala (disambiguation)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Anomala (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS, direct hatnote is more helpful to readers in cases like this

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Tit-for-tats over Gasteria page[edit]

Rkitko, to avoid us going into an endless series of "undos" I think it'd help if you saw where the information on that page is coming from, as the writer gives his references in the "information sources" section of the site. Journals like Alsterworthia are pretty much as authoritative as you can get in this field. Also "Gasterias of South Africa, A new revision of a major succulent group by E. J. van Jaarsveld" is probably the best source you could ask for. Until those books are online themselves, in downloadable pdf (not any time soon I think) then the next best option for readable links are websites that use these books as their sources. So please stop trying to delete them. Abu Shawka (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Abu Shawka: It's still a self-published, user-generated source. The author of the blog is an HR employee of a power company in the Czech Republic. No where on the blog does he indicate he has credentials as an expert. He appears to be a well-traveled, self-taught horticulturalist, which is great, but it does not make his blog a source that Wikipedia can cite. It doesn't matter what sources his blog is citing -- that doesn't make his blog an acceptable or reliable source. You should directly cite the works that you describe above; limited access on your part is not an excuse for citing a source that may not be reliable. If you want to get your hands on these printed reliable sources, people at WP:PLANTS and WP:LIBRARY (the resource exchange), including myself, have been willing to request documents on other editor's behalf for the purpose of expanding articles on Wikipedia.
I think it's great that you've been working on these articles! There are so many areas where our plant articles are lacking, so anyone working on building them up is a great addition to the team. Anyway, the point here is that if a blog cites reliable sources that does not make the blog itself a reliable source. Go and find the original sources -- sometimes it takes a lot of work, but it's worth it. Wikipedia isn't meant to be an index of all the links you find relevant to the topic, whether it be a gallery or blog on the subject; see WP:ELNO, specifically number 11. If I can help you find the primary or secondary sources themselves in any way, I'll certainly try, but this blog cannot be a reference or external link. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure of the relevance of this distinction between "blog" and "website". Some blogs are a lot more authoritative than most websites (as you can see from this case) and a lot mroe so than most "references" on wikipedia. (Jakub is VERY well known in the field by the way. He's an amateur, but a very knowledgeable one. The credentials in my opinion are in the sources of information in the field, not in the poor chap's day job which you seem to take issue with.)
But back to your insistence that any sources must be 100% first hand.. If any website, regardless of how authoritative and comprehensive its references are, is insufficient as a citation, unless written by the actual expert in the field (ie. the botanist him/herself) then I am skeptical that any articles can be written on these species - at least until the original papers by the likes of van Jaarsveld and Bayer are online. Work on these articles does unfortunately need to stop until then. (Out of interest, for references, does wikipedia also disqualify books which cite scientists in the field but aren't actually group-written by the various scientists in person?)
Also, now that I think about it, what nutty sort of botanist is going to have written anything that can be used for an introductory section on Gasterias in gardening? I didn't realise it, but it would feel a bit like trying to cite Stephen Hawking for a section on the basics of lab hygiene. Are we actually hoping to find something by Ingo, Bruyns or Bruce Bayer on the basics of Gasterias in cultivation? What sort of scientific paper are we supposed to find for the basic fact that "Gasterias can be propagated by seed"? Jakub's already vastly overqualified to give information on that topic. Please advise, as beginner wikipedians like myself are likely to drop this whole effort if we're pushed to observe such unnecessarily pedantic standards for self-evident gardening info. Abu Shawka (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Abu Shawka: There is no practical distinction between a blog and website; anyone can create a blog or website and present it in a way that may make some thing it is a reliable source. While it may be presented by a knowledgeable amateur botanist, his blog is still not a reliable source. Heck, I'm working on my PhD and have a blog (not updated recently), and while my work there is as accurate as I can make it with references on many posts, it won't be a reliable source for the purpose of Wikipedia and should never be cited here.
Perhaps I wasn't exactly clear -- I meant that you should find sources (secondary and tertiary sources are fine!) that aren't passed through the interpretation of an unreliable source. The information presented by Jakub on his blog could very well be accurate and correct, but I'm sure he paraphrased his sources, added his own original thoughts, and without those sources in front of us, we cannot tease apart what information came from the reliable sources and what came from Jakub. In citing his blog, you are not citing his sources by proxy, you are citing him. In evaluating whether his blog was a reliable source, I identified the author and noted that he's an amateur, not a professional botanist, which is why I mentioned his job. This has nothing to do with whether the Jaarsveld and Bayer works are online -- many reliable sources are not online but cited frequently by Wikipedia editors. The work on those species articles can continue, just with better references. It's important that you are able to determine what is and is not a reliable source. I would suggest you find copies of the Jaarsveld and Bayer works to paraphrase and cite in these articles.
I think it may also useful if you read WP:RS in full. The type of publication, the author, and the publisher can determine whether a source is reliable. For example, a few years ago there was a geneticist at a university who published a book on his ideas on evolution (some, admittedly, quite far out there) through a novelty press -- the kind where you pay money to have a book published. There was no review process by other academics. He then came to Wikipedia and tried to insert references to his book on many articles, but aside from the obvious conflict of interest, it was quite obvious from his publishing method that it could not be used as a reliable source.
As for your questions on how to go about finding sources for cultivation information I'd first like to mention that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and so far I haven't come across anything you've written that could be interpreted that way. It's good to describe the cultivation of these species without telling readers how to do it (e.g. "Keep temperatures above freezing or the root stock will die" or "do not water in the winter" would not be good prose for Wikipedia). I'm sure there are excellent sources out there that describe cultivation of Gasteria and Haworthia. The Jaarsveld book published by Timber Press actually seems to describe their cultivation quite well. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for explaining. I think the vast majority of wikipedia pages don't comply with your standards though - and almost none of mine do. If such strict "paper" academic standards are required for all references, then I'm afraid, as I said, work needs to stop on these articles. At least until we have some full-time botanists working on them, who have access to the original paper copies of the journals etc. Or at least until works by Bayer and van Jaarsveld are digitised online (I don't see why anyone would trust a reference to a book that cannot be read & checked online - I could site it without even having read it!). Til then I'm out of here. Abu Shawka (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, please do feel free to continue on where I'm leaving off. I was beginning to work my way through the Haworthias and Gasterias. Maybe just note that Haworthia's recently been split according to its subgenera (Hexanbgulares to Haworthiopsis etc.) so one needs to sort of bear in mind with the articles that the genus name's likely to change very soon. Unfortunately most of the species don't have common names that be used instead (often only in Afrikaans). Gasteria at least is sound and won't change any time soon.Abu Shawka (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Abu Shawka: Yes, Wikipedia is still a work in progress and many articles are substandard, but that doesn't mean we lower the standards. These are not my standards; they are the encyclopedia's. There are indeed good reliable sources that are online, but blogs are not usually among them. And as I said earlier, the criteria for inclusion of anything in an article is verifiability, meaning that sources do not need to be online; other editors are capable of obtaining the sources and checking our work. I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of referenced used in plant articles are inaccessible on the internet to most users, usually because they are unavailable or behind paywalls. Writing good encyclopedic articles isn't easy and can't be if we expect readers to trust our work, but it does not require full-time botanists; amateurs are just as capable of writing clear articles referenced by reliable sources (likewise, we don't require professional biographers to write biography articles here, but we do have reasonable standards on sources). My intent was to inform you of the relevant guidelines, not to encourage you to quit writing articles. I'm sorry that has been the result. Please do consider carrying on with your edits even if it does seem a bit more difficult now. As I mentioned, there are ways to help you obtain the sources you need to continue. You already know these plants better than me and it would be a shame if you didn't try a bit harder to write articles with the better sources mentioned here. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Well thanks for the info Rkitko. For my part, I still don't see the sense in the rules you cite (they also seem extremely impractical for the digital age of websites as sources of info) but I do understand that they're policy so I'll step down and concede you have a point. I will however leave the plant species articles to people like you though; as you do have the paper copies of the books I understand. As I said, I've done the Astrolobas, the robustipedunculares Haworthias and some of the gasterias already, so feel free to carry on where I'm leaving off. All the best. Abu Shawka (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)