User talk:Sminthopsis84

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


I decided to read the article on squash, Cucurbita, and have come across something I want to ask you about. (I'll probably have other questions later on.) It is the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead:

"Lagenaria are in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita, but different tribes."

I was just wondering whether "but different tribes" was correct, not because of the word tribes, but because of its structure. I'm wondering whether it shouldn't read:

  • but are in different tribes, or
  • but in different tribes.

CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In the middle of the second paragraph in the section Cucurbita#Germination and seedling growth I found these two sentences, both of which need sorting out:

"Phytate forms in seeds tissues into spherical crystalline intrusions in protein bodies called globoids. The nutrients in globoids are eventually are completely during seedling growth".

I just wondered what you thought of the following sentence, which appears in the middle of the first paragraph in Cucurbita#History and domestication:

"The genus was part of the culture of almost every native peoples group from southern South America to southern Canada".

Specifically, I wondered about the phrase "every native peoples group". I know that "native peoples" is probably the right, modern, term, but still..."native peoples group" sounds a little odd. I wonder what the article Indigenous peoples of the Americas uses.

I'll leave that one to you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Finally, there is something I just don't understand, and I was wondering if you could explain it to me. It's in the middle of the second paragraph in Cucurbita#Description:

"There are male (staminate) and female (pistillate) flowers (unisexual flowers) on a single plant (monoecious), and these grow singly, appearing from the leaf axils. Flowers have five fused yellow to orange petals (the corolla), a green bell-shaped calyx, and are either male or female. Male flowers in Cucurbitaceae generally have five stamens, but in Cucurbita there are only three, and their anthers are joined together so that there appears to be one.[5][6] Female flowers have thick pedicels, and an inferior ovary with 3–5 stigmas that each have two lobes.[7][8] C. argyrosperma has ovate-cordate leaves and the corollas of its female flowers are larger than the male flowers".

The first sentence says "There are male...and female... flowers (unisexual flowers) on a single plant..." The next sentence says, "Flowers have five fused yellow to orange petals...and are either male or female". The subsequent sentences discuss first the male flowers and then the female flowers. I just don't understand how the first and second sentences can both be true. CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

All the flowers have similar calyces and corollas, but the middle parts are different depending on the sex. I've added a picture of a male flower, which I hope helps to explain that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the latest edit to Cucurbita? An editor added a third toxin, but it sounds an awful lot like the last one in the list. Just thought maybe it should be reviewed. CorinneSD (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back CorinneSD! Your computer seems to be working well, making the letters line up in neat rows and all. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm no expert on chemistry, but the two molecules look very different although the names are almost the same. Cucurbitacin is much more complex than Cucurbitin. Is it toxic though? I don't know how that is defined, but "causes degenerative changes in the reproductive organs of parasitic flatworms" sounds a bit like a toxic effect. As far as I can guess, the edit is okay. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hyssopus officinalis[edit]

Would you mind looking at Hyssopus officinalis? An editor changed a caption, but then I saw an image at the left side of the lead/lede. I've never seen an image to the left of the lead/lede in an article. CorinneSD (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the editor was worried that someone would take out the illustration in favour of a modern photo, which is less informative. Images are generally placed on the right, and that one was squishing the TOC on my screen, so I've moved it back to the right. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


I just started reading the article on Millet, and I have a few questions for you. (Let me know if you have had enough of my questions.)

1) In the first paragraph in the lead, it says:

"Millets are important crops in the semi-arid tropics of Asia and Africa…"

In the third paragraph in the lead it says:

"Millets have been important food staples in human history, particularly in Asia and Africa..."

Do you think that's an instance of duplication, or do you think both sentences are necessary?

(I hope I didn't mess up your efforts with some copyedits of my own -- can't help myself, have to change some things!) I think that later repetition could go, but not the whole sentence. I also think it would be good to break that sentence in two, so that "they have been in cultivation in East Asia for the last 10,000 years" doesn't suggest that the plants came from East Asia to Africa. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
No, you didn't mess up any of my edits. I broke up that sentence into two, as you suggested. I hesitated to take out "particularly in Asia and Africa" from the now second-to-last sentence in the third paragraph because this sentence is about being an important staple throughout history; the sentence in which Asia and Africa are mentioned in the first paragraph has to do with today. I don't know if there is a way to re-arrange the sentences to avoid that repetition. CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

2) Also, the third paragraph in the lead begins:

"While millets are indigenous to many parts of the world, millets most likely had an evolutionary origin in tropical western Africa..."

I'm just wondering if "most likely" isn't a bit weak for such a thoroughly studied plant. Do you think a more academic phrase would be better? CorinneSD (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I do know that it is very hard to trace the origin of cultivated plants exactly, and probably in this case there is no definite answer. "most likely" is a peculiarly American phrase though, likely to be mis-read by English speakers from elsewhere. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. CorinneSD (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

3) In the first line of the first paragraph in Millet#Description, there is a metric height range. I used the conversion template and it came out as:

"0.5 to 4 metres (1.6 to 13.1 ft)".
As I think we may have discussed elsewhere, that kind of decimal measurement for feet doesn't make much sense to readers who are used to feet and inches. I'm wondering what you would suggest. Could we round it off and say "1-1/2 to 13 feet"? And there are a few other measurements like that later. (I know one solution would be to just leave it alone, but I am curious to learn about these plants, and height is one interesting aspect of a plant.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a way to do that, described here, which is linked from the basic template documentation. It gives 0.5 to 4 metres (1 ft 8 in to 13 ft 1 in) Perhaps you'd want to combine that with other parameters. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I was amazed when I saw the first photo, the one of pearl millet. The leaves look like the leaves of corn and the tall spikes look a little like ears of corn with smaller kernels. I'm wondering whether millet and corn are related (I mean more related than wheat, for example). CorinneSD (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A beautiful plant. I sure I would have remembered it if I'd ever seen it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

4) At the beginning of the section on Millet#Millet varieties, after the initial Eragrostideae tribe millet, there are three types of millet under the heading Paniceae. I noticed that these three types are in this order:

  • the third most cultivated
  • the most cultivated
  • the second most cultivated
I guess they are in this order because they are in alphabetical order. Just wondered if you like this order, or whether they should be in order of most cultivated, second most cultivated, third most cultivated. (And the fourth most cultivated is before them.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Whichever you choose, someone will probably change it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

5) In the middle of the third paragraph in Millet#Production is the following sentence:

"As of 2005, the majority of millets produced in India is being used for alternative applications such as livestock fodder and alcohol production".

I was just wondering whether the verb following "the majority of millets produced in India" should be "are". It just sounds odd. Perhaps "millets" could be changed to "millet", but I see that the plural is often used in this article (I guess to include all the varieties). CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Or make millet singular. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Do we have to use "the majority of"? Can't we just say "most millet produced in India"? CorinneSD (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

6) Near the beginning of the section Millet#As a food source, there are quite a number of names of millet in different languages. They are all in italics except for "pangapullu", which is in quotation marks and seems kind of just stuck into the sentence with no punctuation. What do you advise? CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That might be because whoever added it tried to duplicate the coding, but didn't realized that it used two single quotes instead of one double. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

7) Toward the end of the section Millet#As a food source is the following paragraph:

"The use of millets as food has been falling on a per capita basis between the 1970s and the 2000s, both in urban and rural areas, as developing countries such as India have experienced rapid economic growth and witnessed a significant increase in per capita consumption of other cereals".

I was just wondering (a) whether "per capita" needs to be italicized as it is, and (b) whether "per capita" is even needed. CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that one of the "per capita"s is needed (because the total consumption might be increasing as population increases). I think the MOS is saying to set it in italics. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

8) The whole section Millet#Grazing millet needs work.

  • Syntax, phrasing and punctuation need to be improved.
  • There may be too much information on Shirohie millet.
  • Mostly in the second half of the section, several sentences read like a manual, using the imperative form of the verb: Do that…
You could zap that and point to WP:NOTHOW. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You'll enjoy this paragraph:
"Shirohie millet should not be overgrazed, and there is a risk of photosensitisation, so it is important to observe stock grazing millet regularly for symptoms which include enlarged ears (floppy), seeking shade, looking agitated or uncomfortable, constant head movement".
The plant may need counseling. CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Counselling (that's Canadian spelling) work for plants is what we do here! More anon. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
(See my question at the end of Item 5, above.)
I hope you didn't mind my removing "is" from the sentence in the lead. It was ungrammatical with "is". You must have read it quickly. You'll see my edit summary. I like the prepositional phrase there, but if you don't, we can put a semi-colon and change the prepositional phrase to a clause. CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that, I must have been squinting, or something. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I like to point things out and leave the job of fixing them to more knowledgeable editors. You're making me work! ;) CorinneSD (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the frequent use of the plural "millets" in this article. In English grains are usually used in the singular, or, to be more precise, the uncountable form: wheat, rice, corn, barley, flax... I know that at the beginning of the article it says, "Millets are a group of highly variable small-seeded grasses," and "They do not form a taxonomic group, but rather a functional or agronomic one", but, to me, (also in the lead), "Millets are an important crop" is not the best writing. It should be "Millet is an important crop" (lumping all the varieties into one word), or something like "Several varieties of millet are important crops." I have changed some instances of the plural to the singular (uncountable) in the Production section, but I'd like to change more instances of it if you approve. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I found an instance of some duplication of information, and I wonder what you think about it. Is it all right, or do you think it belongs in just one place?
"The use of millets as food fell between the 1970s and the 2000s, both in urban and rural areas, as developing countries such as India have experienced rapid economic growth and witnessed a significant increase in per capita consumption of other cereals."
"India is the world's largest producer of millet. In the 1970s, all of the millet crops harvested in India were used as a food staple. By the 2000s, the annual millet production had increased in India, yet per capita consumption of millet had dropped by between 50% to 75% in different regions of the country. As of 2005, most millet produced in India is being used for alternative applications such as livestock fodder and alcohol production. Indian organizations are discussing ways to increase millet use as food to encourage more production; however, they have found that some consumers now prefer the taste of other grains". CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, generally I don't mind a bit of duplication if it seems likely that a reader would use the TOC to jump to a section and read only that section. I'd entrust any changes to you. About plural versus singular: agronomists would be expected, I think, to favour accuracy over style, and the style here would probably be influenced by agronomic literature that a wikipedian was reading as a source. (Also, many agronomists are not native English speakers; e.g., much of the literature is in French.) Here, if accuracy and smooth readability are at odds, we'd also want to err on the side of accuracy, since that is the nature of an encyclopedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


I noticed that an editor just changed names of trees from capitalized to all lower case at Corsica. I don't know what proper capitalization is of tree species, so I thought I'd mention it so you can review the edits. CorinneSD (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: I think the style consensus is for lower case rather than capitalization of common names. The "Birds" people had a huge fight over this. I have no opinion about it, myself, other than the fact that a move to lower case seems to be the way things are moving. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we've lost some editors over that issue. Perhaps eventually clarity in writing will re-surface in the world. (I checked Holm Oak to see where the name came from, and apparently it is not named after a person or a place, so lower-case it usual.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

North American Phalanx[edit]

About a week ago I went through the article on North American Phalanx to improve syntax, punctuation, etc. A day or so ago, another editor, Carrite, who appears knowledgeable about the topic, began further editing, adding material to the article. Today, I noticed that the photos are different from what I remember. I wonder about the size of the first photo. It seems a little large, and in my screen view, leaves a large white space after the lead. I also wonder whether the three photos of the building (including one of an empty room and one of an old staircase) are not too much. I think, instead of at least one of those, an image of one of the more famous supporters would be more interesting. You're more experienced than I am regarding images, so I thought I'd ask you. CorinneSD (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@ CorinneSD - I've actually been gearing up for an extensive rewrite of North American Phalanx, but I got sidetracked yesterday when I realized that Wikipedia didn't even have an article on Fourierism, so I did that. I agree that 3 photos for that much text is "a bit much" but hopefully by the end of the day they will fit nicely, along with a couple more images that I will need to stir up. See Wisconsin Phalanx for comparison, which I was just working on. Charles Fourier is another article that needs some serious work and I will probably be on to that next. Graphic size is easy to tweak, I'll show you how to do that if you're needing to know, although it might be best if you give me a day to work because things are going to look different with more text to "break up"... Feel free to drop me a line directly on my talk page if you need to. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for taking care of that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because you're swell[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I enjoyed reading your user page and just wanted to say thank you for your work on behalf of The Project. It does actually matter. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Pineapple fibre extraction

How sweet of you! I thought about making you some nice pineapple string, but you probably already have some of that among your stuff. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


I can't stand to see plural pronouns (they, them) and possessive adjective (their) to refer to a singular subject. An editor changed "he or she" to "they", etc., at Pseudonym. I may even have added "he or she", etc., myself (months ago). I realize that a lot of "he or she", "him or her", and "his or her" is too much, but I don't like "they" when the antecedent is a singular noun. I thought about changing the subject to plural, but, when I looked at the subject noun, it didn't seem like the sentence would sound right with it made plural. Can you figure out a solution? Perhaps just use "he", "him", and "his"? Or rearrange the sentence? It's at Pseudonym#Monarchies. CorinneSD (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I suggest toning it down a bit by removing the relative clause "by which they will be known", and changing one of those instances back: "In many monarchies, the sovereign is allowed to choose a regnal name. This official name may differ from his or her first name and may not even be one of their given names at birth." Sorry, I can't help with the other two. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


An IP editor just added material to the article on Nutmeg. Thankfully, McGeddon put it into Standard English. However, there is one change made by the IP editor that I wanted to ask you about. Early in the section Nutmeg#Botany and cultivation, the IP editor changed "is grown in" to "is planted in". That kind of implies that it is planted in those places but maybe doesn't grow. I think "is grown in" is better. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of making it harder to read, I put in "cultivated". I suppose they thought it meant that the plants were native there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
"Cultivated" sounds fine. I made a few more edits. CorinneSD (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Mentzelia laevicaulis 2.jpg The Blazing star barnstar
For stellar contributions that improve botany and plant related articles.
 :) FloraWilde (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, what a beautiful plant. You are making a major contribution to plant articles too! (I wonder if there's another plant also called Blazing Star, or perhaps that's Shooting Star … I'll have to look around for documentation.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Liatris. (And I second the commendation.) Choess (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I've made a start at Blazing star (disambiguation). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


I just read the article on Milkweed. It was generally well-written. I just made a few minor copy-edits. I just wanted to mention that in the list of species, there is one "citation needed" tag and a few species are missing photos, in case you want to find the missing information. Also, I wonder why "native to...." is missing from a lot of the species. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a big genus that needs more taxonomic work, and so, for example, is missing from the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. That makes it more difficult to check a species list to see that it is up-to-date, or to run through it to see where each species is native. Actually, that's an incomplete list that could be made much longer. It looks as if the effort to add native ranges started from the the top of the list and didn't get to the end. I expect that various editors, as I did just now, decided that although it might be nice to add information, the first step should be to revise the species list, and we don't have an adequate source for that in the usual places (perhaps there is one, but it would take serious searching to find it). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


In case you don't have Anise on your watch list, I thought I'd mention that an editor has added some information to the article. It appears to be added in good faith, but there are some grammatical and spacing errors. I can't judge the content or the references. Do you want to take a look at it? CorinneSD (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite weird, I wonder where they got that "corrected" German spelling from; it almost fits that classic challenge to find a phrase that gives exactly one hit in a google search. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering about that, too. I had never heard of that classic challenge. I can see how that would be an irresistible challenge to some. I also wonder why people add material to articles without first reading the information about editing and adding material on Wikipedia. CorinneSD (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Rosa 'Souvenir de la Malmaison'[edit]

Imagine the scent ...

Hello Sminthopsis84,
I just saw your new article and wanted to ask you plan to write more cultivar articles or if that was a special case... I'm asking, as I decided to work a bit on Book:Roses - and mainly on the rose cultivars as that's what I know best from commons - and 'Souvenir de la Malmaison' was on my list of articles to write (which at the moment is quite low on my to do list, as I don't like those rose stubs... ;->).
Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anna, I saw you work on 'Veilchenblau', upgrading it from a small stub to something worth reading -- nice! I don't expect to have much time to work on rose cultivars, but was doing a little bit because I'm particularly frustrated by the poor coverage of the classic groups of rose cultivars. Actually, I'm generally frustrated by the lack of respect for traditional plant breeding and traditional agriculture and horticulture (important skills that mustn't die out, I'd say). I think we should have a page about each of the groups like moss roses (other than Rosa × centifolia), and Bourbon roses, but adding a few cultivars first seemed like a suitable foundation for that, even if they were just stubs. 'Souvenir de la Malmaison' has quite a few places already where a link was wanted, so I thought it was time to make a start on it. It's good to meet you here! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm really glad about your comment about Rosa 'Veilchenblau', because at the moment I'm assessing my own changes - which is really strange for me, as I don't know that much about the quality scales (I did ask for a reference, though), but it has to be done if I want to have my changes reflected in the assessment of the rose book.
And you are right that there should be articles about the different cultivar groups, but that's a much bigger project than to work from time to time on a cultivar.
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry that I can't help with the assessment process: I've found some procedures intended to improve the quality of pages, such as GA and DYK, to be so stressful that I don't participate in them; we've lost editors because they were attacked during those procedures. Sad-tpvgames.gif Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The good thing is that an article about a cultivar probably can't get better than C-class - so I don't have to fear those procedures ;-> Anna reg (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Smile.png Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


I was just looking at the latest edit to Cucurbita and found something that may need fixing. In the first paragraph of the lead, it mentions "(bottle-)gourd", just like that. However, in my screen view, the word broke between the hyphen and the close-parenthesis, so it looks like:


I don't know if there is anything that can be done to ensure that the word doesn't break there. Are the parentheses around "bottle-" really necessary?

Also, can you take a look at this paragraph in Edit Mode? There is a note to editors at "squash" that I don't understand.

Finally, I may be wrong, but it looks like cucumbers are in this family, and, if so, shouldn't there be at least one picture of a cucumber or two in the article? CorinneSD (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I was just looking at those edits, which are quite hard to follow. I can't think what could be done about that hyphenation problem on a narrow screen. I think I've made sense of the comment about squash, but I think that should mean that the formatting should be bold rather than italics, but some other editors care so strongly about that sort of thing that I won't touch it. Cucumbers are in the same family, Cucurbitaceae, but a different genus, Cucumis, with melons (that always seems strange to me, the textures being so different). Did you see the list of fruit that ripen after picking? I learned only recently that honeydew melons are worth buying, you don't have to pick them ripe from the vine, but really have no personal information about watermelon not ripening after harvest. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at those lists of fruit that ripens after picking and fruit that does not ripen after picking, and I wondered why "apple" was not on either list. Re the formatting, before I go looking for technical help, are you saying that the way it is written, with "bottle-" in parentheses, is all right? An alternative would be to call it bottlegourd or bottle-gourd and add (sometimes just "gourd"), or something like that. CorinneSD (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It might be hard to source the information about individual fruit types. I've looked in plant physiology text books and found very little, just one or two examples of climacteric and non-climacteric fruit. Rewriting the gourd bit sounds fine; I meant that I couldn't see a way to fix it, but I have now discovered how to make a non-breaking hyphen if that helps: replace the hyphen with ‑ Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Shall I change "(bottle-)gourd" to "bottle-gourd" and use the no break hyphen, or should it be bottlegourd? CorinneSD (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd vote for bottle-gourd, but I come from a culture that believes that hyphens are useful, and some other people apparently believe them to be mere irritants (hence the "copyeditors" who change pre-dates to predates, changing a statement about time to one about eating). Presumably the original text was trying to say that some people call them gourds and some people call them bottle-gourds, so I'd expect that there might be protests if it were changed to just bottle-gourds. I don't know. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I like hyphens, too, except for a few words that have been considered one word for quite a while. I think the hyphen aids in comprehension as one is reading, and a missing hyphen often creates a bit of unnecessary confusion for the reader. I asked on the technical page about the hyphen in "(bottle-)gourd" and was given a template, so I added it. Maybe I told you this already. I'd love to know what prompted your campaign to take a stand and withhold your editing labor on Mondays. CorinneSD (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
That template is good to know about.
An unknown number of people are taking Mondays off as a combination protest and coping mechanism. There is some discussion here. The malaise to which it is a response affects other wikiprojects, not just this one. We need some serious study of what editor-retention efforts might work, and I believe that needs to be a central effort from WMF and would cost actual money. The internal efforts, i.e., those done by unpaid people like us, (e.g., this) don't work. Inadequate training or vetting of admins is a serious problem. There seems to be no way to counter some aggressively ignorant people who take up ownership of articles and even entire wikiprojects or processes. The Featured Article process is supposed to be a way to counter the loss of expert editors, but I see it as the opposite because it provides a stage for the aggressively ignorant to perform on. It's nice to see the new Time Card component of the Edit Count tool, which would start to show a Monday gap. I'm still considering what to do about vandalism and idiocy that occur on a Monday, because rapidly fixing all that on Tuesday would be quite painful. If the vandals and POV pushers get wind of this protest they might concentrate their activities on Monday … It would be so nice if all editing were locked out one day per week, a day of rest. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


I just finished reading the article on Flax. I found many instances of awkward wording. I fixed some of them but left others, unsure of the best way to fix them. If and when you have time, perhaps you could go through the article. I think you'll find some of the ones I left. If you don't see them, I'll point them out. Also, in the section on "Threshing", there is a list that is kind of in the instructional tone of a manual. I don't know what you want to do with that. CorinneSD (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It might take me a while to get to that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello Sminthopsis84,
as you write that you understand some German, I'd like to ask if you could help me by checking a small German-English vocabulary I made for rose terms (e.g. the double - gefüllt translation ;->). The link would be here. --Anna reg (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've put some comments in another column of the table, so you should be able to revert easily to remove them. The main rose book I have strangely doesn't define those terms, though it has a glossary with terms like pinnatifid and triploid. There's a quite good list of English terms here. In some of the suggestions a hyphen can be used or not, but I've put what I think is the most common spelling. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot - as I use helpmefind a lot for the commons galleries, I'm recognise most of the terms, but don't know them well enough to remember them when I have to translate from German to English (and the literature I can easily get my hands on is entirely in German). And I didn't know about the list - that could really be useful - I'll definitely have a look at it! --Anna reg (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


I wondered if you care to attempt to answer the question posed in a note to editors in 2009 in Crataegus#Landscaping. CorinneSD (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have never seen that statement in print, and have doubts about its accuracy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Crataegus#Landscaping is quite accurate - except for the water landscaping - but my experience is they do well beside water, yes, But nothing well documented - as far as I know. Was this the question? Hafspajen (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think you both read the right statement. The statement is:
"Hawthorns are among the trees most recommended for water conservation landscapes."
The note to editors is:
"Citation needed reason = in what part of the world? Not in dry parts of the US, where they grow only near water."
I think there are two issues here. 1) Is the statement accurate and sourced properly? and 2) The question left there in May 2009. Perhaps the editor was thrown off by the phrase "water conservation landscapes". I'm not sure what that means, either. CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I had assumed that a "water conservation landscape" was one that required little added water; perhaps it was intended to mean planting around the edge of a dam. It seems strange to me in either case, and I'd vote for removing it. Five years seems long enough to wait for a citation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Just wondered if you had seen all the edits to Rhubarb. CorinneSD (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The reversion is correct. WP:PLANTS decided to follow the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification which is available online and is constantly updated as new research becomes available. It has a rather large order Caryophyllales, which differs from the scheme that was used by most authors a couple of decades ago. Undoubtedly, the person who changed it to Polygonales was looking at one of those old "authoritative" references. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


I've been reading the article on Camellia. I had no idea before I read this article that it was the tea plant. I have a few questions:

1) In the first paragraph of the lead is the following sentence:

"The genus was named by Linnaeus after the Jesuit botanist Georg Joseph Kamel, who worked in the Philippines, though he never described a camellia."
The pronoun "he" in "though he never described a camellia" is, I would guess, Georg Joseph Kamel, but I think it is slightly ambiguous (it could possibly refer to Linnaeus). If it is, in fact, Kamel, I suggest revising the sentence so that it is clearer:
"The genus was named by Linnaeus after the Jesuit botanist Georg Joseph Kamel, who worked in the Philippines but never described a camellia."
What do you think?

2) The last sentence in Camellia#Use by humans reads:

"Camellia oil pressed from seeds of C. japonica, also called tsubaki oil or tsubaki-abura (椿油) in Japanese, has been traditionally used in Japan for hair care."
I think the word "also" is not needed here. "C. japonica" is not a Japanese word. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Those changes both sound good. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Opopanax, Bdellium[edit]

Hi, I see you've sorted an issue at Opopanax. I suspect the same goes for Bdellium? There could be others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen the recent drastic change on Bdellium. At this point I'm rather upset about the Opopanax change, expecting to be reverted there, so I'm not sure how much I can do, hence my appeal for other WP:PLANTS editors to look at that problem. Good to know about it; perhaps in time we can smooth out the wrinkles. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'll try and support if you get reverted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Biological classification[edit]

I agree that this is very tricky to word (as we've found before with most articles about taxonomic topics). However, I think your edit went too far in rewording "used to group and categorize organisms into hierarchically ranked groups from domain and kingdom down to genus and species" into "used to group and categorize organisms into groups such as genus or species." The point that was lost was that classification involves hierarchies; clade-based systems are just as hierarchical as rank-based ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we could restore the 'hierarchical' at least, even if there are exceptions. Overwhelmingly, the post-Linnaean scheme is a hierarchy. If we don't think that, the article needs rewriting! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good. I should have also mentioned when I restored that paragraph that the previous version was not good (edit summaries are a bit on the small side sometimes). Actually, as Peter says, I'm also not sure that there are exceptions, are there? In my experience, nothotaxa are placed into a classification through polytomies, e.g., Crataegus nothosection Cragaeguineae has the hybrids between sections Crataegus and Sanguineae, but it is the same rank as the parental sections. From what I've seen of Phylocode, I think that would be no different. If people really want to talk about network relationships they use discordant cladograms, I think, not classifications, e.g. one from an organelle genome (chloroplast or mitochondrion) and one from nuclear or morphological data. I do think that the whole article needs a lot of careful polishing with accompanying careful discussion, but it and related articles such as Species have been subject to, and probably always will be subject to, some ill-informed changes that make it quite difficult. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
The Special Barnstar is awarded to a user as a gesture of appreciation when there is no other barnstar which would be appropriate. Hafspajen (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WIKILOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have WIKILOVE!!!!!!!! YIPPIEE! Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! It is nice to have it here, and very nice of you to use it! Over in the grumpy project there's been a bit of progress towards maybe being able to translate the system messages, which would be a necessary foundation for getting wikilove working there. The grumpies probably would never agree to ask for wikilove, but being able to translate messages for that project using might have other benefits, perhaps. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, knew I am [going to be reverted]... Not humorous enoug? Hafspajen (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Probably too humorous. I responded on the talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I thought it was rather funny. Hafspajen (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Some other people seem to have been born without a funny bone. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Face-sad.svg Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC) .

A cup of High tea for you![edit]

Lobby Lounge High Tea.JPG For no reason at all. Just because it is there. Hafspajen (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Have some of it yourself, it looks delicious. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


You deleted my edit in Opopanax and keep reverting the article to an inferior version, and you left only a cryptic and general template on my talk page. What's wrong? --El Cazangero (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked over the page history, and it seems to me that Sminthopsis84 is quite correct to revert your changes. All the sources I've looked at confirm that "opopanax" is a term with a very confused meaning (see the definitions here and here). You are picking out one sense and making it the meaning in the article. It's never quite clear to me what the best solution is in such cases; if enough information is available perhaps more than one article might work. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
He mutilated the article by putting the history section into the introduction, and he deleted a referenced sentence stating that Commiphora erythrea was the ancient source of myrrh, while today it is Commiphora myrrha.
Identifying ancient plants is a difficult matter to start with, in addition, many plant names have changed their meaning throughout history. For biblical plants, the older literature is Loew, Zohary and Moldenke, aside from Feliks, who wrote the plant entries of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2nd ed.), but none of their important works is available through Google books. --El Cazangero (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
"deleted a referenced sentence stating that Commiphora erythrea was the ancient source of myrrh, while today it is Commiphora myrrha": please point to that statement in the page history, I can't see it. You are mutilating a number of articles by removing disambiguation information intended to help the reader. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It is actually there as the penultimate sentence of the History section in this version. However, if you look at the referenced source here it's not clear that it's well supported. The relevant bit is in the last paragraph of the first column on p. 4 where, as far as I can make out, the authors are actually repeating information from their reference 3, so if it is used in the article it should be sourced to Tucker, A.O. (1986) Frankincense and Myrrh, Econ Bot 40, 425–433, or to this source cited in Hanuš et al. (2005) if we can't get hold of the Tucker paper.
Also the botany in Hanuš et al. (2005) is very confused. Look at col. 1 p. 6 as just one example. There they have "Commiphora myrrha Holmes" twice, "Commiphora myrrh [sic] (Nees) Engler" once, and then plain "Commiphora myrrha". Are these meant to be the same species? They have "C. molmol Engl. ex Tschirch (Somalian myrrh)" as a distinct species on p. 4, "C. molmol (Engl.) Engl." explicitly as a synonym of Commiphora myrrha (Nees) Engl. on p. 7, and then later on the same page (p. 7) "[a] natural product isolated first from Commiphora molmol and later from Commiphora myrrh [sic] oil". Basically it's an unreliable source for any botanical information, however reliable the chemistry may be. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. The ancient descriptions are of great interest, but they are difficult to relate to modern species; the best we can do is to cite the ancient and modern sources, and state clearly from them what the possibilities and uncertainties are. This goes for all the articles involved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi S, re your edit summary and previous edits [1] no piping is allowed (apart from style) for links at the start of an entry per WP:MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 19:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit I was combatting destroyed the structure for readers over this minor point. Another editor has found what I hope is a solution to this fracas, without piping, so the style is inferior. That person's attempt to improve the style by using piping was also reverted. What ever happened to the notion that WP:MOS is a guideline rather than something that must be obeyed, or what of WP:BOLD, for that matter? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Something of interest?[edit] .. Hafspajen (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice. Nice parrots too. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
What happened to Corinne??? It's now 5 days ago she edited... Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. She has taken wikibreaks before. I was going to ask when I have finished the task on Flax that she asked me to do. You could email her … Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, not me. I promised not to enable e-mail to wikipedia on our computers. Hafspajen (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll do that then (I love my email filters). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Anything back? Hafspajen (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back CorinneSD! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
THERE SHE IS. And already discovered a couple of things too.. Face-smile.svg Hafspajen (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm glad to be back, but I don't know how long my computer will hold out. I was just looking at the main page for commons and in the menu at the right where it says "Content" and then lists topics such as "Nature", under "Nature" it says "Plantae". Why can't it just say "Plants", similar to "Fossils"? CorinneSD (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That page can only be edited by admins, and I don't know how the multi-lingual features work in Commons. No fungi, either, or various other groups like slime-moulds, bacteria, minerals … Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Commons makes a distinction between commons:Category:Plantae, which is the top of the taxonomic hierarchy for the plant kingdom, and commons:Category:Plants, which is for things related to plants. Here we don't, which is why you get categories like Category:Palms which has what I find to be a strange mixture of taxon-related articles and others. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
What a peculiar set of things are listed in commons:Category:Plants, I hadn't seen that before. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
But in addition to that, don't you think just the word "Plants" would be more informative for the average reader than "Plantae"? CorinneSD (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I do, but then what would you call commons:Category:Plants? Part of the problem with categories is that you can't have redirects (see WP:CATRED) so you can't provide alternative more meaningful names in addition to "disambiguated" ones. Anyway, this would be a matter for the admins at Commons. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


Do you agree with the latest edit to Walnut? CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was a good start. What a hodge-podge of poor-quality inappropriate citations. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hyssopus officinalis 2[edit]

Can you look at the latest edit to Hyssopus officinalis? I'll leave judging the edit itself up to you, but in the middle of the sentence it says "to purify this type of food", and, since the only food that was mentioned was bread, what is the need for "this type of food"? CorinneSD (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. It would require a biblical scholar with the right specialty or reading the work of Porphyry (philosopher) to understand that, I think. I also wonder about the purgative effects mentioned, whether that is the medical sense of purgative, or to do with religious purifying. I read enough to see the hyssop was used to anoint various things for purifying them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
On further consideration, I've done what I can there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


Is there delicious warm beetroot juice in that samovar?
Chocolate Beetroot Brownies

Perhaps you could take a look at the latest edits to Beetroot just to check their accuracy. Besides that, I was wondering what you thought of the double image at the beginning of the article. It's the only article I've seen with that type of image at the beginning of an article. If one is chosen for the beginning, I would choose the one of the beets with their stalks and leaves. Perhaps the cross section could be placed a little later in the article. Just a thought. CorinneSD (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the two photos look better stacked like that, but I think they should be separated. I would like to see the first picture, the one with the stems and leaves, a little larger (so that the roots are clearly visible) and the one with the cross section a little smaller. If you agree, you can go ahead and change them, or I will try to work on it (using the instructions I've read in the WP picture tutorial). Also, I think the picture of the glass of beet juice lower down in the article should be a little smaller and the picture of the pickled beets just slightly larger. If you're too busy, I'd be glad to work on this. If I have problems, I would ask Hafspajen. But I would be glad if you would do it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that all sounds good. I think I should stop working on the article for a while, both because I have other things to do and because someone might feel that what I've done so far is too drastic, if it reverts their edits. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Who did that. Hafspajen (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hafs, if you agree with me, would you make the changes in the images? Then I can see how you did it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Hafs: I don't mean anyone in particular, but in the past I've had people suddenly accuse me of violating WP:3RR because I made 3 unrelated edits within 24 hours on the same page, clearly not understanding what "revert" means. (The facts that some admins can't count to 3 or don't know what "more than 3" means are other issues that I've seen.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Who did that? Hafspajen (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Shh, admins. But actually, now that I check, Smile.png a certain person retired at the end of 2013, and another aggressive individual (an administrator hopeful) has made very few edits in the last month. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Huh. Like beetroot?Hafspajen (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The First Men in the Moon

Hmm. As a professional naturalist, I had always thought that it was made of green cheese. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see my update to Talk:Beetroot. Thanks. n2xjk (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Almond COI edit[edit]

Hi, I'm writing to ask if you could take a look at a COI request I've posted to the Talk page for the Almond article. I noticed you have a history of working on the article and I'd appreciate it if you could consider a fact correction I've suggested. I'd be very grateful for any feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I wonder how those things happen. The citation made no such statement; it's as if a wikipedian saw that there was some mention of water shortages and concluded that it must be a new phenomenon affecting the almond crop; perhaps they read only one or two words. It makes one wonder if people or bots are writing this encyclopedia. Anyway, I've made the changes. I decided not to use one of your suggested sources because it was rather flamboyantly pro-almond. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

El Cazangero[edit]

Finding more copyvio at Queen of Sheba. A shame. He means well I'm sure but doesn't understand our policies and thinks we are somehow doing something nefarious by bringing them up. We'll see how he responds to my edits and my posts to his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You did a very nice job of trying to explain this to him; I hope the message gets through. It would be a pity to have to bring a CCI down on him, but that may be necessary to protect wikipedia. Some of his inserted text is small enough that with lots of effort we could probably just fix it, but unfortunately there are other misunderstandings that get in the way of that. He has been arguing with several editors about changes that make a muddle for readers; some evidence is above at #Opopanax, where he accuses me of mutilating an article by inserting material into the lead section. He doesn't seem to see hyperlinking and encyclopedic structure as good things. I'm not sure if you have been looking at the articles he has been working on about plant-derived products, Opopanax, Balsam, Bdellium. There is a serious problem there that is not his fault, that he is using poor sources. There are materials by botanists (I'm still tracking one of those down) that discuss the plants and say that much misinformation has been copied and re-copied, and it is that misinformation that he has found. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Botany isn't at all my field, and apologies to all and especially User:Hafspajen, I hate beetroot. But it appears the problems may be worse than I thought. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem, Doug, just go and hate it, no worries (the beetroot). Hafspajen (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Beetroot brownie recipes on the Web look quite good, might get the stove working to try those out. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I've made a CCI request at WP:CCI. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(SSss.. Think about poor Doug... hope they taste good... ) Hafspajen (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I'll try to keep watch for a CCI list to be constructed, and I should be able to help with the clean-up. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

OLPC in Afghanistan[edit]

Hi, thx for helping with editing. Not sure how to most efficiently reply. Do I do that here or between the lines at my page where you left the comment ... but then how would you ever find out? As references I posted 1. the link to the youtube video where you have the olpc afghanistan responsable being interviewed. She's mentions 5.000 there. 2. the olpc Afghanistan pages on the that's where we - the olpc community gather and document our advances. You don't get an access just like that and if you'd dare to mess with deployment numbers or factual data, you'd be kicked out. Hope that's enough? --SvenAERTS (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


What is Corinne saying? Hafspajen (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Computer problems, I think. By the way, the chocolate-beetroot brownies turned out very beautiful to look at, perfect texture, elegant colour … unfortunate beetrootish aroma. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, memories, flowers =citation, a classic:**pruning roses with one's teeth is always fun'**

WUUH, HOW CONFUSING. I had perfectly acceptable carrot cakes - were very nice. At Hermans Lilla Gröna. NiceHafspajen (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been there! Didn't have carrot cake. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Have you BEEN THERE+ When? Hafspajen (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
July 2013. Perhaps they should have a sign on the door "Warning, Wikipedians might be within" (however you say that in Swedish). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Ha. Were you on vacation? Hafspajen (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Pure vacation. Went, of course, to look at botanical gardens, Linné's in Upsala and the Bergianska. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I worked at Haga a while. And studied two years in Uppppsala ... lucky me they didn't throw me in the river. Hafspajen (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I liked Haga. I took a photo of swans with their babies there that people who've seen it say is so cute they would never look at such a picture, it just looks like a mass-produced sort of thing. I guess they are saying trashy. Yes, that river looks hard to climb out of. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
When you start the university is a tradition to throw a couple of the new students in the river. Hafspajen (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Here it's just the engineers, and they dye one another purple. Other people try to stay away from campus for the first week of the year because they are very noisy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
mmm, like Lantmästare in Alnarp. Hafspajen (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Rembrandt Peale - Rubens Peale with a Geranium - Google Art Project.jpg The First New World Horticultural Triumf Geranium.
Rubens Peale with his Geranium, 1801 Hafspajen (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Now you are of course not allowed to vote on it, but hey, it is something, growing the very first geranium... only a botanist would appreciate that. Hafspajen (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nicely accurate painting; the plant looks a bit water-deprived. We never see cultivated plants like that any more with such narrow petals. It's easy to imagine that cuttings from that plant must have been distributed at the maximum rate a plant could produce. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
How very nice to hear YOUR OPPINION on the topic. Att the nomination it developed into a sexy thing .. was starting casting anxious glaces on geraniums if they are going to make me proposals ... Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. A child I know calls them geranipongs, using the etymology listed as #2 in wiktionary. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you by the way take a look at Crisco's talk the Unidentified flower section and see if you can help identifying them --.oh thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sminthopsis84. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 22:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica1000 22:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Identify species, cultivar.[edit]

Is this Lillium auratum? Oh yes, I think so.

Hafspajen (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC), Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It is high enough. And thin enough, the petals. Lilium regale can't be because those are pinkish, not yellow - but then it can be those too... or Lilium candidum or Lilium auratum. Hafspajen (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cardiocrinum giganteum
Cardiocrinum giganteum, RBGE 2010, 3.jpg
The golden stripes down the middle of the tepals indicate L. auratum, and the way they curve is not the same as L. speciosum or L. regale (which is more trumpet-shaped, a less open flower). I think Sargent has captured the curvature perfectly. Different varieties of that species have different amounts of red, this one with red spots and red anthers. It's not Cardiocrinum giganteum. An old book I have (Consider the Lilies by William Emerson Marshall, 1927), calls that type of marking L. auratum var. auratum, "The old type white with gold bands and spotted maroon", in contrast to var. whittei with no spots and broad yellow bands, var. pictum with crimson spots and crimson-tips (as well as the yellow bands), var. platyphyllum with yellow bands and spots, and var. rubro-vittatum with red bands and spots. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It's definitly not - not Cardiocrinum giganteum, I planted some and it grew almost to 1.80 meter - (six feet) - that is a giant blasted big plant. Hafspajen (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wonder about that bush .. too. At the entrance. Blue flower.

Our article Cardiocrinum giganteum is pretty crappy on it. Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • 'German article: From a seed grow Cardiocrinum typologies over five years in an increasingly dense rosette of large, heart-shaped, pure green leaves with a gloss finish. From the Blühreife they develop a high, unbranched flower stem. With the onset of flowering in early June hanging on flower stalk four to twenty pure white, up to 20 cm long, tubular trumpet-shaped flowers that smell clearly and comfortably. The flowers can have a purple stripe at the bottom. In addition to the "standard" generative propagation through pollination and seed multiply Cardiocrinum typologies vegetatively. The plants die after seed maturity, but make it up to ten daughter bulbs, gain according to size in three to five years again Blühreife. All species of the genus Cardiocrinum are in Asia home. They prefer locations in the penumbra as well as loose and well fertilized, always slightly moist peat based soil. The Himalayan giant lily ( Cardiocrinum giganteum ) is sometimes found as plant rarity on the market. From lilies to her breeders will often also a "place of honor" awarded among the lilies. Another use for Cardiocrinum typologies is not known.
James Tissot - La Partie carrée.jpg

I imagine you can find some inspiration in this gurgel translation spiced with some mystical statments about Blühreife... Hafspajen (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That translation's funny, as is that picture at Cardiocrinum giganteum of possibly the smallest plant to ever flower. My neighbour has it. It blooms every year, didn't take five years to make the Blühreife. We also need an article on Jardin Jungle Karlostachys translated (and trimmed) from the French wikipedia but I've sworn not to create new pages until they stop putting people's names on this list when they have asked not to be on such lists. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The bush is hard to guess. It's in California, so Ceanothus seems likely, perhaps nearing the end of blooming. I think I've seen Rosemary in just such a rich blue too. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes a real tiny specimen in the article ... Well, if they plant it between two rocks, won't get bigger... Shall I or shall you - change that picture? Hafspajen (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
My guess was also Ceanothus, but are they so small? Hafspajen (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia says of Ceanothus parvifolius "growing to a maximum height of just over a meter, forming a wide bush". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hm, it is. But wich is the one that climbes then? Hafspajen (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
A cunning system for reminding visitors that bees are and should always be(e) a part of the garden.
They don't grow here at all. Perhaps Ceanothus arboreus. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, very clever of you. No, we don't grow it either, of course - we have about the same climate, that is why I was unsure... It's at Sissinghurst Castle Garden in the garden, on a wall. Presumably a south wall. Hafspajen (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My gurgel translate will not go his thing at the Frech wiki. It is stucked - or I was editing it too much, so now it thinks I am French. Can you provide me with a gurgel translation in User:Hafspajen/Jardin_Jungle_Karlostachys whatever? The rest I can manage if you do the copyed later. Hafspajen (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's at User:Hafspajen/Jardin_Jungle_Karlostachys. I ungurgeled it slightly, e.g., by changing hectare back from acre, but it is still quite a bizarre translation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! I will gaze on it soon, just have to be wintery for a while - promised. Do you or do you not take this giant lily and change it to your faithful weeded article? Hafspajen (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The blue-flowered shrub: most Ceanothus are difficult to clip to a nice rounded shape in my experience, and the branch structure of prostrate cultivars tends to be more horizontal than in the pic, however this cultivar (C. griseus 'Yankee Point') looks quite similar, if not quite as neat. It's a bit odd though, if it is a Ceanothus, that the photographer doesn't recognise something as common as that in California...? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a pretty thing; I wish it would grow here. Would wikipedia fund one of us, do you suppose, to go there and take a photo of the leaves? I was imagining tiny leaves, but that is probably something that happens when the picture isn't well focused. To the right of the entryway it looks as if the same species might be there, but so brutally clipped that most of it is hardly blooming at all. Sminthopsis84 (talk)

These are part of a very wild forest environment Hafspajen (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Some of these expressions like of sages pushing tuft (Clumping) - makes me feel weird. What is that. Hafspajen (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 :-) Like some kind of herbal soup with lumps in it. So I worked on that a bit. "Beech" is a guess for hêtres, are they orange in Europe? I wondered about Carpinus, but the Hêtre page doesn't list that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Balm of Gilead[edit]

There is another discussion on the talk page, or rather, I've started a discussion and another editor is trying an edit-war instead. Some kind of help would be useful. Lovely photos of Sissinghurst, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem there has become so large that I haven't been able to see a way in to cleaning it up. Your efforts are commendable! Perhaps the way to approach it is to fix one page thoroughly, Balm of Gilead, and then worry about the redirects and all the other pages afterwards. (I'm a bit disabled at present because someone insisted that my computer's operating system had to be upgraded, and now my bibliography software doesn't work. Perhaps in 2 or 3 days I'll be able to work effectively again.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Lemon guava[edit]

I've always thought of lemon guava as referring to Psidium littorale, and most of the Google results for "lemon guava" seem to agree with this usage. Does "yellow guava" get used much for P. guajava in places where it is not the "common" guava? Plantdrew (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, my personal experience is really no guide, as it is that of a child growing up (as an adult I don't encounter them at all). I was reacting to the name "common guava" for Psidium guajava, when in my experience it is a fruit imported from warmer climates that few people would learn to eat who know guavas as the ornamental shrub with fruit that taste like toothpaste and are only useful for making jelly (Acca sellowiana). The name Yellow Guava is something that I only found on GRIN. When people started marketing selected feijoa cultivars as a wonderful new crop, I think it was hard to convince southern Australians to try them ("yechh, it's just a pineapple guava!"). I might have heard Apple Guava, but they look like lemons and not like apples so ... It seems to me now that Lemon Guava filled a role as a clear contrast to Pineapple Guava, but perhaps I mis-remember. "True guava" is probably the most common description that I've heard for Psidium guajava. Psidium cattleyanum is a nasty weed] in Australia, so I doubt that yellow-fruited forms of it are noticed or given names. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Fylbecatulous. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Hafspajen/Jardin Jungle Karlostachys, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 12:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this message goes out automatically when I use page curation. I checked it as unreviewed and hid categories just until it goes live into article space. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 13:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hello, this is Fylbecatulous. Fylbecatulous, this is Sminthopsis84. Face-grin.svg Hafspajen (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Full Smiley.png ... Fylbecatulous talk 13:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Hello. Thank you for that. I should have used that little colon at the start of the categories, forgot ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I simply can't figure out if the exotic plants are indoors, outdoors, how many where - how many of them are endemic and how many imported. Hafspajen (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we have an error in the English version, the French doesn't say that it is tropical. Brassaiopsis mitis is from Bhutan, so that would fit well with Rhododendron. This seems to be a jungle garden with cool-climate plants from near the equator. The Eucalyptus are the kind called "snow gum" because they grow on mountains that have snow. So I think these are growing outside where the web site says the temperature gets down to -18C. No information on how many species are introduced; I guess that would change as they get interested in new ones. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
'Exotic is maybe not the right word then -or? And I was studying pictures and there is some kind of conservatory, I saw the glass walls. Wish we had some English sources, the only one keeps comming is just French things like this. and thisHafspajen (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite maybe knows? Hafspajen (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, found 1 English Hafspajen (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that English site is wrong when it says it is tropical. Plants from equatorial regions seems appropriate, but a clumsy way to say it that could be more neatly covered by "exotic plants". So we need to get five people together and pay the 50 euros and investigate this thoroughly. I suppose you could try asking user:Karlostachys. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Paley is closest, he just have to take the train to Dover, pice of cake -and the boat over to Normandie. Hafspajen (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A casual look suggests the plants contained in the garden are chosen more according to their 'jungly' appearance, rather than a specific provenance, so I'd agree that "tropical" isn't a good description. Maybe "jungle-style planting"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, while I was working on the "philosophy" section, I also took out the use of the word "tropical" in the first paragraph. The lede now mentions 'jungle park, ' botanical garden' and 'wild forest environment'. We can probably work in the words "jungle-style planting" in the 'plant species' section, if still needed. Fylbecatulous talk 03:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hafs, the conservatory with glass walls you are seeing in the pictures most likely is the greenhouse. One exists. It is mentioned in the source I used in the philisophy section. The source I was working from said the greenhouse was bought to encourage more different plants. And he sells some. Perhaps you can add that to the 'species' section. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 03:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


Here some vegetables to keep you company

Please don't revert valid editing as you did on sympatry because reverting drives away editors, and Wikipedia has been losing editors because of a hostile editing environment, inlcuding reversion. I would further note that you reverted edits valid per WP:MOS, which was referenced in the edit comment ("Intro edit per MOS:LEAD"), and did so without providing a valid and informative explanation per WP:REVEXP, as "the previous version was better" does not even attempt to explain the rationale for negating another editor's contribution. I would suggest that you instead edit only those parts that you find merit editing, and support those edits with at least as much detail in reference to WP:MOS as was provided in the initial edit comment. ENeville (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I see, so you want to drive me out of wikipedia, you want to call it "symapatry", and you think it is better to say "In biology, symapatry is when two species or populations exist in the same geographic area" than "In biology, two species or populations are considered sympatric when they exist in the same geographic area". Terrific. Illiteracy rules. There's symapatry whenever there are two species in an area, rather than it is only those species that are sympatric. I've been thinking about leaving wikipedia for a long time because of this illiteracy phenomenon, and you have very nearly convinced me. Thank you for trying so politely to help me make up my mind. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Who, me? I love you Sminthopsis! Hafspajen (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it was to the other guy. Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Love you too Hafs. Thank you for that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
User:ENeville You know, it would not hurt you, and would be more respectful, to ask Sminthopsis84 for further explanation as to why s/he considered the original version to be better instead of demanding s/he provide a more detailed edit summary or limit his/her editing. Then, you might learn something new. If you still disagreed, you could explain your point of view. That's a discussion. I'm not a scientist, but I can say that "X is when..." is not the best wording for a definition. CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:ENeville: If I understand you correctly, you felt that Sminthopsis84 did not provide a sufficiently detailed edit summary when s/he reverted your edit. S/He had written: "The previous version was better." It is true that that edit summary does not provide specific details. However, that does not mean that Sminthopsis84 did not have good reasons or that you couldn't ask for those reasons. One of the things editors are told when beginning to edit on WP is to be bold -- "Go for it!" See WP:BOLD. You followed that dictum when you made your edit. That was fine. However, the policy also says, in the second paragraph at WP:BOLD, not to become upset if one's edits are reverted:

"Don't get upset if your bold edits get reverted....Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war [italics mine]."

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So, if you find that the edit summary accompanying a revert of your edit insufficient, begin a discussion either on the article's talk page or on your or the other editor's talk page. Say, "I see you have reverted my edit at [link to article] with an edit summary saying ".....". I still don't understand why you undid my edit, and I'd like to know your reasons. Would you mind explaining your reasons for me?" (or something like that). The important thing is not to take it personally. If you look at your original comment, above, you will see that it begins, "Please don't revert valid editing as you did on...". That's rather peremptory -- akin to an order or instruction to Sminthopsis84. Perhaps that was the reason for Sminthopsis84's slightly heated response. Sminthopsis84 did nothing wrong. Did you take the time to read his/her user page? If you had, you would have seen that Sminthopsis84 is a "systematic botanist"; that is, a professional botanist. This editor deserves more respect from you. Read the first few paragraphs of the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It says just what I told you, above. 1) BE BOLD. You did that. 2) If someone reverts your edit, do not get upset (no matter what the edit summary says or does not say). 3) Discuss. Start a discussion. Stay calm. Ask questions. Be persuasive but at the same time be open-minded. When you do this, sometimes you will be successful at persuading other editors, sometimes not. You may reach a compromise. You may learn something new, too. Happy editing! CorinneSD (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your careful research into the Kazipur River Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, how nice. That was an amazing thing, I nominate a page for deletion and then a team gets to work to finally discover that there are facts that resemble what the page was saying in its incomprehensible way. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Hafspajen (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness. Hafspajen (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Crazy about flowers. Demonstrating pollen-sampling technique.
Ooh, strawberries with red interior. When I was in Sweden in June I made sure to eat a lot of strawberries. Here they tend to be hard, with white interior, and I've become used to ignoring them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Very noisy dormouses. What's ocurring!!!!!!! Your hard, with white interior strawberries ... ah, what pain. Our belowed strawberries, the pride of the Northern counrtries... are good indeed. I have to go and cry a little. Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but it's not so bad really. Dormice eat hazelnuts, so a hard white strawberry is something they don't have too much difficulty with, if they are hungry enough. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What is not so bad. Hafspajen (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Cosy! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the finetooth comb. I've been having a good time figuring out what's going on in this amazing delta. I'm happy that you find it interesting too and are working to improve the articles. Finetooth (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Cornus (genus)[edit]

If you have time, would you review the latest edits by an IP editor to Cornus (genus)? CorinneSD (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That was a good tag; the problem text has been entirely removed by another editor now. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

KISS ME, User:BracketBot is informing you, " I need kisses".

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Madaripur District may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[Habibunnesa Chowdhurani]]: Zamindar (Jalalpur Porgona. Husband: Golam Hyder Chowdhury

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, notability is a minor concern compared to the balancing of brackets. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sminthopsis84. You have new messages at Nafsadh's talk page.
Message added 15:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– nafSadh did say 15:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Need help editing references[edit]

I want to make a spelling correction in a list of references in Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, but I am unable to access the references. I asked User:Gandydancer who said I should click on "Edit source" at the top of the article and scroll all the way down. Well, I don't have "Edit source" at the top of any page. I only have "Edit". When I click on "Edit" and scroll all the way down the page, I don't see the numbered list of references/sources. It is around #249. Starts "Nishiura, Chowell". Said "Eropian Centre for Research". Now says "Europian Centre for Research". One more edit and it will be correct -- European. CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's odd, I don't have "Edit source" either, though I usually do. The reference is encoded and becomes formatted when the page is "rendered", so try editing again and search for Nishiura to see the complicated coding in all its glory. Someone else has already corrected the misspelling. (I have to rush off now to catch a plane.) ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't Myosotis me[edit]

Marie Nyl-Frosch.JPG Myosotis
Unidentified Myosotis Hafspajen (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I can help identify that. The list of species at The Plant List has changed greatly since the citation on the Forget-me-not page with a lot of new species names that haven't yet been resolved. I think it is premature to identify any of the species. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thought so. CorinneSD, do you ever get any pings?? Hafspajen (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
CorinneSD - Hafspajen (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I got both of these. Thank you. Maybe I should switch from using "ping" to "U" when I ping someone. I thought both worked equally well, but maybe not. CorinneSD (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I was pinging like crazy . Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Could you look at the latest edit to Barley? An IP editor changed a BC date to a BP date, but if one adds 2,014 A.D. years plus the BC years, one can see that the BP number is way over that. I don't know what's correct. CorinneSD (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. CorinneSD (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I spoke too soon. The IP editor put the information back in again. I undid it. CorinneSD (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Morus (plant)[edit]

What do you think of the latest edit to Morus (plant)? What stalk? Isn't the mulberry a tree that produces fruit? Is there a stalk somewhere? CorinneSD (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a little stalk on the fruit, but it doesn't have noticeable sap, so I think the IP editor is wrong. They also removed useful information about the sap. I've reverted. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Culture of Dhaka[edit]

The section about culture in Dhaka had long been a mess. Rainmaker23 and another IP uses have been developing it. I posit, it is high time we fork the section to a full article. I created Culture of BangladeshCulture of Dhaka. You are invited to add your good work there. – nafSadh did say 19:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Making it into a new page sounds like a good idea. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Lovely Halloween[edit]

Civil Disobedience Porcupine.jpg Hello :Sminthopsis84 - Hafspajen has given you a Civil Disobedience Porcupine and some lovely Halloween gummy bears, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a gummy bear song! Enjoy! Don't eat them all at once! Face-smile.svg Face-smile.svg Face-smile.svg Face-smile.svg

Face-smile.svg Hafspajen (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Martinus Rørbye - View from the Artist's Window - Google Art Project.jpg
What a very thoughtful combination, some gummy bears and a porky-pine who could helpfully store them, one per spine. Thank you! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Disobedience snacks. What hamster-dance? Hafspajen (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup, naughty hamsters invade the mind sometimes. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
HM, you have a lot in common with Bgwhite, he joke-blocked me for the nuki-nuki nuki -gummibear. Hafspajen (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, so it could be amusing to be an admin ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't tell me you would do the SAME!!! - Ugh. Could you please tell me what kind of plants this guy is growing? Hafspajen (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Power corrupts, as they say. Fortunately, I don't have it (yet, ha ha! That's a joke. I wouldn't want admin power.). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
So typical - now I will make an article of it. Hafspajen (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Those plants are difficult. On the left is Hydrangea, I'm sure. The one in the middle seems to have plantlets along the leaf edges. There are many cultivars of Kalanchoe daigremontiana, but I don't know of any that have such broad leaf bases and such upright growth (Kalanchoe marmorata is broader, but that's not it). I wonder if the artist has mentally blended two succulents. Perhaps the things on the edges are not baby plants but spines; perhaps it's one of the haworthias that have bumps on them, but I don't know of any with such an irregular pattern. The pot on the right is very puzzling. There are two very different types of leaves, some like peperomia, and some that might be in pairs on the long stems that seem to connect to those flower heads that are a bit like Trifolium arvense. I don't know what they are. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, those artist's - some source say amarant??? HM. The middle. doubt that. It is for - View from the Artist's Window. Hafspajen (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess the "unsprouted seed" is what looks like an empty pot. I see the protected cutting. So that person is saying that it doesn't really matter if the leaves on the Gomphrena are accurately painted, it is the symbolism that matters. There is something else in that pot, something like Philodendron brandtianum. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Does Philodendron brandtianum flowers with pink Allium flowers? Hafspajen (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the plants with leaves like that are juvenile, unable to flower, but they make good houseplants. The adult plant has huge plain green leaves and the flower spike has a dark green and purple spathe. I don't think it is Philodendron brandtianum, I was just trying to describe those tropical-looking leaves in the middle of the pot. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not as good as houseplants as outdoors - but I have no idea. Are you any good att rabbits? Quld you give your oppinion at a nominated rabbit - I don't know if it is a wild species - but it looks very much as a domestic rabbit to me Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black Rabbit ‎ Hafspajen (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think they are saying it is a domestic rabbit. It is cute, nice expression. Can there only be one featured picture per species? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is not quite so, we have thee elephants for example. And I an the one saying it - But I think this is not the same as the picture pointed to, that is a wild rabbit. What do you think. Hafspajen (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the black one looks domesticated. Same species as the wild brown one, but born in a cage. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


The latest edit to Gardenia changed "south Asia" to "South Asia". Since "South Asia" is not a continent, I'm not sure it needs to be capitalized. Do you want to look at it? CorinneSD (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted. It probably needs more detail of the ranges of each species to guard against that sort of thing, but the text could then be rather unwieldy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


I saw your "gift" of a bilby to Hafspajen, and I started to read the article on the animal. I was curious about the indigenous Aboriginal language source of the word bilby so clicked on the link to Yuwaalaraay. It took me to the article entitled Gamilaraay, which I've started to read. I thought the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article could be improved. It uses "is/was named after" three times. Can you think of a way to make the sentence more concise? I could do it, but wasn't sure whether it was important to distinguish between "is named after" and "was named after".

Also, even though "Yuwaalaraay" is given as a synonym in tiny print all the way at the bottom of the Gamilaraay article, don't you think it could also be given earlier in the article? I know this is not your field, but I thought you might find this of some interest. CorinneSD (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that is not something I know nearly enough about. The article is poor on citations. I also wonder about the use of past tense, which is said to be problematic in some native cultures (one mustn't mention people who have died). If Yuwaalaraay is a synonym, it should be mentioned at the top, but a source would be needed. I don't see any mention of it in Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I re-worded the sentence. What do you think? I used present perfect tense. CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks nice. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


Hackert, Blick auf den See von Averno, 1800.jpg
A view from closer to the water

I've just started reading the article on Pansy. I just wondered what you thought of the last two sentences in the section Pansy#Names and terminology. I never heard that information about what pansies are sometimes called in the U.S. CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's unsourced, and I think it could (should) be removed; it sounds like a passing in-joke. If you wanted to organize a Vernacular names section, some of that material could be separated. There are too many images on that page ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Eh? What? To many images?? OK, that picture that you asked about is obviously a copyvio issue, tell Stefan or some other guy who works whit this issues. Hafspajen (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
People put in their latest photos, it seems, all similar. I made a deletion request. Not sufficient? Should I bother Stefan? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine. Hafspajen (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: please see my comment at Talk:Pansy#Taxobox and nomenclatural issues. I'd greatly value your opinion on this issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be messes wherever one looks for information about Pansies and Violas. I'll go to the library to see what Gleason and Cronquist have to say, since there is a mangled mention of them on that page. USDA GRIN is interesting, it says "Viola ×wittrockiana Gams [or Viola Wittrockiana Group] Synonyms: (=) Viola ×hortensis auct. (=) Viola tricolor hort." I'd paraphrase that as people are calling them by whatever name they choose, and the synonyms are heterotypic. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, my experience of looking for information largely agrees with yours. However, there do seem to be some recent reliable horticultural sources using the name "Viola Wittrockiana Group", e.g. this. However, what exactly is covered by this name? All hybrid cultivars involving species from Viola sect. Melanium? Some subset of such cultivars? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting, demonstrating that USDA GRIN has the latest information. So when GRIN says "complex hybrid, perhaps involving V. tricolor × V. lutea × V. altaica?" that seems to be the best attempt available to pin down the identity of the holotype. To my mind, the most illuminating statement I've seen is that V. wittrockiana is an octoploid that behaves like an autotetraploid, and I think therefore that when people refer to autopolyploid V. wittrockiana they are talking about the original strain. Selective breeding on such an organism would be difficult, and I expect that explains the experiments with cross-pollination that produced reduced chromosome numbers (through parthenogenesis).
It is said that different people were working on hybrids with V. tricolor at around the same time, but I wonder if the story has become confused, so that some of the products were the so-called violas and violettas, that may simply be confused through the common name "pansy". I think it would be very helpful to know the chromosome numbers of those. I'd like to know the chromosome number of V. tricolor L. non hort. too.
A taxonomist who accepts that there is more than one species in sect. Melanium would not, I'm sure, lump species of different hybrid origin together. If multiway hybridization occurs, they probably would merge the species under one name, not the wittrockiana name, but the name of an original species (because of nomenclatural priority).
Gleason and Cronquist take that approach. They offer no enlightenment that I can see, except perhaps the common names; everything they list is a violet except V. tricolor L. Pansy "Native to the Old World, modified by extensive horticultural hybridization, and rarely escaping from cult. in our range." and V. arvensis Murr. European field-pansy. "In cult. or abandoned fields ... native to Europe."
I'd like to see the page become about V. wittrockiana, the octoploid. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "too many images", I'll leave it to you to decide how many is appropriate. I just wanted to point out that two of the images -- the pink one next to Pansy#Names and terminology and the lavender one next to Pansy#Slugs and snails -- have nearly the same caption, describing the arrangement of petals. Perhaps only one description is sufficient.
I also wanted to point out an interesting comment on the talk page of the article (which I saw after reading Peter's comments). It's at Talk:Pansy#appears to be subtly sexist language in the Historical Background section. The comment was posted in 2012, and besides a short silly comment right below it, no one has responded to it. The text in question is still in the article. I know it's a minor point, but I think it is a valid point. CorinneSD (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, we really need some original literature for this. Perhaps it is just remotely possible that the gardener's employer receive instruction on how to artificially cross-pollinate the different species, so that it could be said that she did it under the supervision of her gardener ... If so, clarification would be in order! It does look very much like one of those all-too-common situations where wikipedia manages to invert a statement, to get the meaning backwards. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. Hafspajen (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Hafs, but I can't help laughing. I'm currently feeling completely submerged, unable to deal with my watchlist, extraordinary scrutiny and precision indeed! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for laughing. I am not going to let anyone chase you away. Hafspajen (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dianthus barbatus[edit]

I just read the article Dianthus barbatus -- Sweet william -- and I have a few questions:

1) I know plant names are supposed to have only the first word capitalized, right? But "William" is a proper noun -- a first name. It looks silly in lower-case. Shouldn't it be capitalized?

2) I know the lead of an article is supposed to summarize the main points of the article, but I wonder in such a short article if it is necessary to give the details about the petals and colors in the lead when it is in Dianthus barbatus#Cultivation and uses, also.

3) In the gallery at the bottom, I noticed that there are about four different images of "heart-attack" flower (not even explained in the article, unless I missed it somehow). Don't you think that's excessive? Some of them don't even seem particularly interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC) William it is. If not even Thompson and Morgan doesn't get it right than the world would collapse. Hafspajen (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is you mos - silicon valey ingenieur - decap-. Here discussion [2] silicon valley got ispired from the cat. Hafspajen (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The images look much better now; thanks for working on the article. I hope you don't mind that I changed the height of the images in the gallery from 200 px to 180 px. I was just trying to eliminate some of that gray border around each image. I also fixed a caption or two.
  • I'm curious -- why, in edit mode, do some of the images start "File" while others start "image"? What's the difference between those?
  • Can you think of a caption for the images that have no caption?
  • I'm glad you changed "sweet william" to "Sweet William". How did you find that year-old discussion? Amazing. I read it. (I don't see why "robin" has to be capitalized, though, unless it's in a title or heading. There's a difference between "robin" and "William" or even "Sweet William".) I also don't understand the reference to silicon valley, or "cat.". What are those? You didn't answer my question in point #2, above. CorinneSD (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Eh, better not to tell. Sminthopsis84, can you think of a caption for the images that have no caption?


If you have time, could you review the latest edits to Betanin? CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


You might be interested in the latest comment at Talk:Chard#Often labelled as 'spinach' in Australia. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


I just read the article on Lobelia. I wonder if you feel like fixing a citation -- see the bot-generated note to editors visible only in Edit Mode in Lobelia#Traditional medicine, and finding a citation for two "citation needed" tags in the article -- one in Lobelia#Taxonomy and one in Lobelia#Adverse effects. CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Re-Croom Helm Book (which I have a copy hence my wiki articles!) Was published in 18 Mar 1982 - re I have the paperback version though! :) Think from a Charity Shop ! DavidAnstiss (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Amazon and Google books and other sites seemed to be unanimous that it was published by Croom Helm, and I saw a statement that Christopher Helm founded Christopher Helm Books in 1986. Does your paperback copy have a later republication date with the later publisher? I was just taking out the location because it didn't seem to be necessary and might be wrong, given that the publisher name seemed to be wrong. Do you have the publisher's location on your copy? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Am currently in my local library using the wi-fi ! Will check tonight and reply tomorrow !DavidAnstiss (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)