User talk:Sminthopsis84

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

Name of dandelion in Chinese[edit]

The meaning of the Chinese name of the dandelion plant, 蒲公英, is uncertain. There's an unattributed story on the Internet (involving a maiden afflicted with a condition in her breasts trying to commit suicide but was saved by a fisherman) purporting to be the origin of the name, but the veracity is highly suspect. The Chinese pharmacy work Compendium of Materia Medica (本草綱目), a highly important work in Chinese medicine published in the late 16th century, contains an entry on dandelion in volume 27 of the work (菜之二, "Vegetables, II"). The entry has the following text about the plant's name:


The author comments that the meaning of the name was unknown (名義未詳), and proceeds to give other names that have been used for the plant.

Given the stature of the Compendium in Chinese medicine, any purported explanation needs to be treated with appropriate skepticism. My Web searches did not turn up any other explanation for 蒲公英. -- (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It sounds as if a statement could be made (with citation, of course) that the meaning was unknown to the 16th century writers of the compendium. Then watchers and discussion on the talk page could defend it against other dubious material. I wonder, though, if it should be on the Taraxacum page, or at Taraxacum officinale. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Muraad Kahn and his socks[edit]

Can you post some more evidence of his disruptions to the long post I made? The community will ask for proof before accepting a case. Aditya(talkcontribs) 12:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Decorative arts[edit]

I made a few edits to Decorative arts, mostly to the section "Decorative" and "Fine" arts, which I thought had been excessively wordy. I wanted to continue working on the remaining paragraphs, but hesitate to begin because I find them obtuse. They seem to be written for other experts; they are not very clear and not very interesting to read, and I wouldn't know where to begin. The entire article seems to be lacking citations (and there are tags to that effect at the top of the article). See also two questions I posed to Rothorpe about the first paragraph of the article at User talk:Rothorpe#Decorative arts. I just wondered if (a) you want to work on the article, or (b) you know of an editor who is knowledgeable in this field who could improve the article. CorinneSD (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Strangely, I haven't interacted with editors other than Hafspajen who I've been aware have an interest in fine or decorative arts. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wayuu people[edit]

I have just finished reading the article on Wayuu people and have made a few edits to improve clarity. More work needs to be done, especially in the section on Religion. I'll continue working on it tomorrow. But I have a question: there is a picture of Pedro Messía de la Cerda, Viceroy of the Viceroyalty of New Granada, but I don't see either him or that viceroyalty discussed anywhere in the article. Shouldn't the connection to the Wayuu people be made clear?

Also, I know for a fact that the people are also called the Guajiro or Guajira people, but nowhere is it explained why there are two names for this people. This name is not discussed at all. CorinneSD (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Found this, which makes clear that Guajiro is not their own name for the area or themselves. "En el mundo anasü se ubica el universo social, donde existen tres categorías de seres humanos: los wayúu, que según el mito de origen son "los hombres, personas como nosotros de nuestra misma raza", los alíjuna, término con el cual se define al extranjero: "llamaréis ALÍJUNA a todos los extraños e intrusos que no sean de vuestra raza" (Paz Ipuana, 1972:198) y los kusína, término utilizado para designar a los indígenas no wayúu. En la contemporaneidad, el principio mítico es corroborado por voces expertas como las del maestro Miguel Ángel Jusayú, quien afirma que: "El indígena es un ser viviente compuesto por un cuerpo y por un espíritu. En muchos aspectos es diferente del ali’juna (gente no indígena), al kusi’na (aborigen de otras tierras), al parróuja (indígena añú), al fantasma, al irracional y al vegetal. En lo colectivo, el waiu habita en la extensión de tierra, que el ali’juna ha denominado la Guajira que debería llamarse Júmain Waiú, Tierra de Waiú" (Miguel Ángel Jusayú, 1999).""
I wasn't able to find anything that says what Spanish expedition or map maker named Guajira Peninsula. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. If I have time, I'll look also. One has to notice, though, that the "gua" of "Guajira" is pretty close to the "wa" of "Waiuu", and perhaps Spaniards called it the way they heard "Waiuu". When I was little, I lived near there and often saw the Waiuu walking around in those flowing dresses, with large, colorful wool pom-poms on their sandals. CorinneSD (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I left a note with some questions regarding this article on Kwamikagami's talk page because he is a linguist, but if you're interested, you might try to answer them. CorinneSD (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


I was looking at the latest edit to Lilium when I noticed that a photo of one type of lily -- the first one in the section "Classification of garden forms" -- a kind of pale greenish-yellow lily -- looks kind of dark to me. Is it just my screen, or does it appear dark to you, too? CorinneSD (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does, and not a good choice of parts to be in focus. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor just re-arranged the Lilium article, as he says, according to WP:PLANTS. I just don't remember seeing a plant article with such a large table so early in the article, with most of the text after it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)CorinneSD (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: hi, that was me. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template, which we try to follow in plant articles. I do agree though that the large table is a bit odd. It might be better to have a separate article "List of Lilium species", as we do in other cases (see Category:Lists of plants). I'd like to see the Lilium article improved, but I'm not sure of the next steps. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The article seems to need quite a lot of small prods as well. It's sad that the fundamental classification is in an inaccessible article, so people use terms like "oriental lily" without knowing what they mean. A separate list of Lilium species would be helpful, and perhaps it could include a way of listing those cultivars that belong to each species, for those that aren't interspecies hybrids (Lilium lancifolium clearly needs work on cultivars). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Please be assured that I wasn't meaning to be critical of you or your edits. I just share my thoughts about articles with editors who are more knowlegeable than I am in that area, such as Sminthopsis84. I'm happy to help, mainly with proofreading and copy-editing. I defer to your and Sminthopsis' knowledge regarding plants. CorinneSD (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Corinne, your efforts to actually read so much text and critique it are enormously valuable. I tend to work on single paragraphs, simply because wikipedia is too big to read it thoroughly. (Also, in order to give others a chance to respond before I put in a lot of edits on one page.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


In case you don't have Nutmeg on your watch list, just thought you might be interested in a comment just posted at Talk:Nutmeg that accompanies changes you suggested at Talk:Nutmeg#Confused in 2012. CorinneSD (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Neat! Thanks for letting me know. I saw that @Peter coxhead: made that excellent split, but had forgotten that back in 2012 I had found too little support for such changes and thought them unlikely to succeed. More power to WP:PLANTS! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(EC) :I assume you probably would approve of splitting the article on nutmeg into one article on the spice and at least one other on the plant. If so, then perhaps you would like to review the edits made to the article that is now just on the spice. I see that the editor changed "Nutmeg is a dioecious plant" to "Nutmeg trees are dioecious plants". I prefer the singular to the plural for this definition-like sentence. If "Nutmeg is a dioceious plant" is not right, then perhaps "The nutmeg tree is a dioceious plant" would be all right. What do you and @Peter coxhead: think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd side with "Nutmeg trees are dioecious plants". The other version is analogous to "The human being has two sexes", but I'd prefer "Human beings have two sexes". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
O.K. I know you know the subject better -- much better -- than I do. I guess I had forgotten what "dioecious" means. CorinneSD (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 :-) … light work. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


I added a comment and a picture at User talk:Hafspajen, but I couldn't get the picture inside the blue area. Can you do that for me? CorinneSD (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried, but it seems that the text needs to expand to reach the bottom of the picture. Adding another picture on the left doesn't do the trick. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you find a suitable poem to insert? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I found a poem that kind of goes with the picture I posted and even with Martinevans reply about the shoes. It's called "Sorrow" and it's by Edna St. Vincent Millay. Can I post it there? Do I have to give a citation if it's just on a talk page? And how do I make the indented lines? CorinneSD (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Not meaning to step on your toes, as I do appreciate help especially with copy editing; however when you made your most recent edit to this article, you incidentally broke the {{harvnb}} template, involved in the citation you added. If you already know this, I apologize, but I, like you, have been editing Wikipedia for a while and did not know all the details of the harv family of templates until recently, but anyway, when you change the author name in the template, change it also (so that it matches) in the citation template as they link. again, if you already knew and you just forgot, I apologize. But thanks for helping on the article as it could always use more citations. One more thing, I won't make this a point of contention but was the author switch that important? it seemed better to me, to throw the word "botanists" in there as that is what the "name verfied by" used. the plural of service was inaccurate and thanks for catching that. Anyway, if you see fit to change it back and re-add botanists, great if not , no problem. Just so you know why, I threw that word in there. Thanks again for your time. speednat (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Decorative arts[edit]

What do you think of the latest edit to Decorative arts? It's a new definition. CorinneSD (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That seems okay to me. There are wikipedians who apparently feel that the phrase "the term" must never appear in a wikipedia article. I guess it must have something to do with carving out wiktionary's domain. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


I've been looking for a picture of a regular basket with a handle and can't seem to find one. I've looked at Commons (searched "basket") and at several WP articles. I looked at the article Nantucket Lightship Basket and was astonished that there was not one picture of one of those baskets! It's a very distinctive basket. (But I don't think that's the kind of basket for which I need a picture.) How could I find a basket for that article? Can we just upload any photo from Google Images? I wouldn't know how to do it even if it were permissible. CorinneSD (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons is sadly limited both by how many photos people have donated and by how much work has been done to categorize them. Entering "category:baskets"does better than just plain "basket", which diverts you to a gallery that someone made by that name. But still, many of the baskets have something inside and may also be inadequately categorized. I haven't gone into copyright matters in detail, but this photo has Creative Commons Attribution license 2.0, and I believe that putting it into Commons is fine, as long as the description gives the details about where it came from and who made the original photo. For example, this photo was uploaded to Commons by someone other than the originator. Once you have a copy of the photo on your computer, if you click "upload file" in the left-hand column, the instructions are quite easy to follow. I'd suggest trying it with just one photo, to see if anyone complains about how you did it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I like the picture of the Nantucket Lightship baskets, but I don't want to upload it to Commons, I want to add it to the Wikipedia article. That's not the same thing, is it? Do I first have to upload it to Commons before I can add it to the WP article? The other two photos are nice. I'm looking for a photo of a basket to post at Joshua Jonathan's talk page, latest (or almost latest) comment, where he replies to someone, confusing "brackets" with "baskets" -- I don't know whether he has confused them knowingly or unknowingly. CorinneSD (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, do load pictures to Commons, then use them in Wikipedia. The upload wizard gives you code at the end, though it is probably just as easy to copy it from some wikipedia page with a picture. It is possible to load pictures into Wikipedia, but then they get tagged to be moved to Commons. Eggs and brackets, hmm, hope they don't fall off and break. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
One more question: do I need to have an account on Commons, that is, do I need to register on Commons separately from what I've already done on WP, in order to upload pictures? CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, as far as I can tell from this page, there is no criterion of experience before you can upload to Commons (nothing like the autoconfirmed criterion here). The first thing to do is to look at your preferences here on wikipedia, under the tab "User profile". Does it say "Global account status: All in order! Your account is active on 103 project sites."? If not, you might want to look at this help page, or just try clicking something that looks likely, perhaps it shows "Manage your global account" or something about signing up for a global account. P.S. Have you managed to get a copy of a picture from Flickr? That might not always be easy, I've sometimes resorted to taking a screen image. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Small Dog Confidence (6034999613).jpg
Yes, it says "Global account status: All in order! ..." Why Flickr? What is Flickr? Does the picture have to be from Flickr? CorinneSD (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Just that this photo is from flickr. I think you should be able to upload to Commons. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Hafs is back! CorinneSD (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks for letting me know. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
So what were you two up to nowadays? Hafspajen (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we are trying to get CorinneSD confidently adding lots of pictures to Commons. Advice from you would probably be very helpful. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that bot. Didn't noticed you answered. What is the problem? (I am not a bit good at uploading pictures) Hafspajen (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I looked at that picture of Nantucket Lightship Baskets to which you provided a link, above. I couldn't find it on Henry Z's photo stream (collection of photos on Flickr), though. How can I find it? I did a search and saw many other photos of both Nantucket Lightship baskets and other kinds of baskets, but I don't know how to find the licensing or restrictions regarding the use of a photo. Where do you find that information? CorinneSD (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, as far as I know, it is something in the corner you need to look for... But I have to admit those things are bit of a challenge for me. Hafspajen (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Where did you get all of those wonderful landscape pictures from? CorinneSD (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it is not me who is uploading them, they are on commons. You put dawn meadow for example on the search in commons. That will give you like 100 pictures? or more. Hafspajen (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Thank you. Sminthopsis, can you answer my questions, just above? CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
On the link that shows that photo, on the right, lowish down, there's something that looks like a chili pepper in a circle, with the text "Some rights reserved". Clicking on that, takes you to where the license is briefly explained. Further down there are three dots in a row, and clicking on them leads to a way to download the picture. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of those baskets have knobs on. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a British expression. Most of these baskets look Native American.
Sminthopsis: When I look at a photo on Flickr, where exactly do I look to see the licensing and permissions for, or restrictions on, the use of the photo? I didn't see that when I looked. CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if you saw my response above. You might be seeing something different on the screen from what I see. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to attach a screen image in wikipedia email, so I can't point at what I mean. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't see your response, above, until you pointed it out. Thank you. I saw the circle with the chili pepper in it. I had already saved that picture to my computer and almost uploaded it to Commons, then changed my mind because there is an image of a woman behind the baskets which makes it clear that these baskets are very small, probably made as souvenirs. Since the real baskets are quite a bit larger, I wanted a picture of a real basket. I didn't find any I liked on Flickr. I found some on Google Images, but I wasn't able to find any that had that license. In fact, I couldn't find any license information on any of them, except that on some I saw "If you would like to purchase this photo,...".
I have a question: is Flickr somehow connected to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons? You said above that I could click on the three dots to upload the photo from Flickr to, I assume, Commons. Sorry to be asking so many questions. I just want to learn. CorinneSD (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Generally , most images are free on Flickr (as far as I know). It might be a connection, meaning a bot that helps uploading pictures, but I am no good at this. I have a better idea. Calling in the expert; = Crisco 1492, can you answer on Corinnes questions? Hafspajen (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
When I signed up for Flickr, the default setting was "all rights reserved", and quite a few Flickr users have that, perhaps because they haven't thought about the issue of sharing with people they don't know. An expert on this would be great, I know nothing about how to systematically find or make use of pictures, except sometimes getting lucky with a single photo. Clicking on the three dots loads (up or down, whichever) the picture to your computer from the Flickr server. You can then load it to Commons. I had to scroll down a bit to find the three dots. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of images on Flickr are all rights reserved, and even some that are not all rights reserved cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. Anything which has an "NC" or "ND" clause, for instance, is not considered free enough for Wikipedia. On Flickr's new design, we can see the copyright just under the "eye" which shows how many views an image has received. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! The image we were discussing has Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). It sounds as if that licence would be okay, but Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) or Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Canada (CC BY-NC 2.0 CA) would not be okay. Interesting. It is easy to forget that people might take an image from Commons and use it for commercial purposes. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Told you that I don't know this kind of things. Thanks, Crisco!! Hafspajen (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Baskets, continued, and uploading pictures[edit]

I decided to start a new section. That last one was getting too long.

@Crisco 1492: Thank you for the information. But what about pictures from Google Images? I often see great pictures there, but I haven't been able to find the licensing information for those pictures. Where do I look for it?

Also, could somebody please tell me again how to get to Commons from Wikipedia? I know you told me once, Hafs, but I don't know where it is, and I can't remember what you told me. CorinneSD (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, of course, thank you Sminthopsis for your thoughts, above. CorinneSD (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. You're very welcome, of course. In my browser, I just type commons, and it fills in the url as Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, getting to commons, this time it will be more difficult. There is this big black page coming up now, whenever you click on a picture. Before it was enough to just click on one picture and then click on the little blue commons symbol, and you were there. Now you have to digg around a lot under the picture, below the black field, to find your way down. I don't know if there is a fast way any more. Try Sminthopsis technique. Hafspajen (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I got the article Commons comming up. Hafspajen (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I just remembered that I had asked for help on this with the "helpme" template about a week ago. I got an informative reply from Huon. It's at User talk:CorinneSD/Archive 7#How do I access Wikimedia Commons?. But the link Huon provided that says "Commons:Main" only helps when you click on that link. Sminthopsis, I didn't realize Commons was a whole separate website. I thought there would be an easy link from WP to Wikimedia Commons (the pictures, not the article on it). I guess you have to search for the link at the bottom right hand corner of a picture (the big black picture of the new Media Viewer), as Huon explains. CorinneSD (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Corinne, you are gem. I disabled the blasted thing. (disabled the Media Viewer). Did you two disabled it yet? Hafspajen (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Tried to put a picture on your page that will stay, and in the caption is the link to commons. Decorative solution. You may change them as often you want - the file- to something else... Hafspajen (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Very decorative! Good idea. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much! And I like the picture you chose, too. I am still thinking about whether to disable Media Viewer. I don't like that black screen. I like seeing the pictures in an article as I read, not all at once as in a slide show, as you can in Media Viewer, and I don't like seeing a blurry picture and waiting for it to become clear. I'll probably disable it. CorinneSD (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Just blurry pictures and a lot of waiting for it to become clear... Not much changed for the better and one loose all the information that was easily accesible before. Hafspajen (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. CorinneSD (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I have disabled it now for a few hours now, and feel much better. Hafspajen (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I just disabled it. CorinneSD (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, my favourite link just now is Wikipedia:Media_Viewer#How to turn it off. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Face-grin.svg - Well, if you are going to miss it, just put it back again... How is going with those baskets? Hafspajen (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sminthopsis, would you move Przewalski's Horse to Przewalski's horse? It is hardly appropiate, I think. .
It has been moved, no? Not by me. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Man, I didn't ASk you to move it. What I meant (unclearly) is that do you think this was a good idea? Hafspajen (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh. No, I don't like upcapitalizing this kinds of names, but fighting against Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms is a lost cause. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Why? Hafspajen (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, because there's such a huge number of pages that would be affected, and the matter has been "settled by consensus". I think the same people are involved in stating that WP:COMMONNAME should be favoured over WP:FLORA, the latter of which says that scientific names of organisms are to be preferred because they are more meaningful (less ambiguous). Making text ambiguous and hard to read seems to be an enjoyable sport for some people, people who see little matters like capitalization and punctuation as elitist nonsense. At least there doesn't seem to be a counter-argument when we italicize scientific names (though many are inserted without italics). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Why sould WP:COMMONNAME should be favoured over WP:FLORA? I don't agree. All encyclopedia are using it. All books all everything. Hafspajen (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. :-( There's now a little item in WP:FLORA Don't confuse WP:COMMONNAME with common name which deals with some of the problem, the people who think that a name listed as a "common name" means that it is often used, which it doesn't. It's the usual problem, loud people winning arguments (oops, that should read "consensus-seeking discussions"). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, all this bullshit was pulled out by one editor,  SMcCandlish - who is a lawyer and is interested in history. In the real world, the English language has developed conventions for naming species and conventions for capitalising proper names. His attempt to over-simplify how English actually deals with those issues is what has caused these problems, and he is fighting for it all what he can. Real-world professional standards should trump false Wikipedia standards when it comes to things like this. I firmly believe that accepted titles developed by a professional, governed outside community should be preferred to the mess that is MOS. Hafspajen (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
There's also something that I encounter here in north America, would-be spelling reformers. A colleague of mine doesn't use capital letters except in rare formal occasions (perhaps once a year), and there are people who spell through as thru, and many other things. I think there are several systems, so their individual efforts in real life may be ignorable. (I'm at a conference in Montreal now, won't have much time for wiki-ing, am currently wondering whether recent spelling reform in France has made any impact here. No evidence so far, all old spellings, but perhaps new pronunciations, Joliette pronounced as Joliet, for example. My high-school French was very different.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


I saw an edit to Seahorse in which an editor changed a caption under a photo of roasted(?) seahorses for sale from "in China" to "in Japan". Then today, another editor undid that edit and removed any mention of a country from the caption, saying that there is no information where the photo was taken. I decided to look into it. I clicked on the picture and saw that it was taken by gin_e, who has posted more than 1,700 photos to Flickr. I went through all of her photos to see if I could find that one. I didn't see it, but I saw that most of her photos were taken in Japan, just a few in Korea, and it looks like none in China. (She has some very interesting photos, by the way, if you want to take a look.) Then I put in "seahorses" in the search for Flickr to see if I could find that photo, and I went through hundreds of photos of seahorses and seahorse jewelry (many of the photos quite beautiful), but didn't find it. Maybe gin_e removed the photo because it shows seahorses for sale as food, and seahorses are endangered. I don't know if you know of a way to find that photo to determine where it was taken. But even if you don't want to undertake that search, you might still enjoy those photos taken by gin_e (and the ones of seahorses), on Flickr. CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Asked the photographer. [1]. Maybe we will get an answer, depends if the person is still active and around or not. Hafspajen (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I found it, it IS China. See here, down on the page, it say China. Hafspajen (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that (very effective impetus for my resolve to be vegetarian). The original in flickr does indeed seem to have been removed, as clicking on the Source=Mmm, yummy! gets a page not found message. The photographer's work is impressive and varied; showing quite an interest in cities. In the past, apparently, flickr users with the free accounts were limited to a certain number of photos, now the limit is by total storage space. Perhaps that one was deleted to make way for newer photos. People who I know who use flickr mostly use it to share images with friends, so older photos might be often deleted. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Those Chinese will eat anything, except for old car decks. (And I said down on the page, to spare you all from all that.) Hafspajen (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, my God! How can people those things, that is, animals? I'd rather be a vegetarian. CorinneSD (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
They are hungry..? Hafspajen (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
They can grow beans. CorinneSD (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Very sensible. I would mail it to the Chinese embassy ... Instead of all that disgusting stuff they gobble... But they probably prefer old boots and stewed cats anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

The Travelling Companions
Johan Laurentz Jensen - Røde liljer og fuchsia.jpg
Congratulations! CorinneSD (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
'Congratulations!Hafspajen (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice. Now I can go back to improve upon a couple of edits that I couldn't work on before because of not having that status. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
And what can you do now that the average can't? Hafspajen (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Some pages like this one have an anti-vandalism setting so that edits from non-auto-confirmed editors are marked as "pending" until someone with reviewer rights accepts them. I saw such a pending edit which I would have like to accept, and then improve upon, but I didn't have that permission, so I asked for the permission. It's not a common thing, but there was such an edit somewhere some time ago that I also wanted to improve upon, and didn't ask for the permission then because it seemed such a rare thing. Now I don't remember where it was, to go back and fix it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds exiting. Hafspajen (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The painting you added at the right, "The Travelling Companions", is a beautiful painting! CorinneSD (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Painted by Mr Egg.... Face-grin.svgHafspajen (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. What the poor guy must have gone through as a kid with that name.... CorinneSD (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Denslow's Humpty Dumpty 1904.jpg
Mmm. Humpty Dumpty, how's going? or Ooops, you almost became an omlette... Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes...or various first names. CorinneSD (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Corinne WHY aren't you voting at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates‎? Because you really pic up everything that is beautiful like a radar. Hafspajen (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Because I forgot about it. I need reminding every once in a while. I also forget how to get to the place to vote. CorinneSD (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates‎. Corinne, do you have a watchlist? You just put everything on the watchlist that you wan't to remember. Hafspajen (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I have almost 500 pages on my watch list. CorinneSD (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Gosh. Twice as much as I have!!!! Hafspajen (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I've enjoyed looking at the pictures at WP:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for the link to the museum with Curlionis's paintings. I looked at all of them. They're very interesting. I like Thor and the one right after it, Fantasy Castle, and others. CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen our article? Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis... Hafspajen (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
This is amazing, thanks. Internet fails me for a while, and I come back to find these pictures and discussion going on here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
What was the matter? Hafspajen (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Conference organizers provided passwords and such, but nobody could use the wi-fi. As we say in French, the wiffy was iffy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Aah, those niffy-es. Hafspajen (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Where did those pictures go? Looking for lost pictures
The Pool of Tears (aka The Mouse Needed a Wash.)

Apologies, edit conflict[edit]

Our edits for Stamen overlapped and although I had similar motivations to yours for changing items such as the etymology, I had a different approach, because most of the material of the lede was IMO inappropriate anyway. So I moved it. There was too much to reconcile, so nearly all of your changes got replaced. Feel welcome to zap whatever you reckon is inappropriate. JonRichfield (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's much better; so nice to have a simple, readable summary at the start of the page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking it that way; I was feeling very guilty! :) JonRichfield (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
No need to feel guilty! As you say, our approaches were the same, but my edit was a quick thwack, and yours took more of the page into account. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


It looks like Solenostemon might be sunk into Plectranthus. The Plant List has the type species of Solenostemon, Solenostemon ocymoides, as Plectranthus monostachyus. This seems to be based on A new rheophytic species of Plectranthus L'Hér.(Labiatae) from the Gulf of Guinea: BJ Pollard, A Paton - Kew bulletin, 2001, but I can't get the full text of that article at home. The Coleus article is caught up in this situation too. Plantdrew (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The relevant bit of the article is only this:
"Morton (1962) separated Solenostemon from Plectranthus primarily on the morphology of the lateral and anterior calyx lobes, based on examination of west African species. Keng (1978) and Hedge et al. (1998) did not recognise Solenostemon, placing it in synonymy under Plectranthus. In material from continental South East Asia, Suddee (pers. comm., 2001) has found a morphological continuum of lateral calyx lobes in the Plectranthus/Solenostemon group and thus also considers Solenostemon a synonym of Plectranthus. Recent morphological and molecular studies of material from East Africa and SE Asia confirm this (pers. comms., Paton, Suddee 2001)."
There seems too much reliance on "pers. comm." to use this to make a change in Wikipedia. Presumably Suddee and/or Paton published their work after 2001, and it's these papers we need. (Have sent Plantdrew more by e-mail.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bit shaky. However, it could well be time to merge the two genera. The species I added, Solenostemon sylvaticus, based on TPL, is spelled Solenostemon silvaticus by WCSP, so that one remaining species seems to be a phantom. WCSP lists Paton, A.J., Bramley, G., Ryding, O., Polhill, R., Harvey, Y., Iwarsson, M., Willis, F., Phillipson, P., Balkwill, K., Lukhoba, C., Otiend, D & Harley (2009). Lamiaceae (Labiatae). Flora of Tropical East Africa: 1-430. [as Plectranthus autranii]. IPNI lists the species as Solenostemon sylvaticus, described by Agnew, 1974, in "Upland Kenya Wild Flowers: A Flora of the Ferns and Herbaceous Flowering Plants of Upland Kenya". I don't have access to that book to check the maddening question of how the species name is spelled. Tropicos lists both spellings with the same citation, so that seems unlikely to be correct. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


Those sneaky red currants.
Still-Life with Bread and Confectionary by Pieter Claesz
Same here, do you see those things? Are those enormous, tooth-damaging, sugar crystals, or do you somehow put the whole doughnut thing in your mouth and let it dissolve?

Do you like the change just made to the article on Durian? I don't know whether the parentheses were there before because I was just looking at the Revision History, but then I looked at it in the article, and I didn't like what it looked like. I don't think there should be a sentence in parentheses so close to the beginning of an article. Regarding the subordinate clause beginning "although..." that the editor changed, I kind of like the subordinate clause, but I'll leave that up to you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that was helpful material to be right at the start of the article, so I've moved it down to a taxonomy section. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I appreciate your telling me this, but I think Ceoil should have informed Victoria that he had asked me to review the article and should have told me where to put any comments I had. I thought the tag with the note right after it right at the location where I had a question would make it easy for him to address the issue and make any necessary changes, then delete the tag and the note. As I told them, the article was quite well-written, but there were a few things that were unclear and a few errors (which I corrected). They may be good writers and knowledgeable about art history, but I have taught writing for twenty-seven years, so I can quickly spot errors and ambiguous or unclear sentences. If the errors are corrected and the ambiguities are cleared up, the writing goes from good to excellent. CorinneSD (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Nürnberg — GNM 2013-09-07 Mattes (64).JPG
  • Yes, they crawl... red currants, as caterpillars... Yes, apropos caterpillars, we had a very interesting discussion here on a

spider...Hafspajen (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hafs -- Thank you for posting these three still-lifes. They are gorgeous. What a treat for the eyes! I agree that the sugar-crystal-coated confections look a little hard to eat, rather crunchy. And the one with the cherries, strawberries, gooseberries, and a few currants -- it's interesting that the currants are not mentioned in the title of the painting. It looks almost as if the currants were added as an afterthought, but, strangely, one's gaze goes directly to the currants. Where do you find these kinds of images? CorinneSD (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I was looking after some Trompe d' oeil or Trompe-l'œil or images to nominate at feath. pictures, and I happened t run into these... Hafspajen (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the artist would have called it something different, or given it no title at all, and an art critic gave it that incomplete title. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hahahahaa, pretty much as thing are nowadays at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates... Oh, put down that masterwork, stop chewing on it so, will you... Have you took a look at the nominated spider? What do you think? and CorinneSD, you forgot about us now for a while, we need you... Hafspajen (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
How does this happened??
Gravity seems to be stronger in some places than in others.
CorinneSD? Hafspajen (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think it is rather incredible that photos and the illustration of this spider are here at all. They are so tiny that getting a good number of pixels in a photo of one is probably unlikely. They also live in a small geographical area, and weren't scientifically described until quite recently. It's a pity that the illustrator made those mistakes with the anatomy. People make mistakes all the time with flowers, even big common flowers like lilies that you'd think they could get an actual example of to use as a model, or actually look at the model they are using. At least one botanical conference that I went to had a "botanical art" exhibit associated with it in the corridors that was rather horrifying for a botanist to look at. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are quite incredible... And what colors! Amazing, really. Hafspajen (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hafs, I guess that was a reminder to vote at Featured Picture Candidates, so I went there and looked at all the photos, and I voted for some. What picture were you talking about regarding a spider? I didn't see any picture of a spider. CorinneSD (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! we need a woman's eye on that page. Otherwise it will be a just lot of birds, diagrams and buildings only. No spider? Here ->spider... Long way down on the page maybe.. . Hafspajen (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I just re-read your comment, above, and saw the link to the spider, then looked at it. What a beautiful spider! I can't believe that is a drawing. Is that really a drawing of the spider? Incredible. If there's an article about that spider, I'm going to read it. What was that other thing, a flying something, under the water? CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
A Mediterranian fish. Hafspajen (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, also, regarding that photo of a person sitting on the ground holding a stick to which, apparently, another person is holding while sitting in mid-air, I have a book by Alexander Cannon in which he describes seeing a person lifted up and held in mid-air by a Yogi. But for some reason, I don't think this is the same thing. If you look closely at the hands and the legs, I think you will notice that the hands don't look real, and the legs don't look natural. The person on the ground is wearing a scarf across the face so that you won't notice that the other "person" in the air is also wearing a scarf across the face, possibly so that one won't notice that it's not a real person. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
A video of a similar trick. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, you are probably right. Hafspajen (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that that's a kind of tromp l'oeil. Did you mean to convey that by placing it near the tromp l'oeil paintings? If you did, that's quite clever. CorinneSD (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it is you who is clever. Because indeed it is some kind of tromp l'oeil... Face-smile.svgHafspajen (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on Desiccated Thyroid Extract Wikipedia page[edit]

Hi! You previously helped me with an issue for the Stevia article (thank you). I am reaching out to you for some assistance regarding how to name a particular section on the Desiccated Thyroid Extract article. Could you please take a look at the information under the section named "Medical Uses?" I made an edit to create a new section named "Criticism and Controversy" and the edit was reverted citing that Wikipedia discourages naming a section in this manner. In my opinion, the content under "Medical Uses" is more appropriate under a different content suggestion. What do you suggest is more compliant and useful to the reader? I read on your talk page that you are open to assisting new editors. Would you have time to provide me with guidance? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

Presto808 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I see that the editor who reverted you has replied at their talk page. It seems that apart from using that style of heading, your plans for the page meet with approval. Does that answer your questions? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sminthopsis84. Yes, for the time being. Until next time, thanks for your help! Presto808 (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 :-) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Would it be possible to consider a major cleanup and improvement of the Bangladesh article by the experts here? And bring it in line with a featured country article status. There are many Bangladeshi users now who can help. But the article is not getting any better.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it's good to see you working on that article. I'm sorry to say that I try not to get involved in bringing pages to FA status, because I've found that process to be very fraught, and I don't have enough time to get involved in that sort of thing. I will add it back to my watch list, though, and might be able to help out with the occasional edit, and perhaps advice on how to counteract some types of disruption. That page has been extremely contentious in the past; I don't know how long you have been watching it, but there were people in the past who were very close to being topic-banned, i.e., prevented from making any further edits on Bangladesh-related topics. I hope that is no longer the case. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
About a year ago I went through the entire article and made a number of edits to improve syntax, word usage and punctuation. I even left a few questions regarding unclear issues on the talk page. Over the year I have seen many changes to the article. I made a few comments regarding photos and other issues on the talk page but found other editors were too busy arguing among themselves to respond to my comments. So I haven't touched the article in months. CorinneSD (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's good to hear that you worked on it. Yes, arguing among themselves is part of the problem, and an earlier problem was seriously slanted material from at least one Pakistani editor, which, naturally, inflamed tempers. I'm working on a different, rather large project at the moment, but when I can get the time, I'll look back in the history to find your contributions, and try working up from there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It needs to be restructured and rewritten on many fronts. It just doesn't do the minimum justice to the country. At least the economy section should be more broad and professional. And most importantly the introduction. It's a mess. I wish someone who specializes in such prose can write it again with inputs from us all.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll be glad to help. I think Sminthopsis is more familiar than I am with the way a lead section should look, but after Sminthopsis has worked on it (or while Sminthopsis works on it), I'd be glad to read both the lead and the rest of the article through again. CorinneSD (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Could you please help to add the right latin names that I added to this article? I am not great at birds-names. Hafspajen (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

extra puppy A tricolour English Setter


Trompe l'oeil with violin, painter's implements and self-portrait (1675), Royal Castle, Warsaw

Can you help fix the portals at the bottom of Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho? I just finished translating an article from the Portuguese WP on this writer. I asked for help regarding the portals at User talk:CorinneSD#Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho and received a reply, but not yet a reply to my subsequent question. But even if that question is answered, I don't think it would help me correct the portals at the bottom of the page. It's just two portals: Biography, or Biographies, and Literature. I don't know why they appear in red, and there may be some duplication that I don't understand. CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Erythronium 'White Beauty' (flower)3.jpg
Duty free beauty - Flickr - fintlandia.jpg
Hi. The categories were producing that redness. The super-categories are helpful for finding the forms of the categories; there are [[category:Writers by nationality]] and [[category:Writers by language]], but none for journalists or ethnographers by language. Portuguese writers is used for the nationality rather than the language. I don't know if the portals are as they should be at this point. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I have scared away CorinneSD from my page with to mant scary creatures... Hafspajen (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No, not at all. What scary creatures? That picture of the upside-down hanging lily (I don't know what the right term is) is just beautiful. It looks like a pale, pale green, or green-yellow. I've been busy with 4th of July activities.
Thank you, Sminthopsis, for the information and for your edits to the article. I know nothing about portals and categories (though probably should learn). CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That is an Erythronium, I think, it flowers in the spring. Oh, so you were on 4th of July activities. Thought you forgot about us all. Hafspajen (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That's impossible. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it is an Erythronium, it is just a white variety ... the usual form is lilac. Hafspajen (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hafs, I meant that it would be impossible for me to forget about you and the others. You made me laugh. CorinneSD (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Thought you meant the flower... Face-grin.svg Hafspajen (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Around here, they are yellow, which makes the name Dogtooth Violet quite peculiar. Cakile is so elegant. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Put the here because you said your soil was sandy. Hafspajen (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Sminthopsis -- You mean that flower that looks like a hanging lily (above left) is called a Dogtooth Violet? How do you pronounce "Cakile"? CorinneSD (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this a still life? Nope, just inspiration for a painting.
The Trout Lily name makes more sense, because of the spots on the leaves. I don't know where Dogtooth Violet came from (at least they are sort-of-violet-coloured in Europe, but do dogs have no teeth in Europe, or something?) I say car-keel-ay, but Latin pronunciation in English is a free-for-all, so some people probably say ca-kile.
Hmm, I don't see how that picture is Trompe l'oeil, though the angles of the objects seem a bit strange. And what exactly is a still life? The definition seems very flexible. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Generally it is meant - a painting with no people in it. one doesn't really use still life about a photo... (unless it is a very artistic photo). Hafspajen (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Jack Russell Terrier Eddi at the beach.JPG


I'm reading the article on Celery, and I have a few issues I'd like to mention. Perhaps you'll be able to resolve them.

1) The word "petiole" is used several times during the article but is not defined until the beginning of the section Celery#Uses. I was wondering what a petiole was all through the beginning of the article.

2) In the third paragraph in the section Celery#Cultivation, the wild form of celery is mentioned and a number of details are given. I'm wondering whether a picture of wild celery could be found to illustrate this form of celery.

3) In the fourth paragraph in the section Celery#Cultivation, the paragraph starts, "The plants are raised from seed....". From reading what follows, it is clear that this is about cultivated celery, but is this paragraph only about wild celery that is cultivated or about all celery? If it is only about the cultivation of wild celery, what about the cultivation of non-wild celery?

What would you think of trying to find a photo of celery to illustrate this line:
"...planted out in deep trenches for convenience of blanching, which is effected by earthing up to exclude light from the stems"?

4) In the fifth paragraph in that section, perhaps you could answer the question in the tag.

That's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


I just read the article on Cardoon, and I was surprised not to see even one picture of the stalks of cardoon, which is what one sees in a market. Do you think the article could use such a picture, or is it not necessary? Also, the last paragraph in Cardoon#Other uses is not very clear, and the very last sentence seems to be out of date. CorinneSD (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A picture of the stalks would be good, I think. It might take me a couple of days to get to working on these two blanched vegetables. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


I've been reading the article on Chard and have made a few minor edits. (I've also asked Rothorpe a few questions at User talk:Rothorpe#Chard if you want to look at them.) I have a question for you. It is the second sentence in the lead:

"The leaves can be green or reddish in color like Bibb Lettuce; chard stalks also vary in color."

I don't understand bringing in "Bibb Lettuce" so early in the article. (Also, I've never seen reddish Bibb Lettuce, but that's another issue.) I think it is confusing if one has never seen Bibb lettuce.

Also, overall, I think the sentence doesn't flow smoothly. There's no reason to have to start a clause with "chard" (in "chard stalks") so early in the article. Do you see what I mean? Do you want to see what you can do? CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to me a Bibb Lettuce is pale green, they are usually called Butter Lettuce or Boston Lettuce, various other lettuces can be red, and the introduction to Chard was not a very good introduction. I've made some changes including zapping the Bibb Lettuce, but I hope that you'll look at it again for the flow, etc. What do you think about removing that two-column layout from the references? (I wish there were a good place to link "leaf blade" to, but it would seem to require major re-organization to achieve that). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you got rid of Bibb lettuce, but I'm sorry to say that I don't like the inclusion of the following sentence in the lead:
"In some cultivars, the leaf stalks are large and are often prepared separately from the leaf blade".
I think any information about food preparation should be saved for the section on food preparation later in the article. Also, the term "leaf blade" is a new one to me. The average reader (like myself) would better understand "the leaves" (especially when referring to culinary use). I think there must be a place later in the article to introduce (and explain) "leaf blade".
Also, the next sentence, "The leaf blade can be green or reddish in color; the leaf stalks also vary in color", seems a bit strange. The first and second halves of the sentence seem awfully close in meaning, so much so that they could be combined. Details about the colors of the stalks could be described later.
These are my non-expert thoughts. CorinneSD (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's problematic. I'm familiar with French culinary treatment of the two parts (the green and the white) as different vegetables, so that one would expect to be able to buy just one the white, with the green removed. Under Glossary_of_botanical_terms#B is a definition of blade that I'm assuming (but it can't be linked to directly), and Petiole (botany) would be the leaf stalk. I'm also taking it as given (I think it's true) that nobody eats the ancestral form with a green petiole. I've adjusted the leaf-stalk colour, which I've never seen be the same as the leaf-blade colour. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It reads a bit better now. In my U.S. experience, the leaf stalks are cooked together with the leaves. CorinneSD (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John Frum[edit]

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to John Frum? I'm not sure what is the usual format at the beginning of articles, but I thought it might be the way it was before the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the usual format for something like that is either. It is so much more common to have the sort of name variation seen at Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


I know this isn't your area, but you're an experienced editor, so I thought I'd ask you. I don't know who else to ask. Just today there have been several edits to Corsica by two different editors. The ones by Franking seem all right, but the ones by Alessandro, especially the last one, adding information about a murder at the very end of a paragraph, seem questionable. Can you look at these edits and see what you think? Regarding the language, I had already asked Kwamikagami (see his Talk page), but he said it's not his area. I don't know of any editor who really knows this part of linguistics who can review the edits. CorinneSD (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly it is true, but I would ask for better references . Hafspajen (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Since it is linked to Claude Érignac, do you think the references from there need to be copied or improved? About the language, I have access to a ginormous encyclopedia of linguistics which probably has that information (I've only glanced inside its multi-volume hide once), but I won't be able to get to it until next week. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Having looked at references about this, it seems to me that the page Corsican language is confused and beyond help. It seems that the page is trying to describe the modern languages spoken on Corsica, but the scholarly references that I added which said that the Corsican language is not of the Italo-Dalmatian group were dismissed by Alessandro (with a weird "please explain" edit summary: how do you explain citations?). Perhaps it might be the case that two pages are needed, but I don't know where one would go to find the material to support that, and I'm no expert in that field. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Upazilas: Thanks, Plan, Question[edit]

Thank you for your kind welcome. Being comparatively inexperienced at editing Wikipedia, I've been spending a lot of time studying guidelines, the MOS, template documentation, featured articles, WikiProjects, other people's edits, and the like. I'm familiar with some of the links you recommended and look forward to exploring the others.

The Bangladesh upazila articles hooked me with their simple elegance. They have great bones, but could use more polish. To start with I've chosen to focus on the 12 upazilas of Bogra District. I don't expect to add (or remove) great swathes of text. My goals are:

  • So far as possible, add citations to reliable sources for everything already in the articles.
  • Where someone has corrected or improved one article, replicate that throughout the others.
  • Add the latest census data.

I'll be editing in small steps that I hope will make each change and its reasons clear. If my edits to the Bogra District upazilas go well, then I'll eventually extend them to the hundreds of other upazila articles.

Thanks for disambiguating the Shibganj Upazila, Bogra links. I noticed last night that I'd introduced some ambiguous links, but thought it would be safer not to fix them while I was tired. I'll try not to step on any toes or break anything as I go. Any constructive criticism is welcome.

When I started using Banglapedia as a reference in the articles, my inclination was to drop it from the external links. I couldn't find a guideline that says a source should appear in only one of those two sections, but I see that you've dropped it from external links when you've started using it as a reference, for example in Dhupchanchia Upazila and Shajahanpur Upazila. Is that the course you would advise? Worldbruce (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi WorldBruce, it is very nice to make your acquaintance. You've probably noticed friendly people chatting here, and I'd be happy to try to answer questions. Some of the others might join in, perhaps.
I think that what you are doing has huge potential because I have the impression that there are quite a few edits from IP addresses in Bangladesh where it looks as if the person was experimenting with editing wikipedia by first looking at the English page about their own upazila. By polishing those pages, particularly by introducing citations, I think you could be both cheering them up with the quality of the coverage, and showing them some useful general techniques. It is a bit of a handicap for you that there are nearly 500 upazilas, though!
About converting the external link into an in-line citation, yes, I do recommend that. There is a template that people use to mark pages that they feel haven't gone far enough in that direction, such as Capetian dynasty, so that suggests what the consensus of wikipedians seems to be, that citations should be in-line. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Malvaceae diversity citation[edit]

I suspect that the figures for generic and species diversity are taken from Angiosperm Phylogeny Website rather than Judd et al, but I don't have access to the 3rd edition of Judd et al to verify this. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I suspected the same thing. It's in the library here, and I planned to go there next week. However, it's in the course reserves section, so I'm not sure if a plebeian like myself can look at it. Since Walter Judd has worked on Malvaceae, I wondered if the numbers in the 2008 book are up-to-date anyway, or alternatively, if another citation needs to be substituted for those figures, perhaps the book offers a citation for some other statement on the Malvaceae page, so that the citation might not need to disappear. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


I don't know if you have Gooseberry on your watch list, but I thought I'd just let you know about a number of edits made today to the article by three different editors, starting with an IP editor. Perhaps if you have time you could review all the edits. CorinneSD (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I say, IP is OK, Fortons is crazy and Gravuritas - dubious. Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen a 10 ft-tall gooseberry. Do they exist? I have to go, but suspect that more of that page is unattributed copies of the 1879 encyclopedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
NO, no 10 ft-tall gooseberries, 6'5 highest -and probably that is too much - too, it has to grow in Italy I guess - actually I am not sure if they grow them there either. Hafspajen (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
6 ft-tall would be one scary spiny shrub! The biggest I know here is about 4 ft tall and the same wide, but it is not R. uva-crispa since those grow poorly on this continent, it is a hybrid. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen cultivated plants grown as cordons at an angle that were at least 5 ft 6 in tall, so a vertical cordon more than 6 ft is possible, I think. But 10 ft? Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I suspect that one of the recent edits was because the person has only seen North American cultivated gooseberries, which at least in my experience don't get so tall. Actually, that page being called "gooseberry" is problematic, I think. In South Asia, a gooseberry is a Phyllanthus, but I'm not sure which species is the most common, or whether they are such popular fruit that they could unseat Ribes uva-crispa from the position as the primary world-wide meaning of gooseberry. I've just made a number of edits to related pages, such as List of plants known as gooseberry, but my energy has been sapped before the task is complete. I will ask a knowledgeable friend how popular those Phyllanthus gooseberries are. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
My friend responds that she doesn't consider Phyllanthus gooseberries vital to her South Asian culinary tradition. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


I know you're busy, but if you have time, could you look at the very latest edit to Anise? I was trying to figure out exactly what changes were made to the links at the various names for mastic, particularly those around Macedonian mastic. There is no WP article on "mastic". There are several disambiguation pages, one to the tree but none going to the article on "Mastika" (unless I missed it). Since there is a section on Macedonia in the article on Mastika, shouldn't a link be made to that article? And isn't the word in English "mastic"? But I don't see that. I'm going to take a look now at earlier edits on the article. CorinneSD (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a change at Mastika, bringing the Bulgarian matter to the lead. I don't know how the pine-like taste of mastic could be said to resemble anise. I've removed the Macedonian mastika from the anise article (as far as I can see that is okay, but I'd really need to spend more time hanging out in liquor stores reading the labels). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I notice that 66's first edit in this series, on July 7, 2014, he/she changed fractions such as 1/8 and 1/4 of an inch to decimals using the conversion template. For miles, decimals make enough sense (such as .75 mile, or 2.5 miles), but for inches, decimals such as 0.39 inch do not help the reader at all (if he or she is used to inches and not metric measurements). To me, something like "1/8 to 1/4 inch" is much clearer. Someone earlier must have taken the time to calculate the fractions. Now they're gone, leaving metric measurements. I don't know if there is a policy against fractions on WP, but if there is I don't think there should be (for inches). If you can put them back, would you mind doing that? CorinneSD (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Fractions are permitted, MOS:FRAC#Fractions, and there is a way to make them with Template:Frac. Also, the convert template can handle them for input but not for output.Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


I'm reading the article on Fennel. In the first paragraph in the section Fennel#Culinary uses are the following two sentences:

"They are used for garnishes and to add flavor to salads. They are also added to sauces and served with pudding."

Do you see the two "they's"? It is not clear to what "they" refers. The previous sentence says "The bulb...".

At the end of the third paragraph is the following sentence:

"In Syria and Lebanon, it is used to make a special kind of egg omelette (along with onions and flour) called ijjeh."

It is not clear to what the pronoun "it" (in "it is used") refers. Is it just "fennel"?

Can you figure out what these pronouns refer to? If you can, I think the noun ought to be used instead of the pronoun. CorinneSD (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the last paragraph in the section Fennel#Similar species, can you clear up the questions placed there by another editor? CorinneSD (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Some changes made. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to list the white-flowered Lomatium species there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


And here is a nice little landscape for someone ...I am not allowed to say who

I've been looking at articles edited recently by 66. In Huchen, I changed one of his/her edits back to the way it was before. He/She had changed "There is now a considerable effort to..." to "A considerable effort now exists to..." (this editor seems not to like the "There is/There are" construction). However, when I changed it back to "There is...", I forgot to put in "now". Now I'm wondering whether the word "now" is needed. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I like your efforts there, definitely improved. That word isn't important, I think, with it or without it being equally acceptable. I agree that "A considerable effort now exists to…" is a very peculiar construction; it grates; it is a discordant contrast to the meaning of "effort". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Beautiful landscape! CorinneSD (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
You didn't forgot about us, say? Hafspajen (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
No, of course I didn't. Sometimes I think I spend too much time on WP. Occasionally I need to clean the house, or walk, or weed the garden, or do errands. It's nice to know I'm missed, though. Thank you! CorinneSD (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
We need your voice. Your oppinions. Your sharp look. Hafspajen (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems quite common for "there is/are" constructions to be changed, usually it seems to me by Americans. I'm wondering whether there's some style guide that advises against "there is/are"? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Not that I know of, and I've never heard that. Unfortunately, many people don't know how to write well. I often hear "There's" with a plural noun, and I cringe every time I hear it. CorinneSD (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's just thoughtless application of the rule discussed here, possibly because the rule was repeated somewhere with no context and no urging of caution. There are short special-purpose manuals of style, and I'd bet that the shortness of them could lead to that sort of trouble. (The manuals used by newspapers here state that species names shall be set in lower case, homo sapiens. Aargh! How could that come about??) I'm sure it's not a two-sides-of-the-pond phenomenon because there are divergent styles in North America too. My ancient Chicago Manual of Style (14th edition, 1993), bless its heart, says that in a simple series or list consisting of three or more elements, the elements are separated by commas; when a conjunction joins the last two elements, a comma is used before the conjunction: A, B, and C. One hardly ever sees that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting because in grade school I was taught not to put a comma before the conjunction. Now, I use it more, but more often when the items are phrases than single words. I wonder what the MLA (Modern Language Association) style guide says. CorinneSD (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding not capitalizing things, did you see on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds, that quite a few editors who are either ornithologists or biologists interested in birds have left WP because MoS insisted that bird names not be capitalized? CorinneSD (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC) See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#So long, and thanks for all the fish, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#I'm out, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Bird names in lower case. CorinneSD (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I saw that. I haven't been following ornithology matters here (as is now explained on my user page). Since this appears to involve more than just one or two people, presumably they tried hard to change the MoS silliness, which would seem to mean that it is pointless for the rest of us to even try. I've decided to never downcase, but that means little because I wouldn't have done much to impose an MoS style. It means less in other areas of biology where common names are considered too ludicrous to worry much about, but in ornithology they have tried to standardize them (and in wikipedia some people have even tried to expunge the historical common names that provide a link to important literature). I care about common names because one of them is often the only name a person has to try to identify a plant, and misidentifying a plant can lead to poisoning. It's a huge undertaking, though, to get even a small fraction of them into wikipedia with citations. Battles to clarify that common mugwort has a different meaning from Common Mugwort would have to take a back-seat to the basic addition of the names with silly, confusing typography. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sminthopsis84: ah, good find! Yes, blind application of style manuals is a pain; the same thing happens with passives. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone look at this article - Black and Tan Coonhound, please? morse SOS ...---...---...---...---... It is hopeless. Hafspajen (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Back to Huchen: An editor just changed a section heading from "Appearance and behavior" to "Appearance and behaviour", with an edit summary saying it was "for internal consistency" and a link to WP:ENGVAR. I searched in the article for something that would indicate that the article was written in British English style but found nothing. I'm very tired; have been editing a long article for hours, so I may have missed it. If there is nothing, then "for internal consistency" is not a good reason to change the spelling. Could somebody make the decision whether to leave the edit or undo? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Huchen is a European fish, American spelling would not be the default, so "behaviour" would be appropriate, but WP:ENGVAR expresses that only as "strong national ties", so it could be debated on the grounds that Britain doesn't have a strong tie. Following WP:ENGVAR, the first non-stub version is this one. Microsoft Word tells me that "fertilisation" is not a spelling accepted with "English (US)", and that there are no problems with the text considered as "English (UK)", so by the "Retaining the existing variety" criterion, British English wins. I've added the template to the talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 July[edit]

Dogs to chase of uggly bots

All cleaned up now.

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Thank youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hafspajen (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Ooooh, meringue top! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Muscular rhubarb.

An editor just made a number of edits to Rhubarb. Though they're not terrible, I didn't like some of them, so changed some of them back or revised them. Generally, this editor broke up some sentences that had clauses separated by semi-colons or had participial phrases beginning with -ing forms, and made separate sentences. I have to ask you about one edit, though, because I'm not sure what would be correct. It is in the middle of the first paragraph in Rhubarb#Historical cultivation. It begins:

"Though Dioscurides' description..."

Could you look at the way it was before the change, and then the revised version, and decide which is more correct (or if even further changes are needed)? And while you're at it, could you review all the other edits?

I just noticed that User:Ehrenkater undid one of my edits, the one I was most sure about! The editor with the red user name had changed the sentence so that it looks like "rhubarb cultivation" was compiled 2,700 years ago, when I'm sure it was the Chinese herbal manual that was compiled 2,700 years ago! The way it was worded before was perfect. The "but" is because the manual was attributed to a mythical emperor but scholars have determined a real date for its compilation, thus the contrast indicated by "but". CorinneSD (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I'll get to reviewing all those edits today. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ministry of Education, Trainings and Standards in Higher Education[edit]

Hi i saw you moved the article Ministry of Education, Trainings and Standards in Higher Education to Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training (Pakistan). This should have been done opposite way as this is ministry's old name. the new name according to government of Pakistan is Ministry of Education, Trainings and Standards in Higher Education.

Please revert the redirection.

Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please check the citation in the lead paragraph of the article. It cites government document numbers to the effect that the name was changed 7th June, 2013 to the name you are saying is current, and then was changed again 19th June, 2014 to the name that I moved it to.
Also, for the sake of clarity, the page title should include the word Pakistan somewhere, since the name is very similar to the names of departments in other countries, such as the Ministry of National Education and Professional Training (Haiti). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Morus (plant[edit]

Just in case you don't have Morus (plant) on your watch list, you might like to check out the latest edits. CorinneSD (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The joys of taxonomy (again)[edit]

Ah, the joys of taxonomic puzzles when editing Wikipedia. A couple of questions for you:

  1. Although Rhodochiton atrosanguineum is all over the web and in apparently reliable sources (including a monograph on the subtribe to which it belongs), the epithet should be atrosanguineus since chiton is masculine (as confirmed by Stearn) and Article 23.5 says that epithets not agreeing in gender are to be corrected. In this case Tropicos agrees ([2]) although TPL quoting WCSP (in review) has the neuter ending. I think Tropicos is right and have moved the article to Rhodochiton atrosanguineus with a note on the gender. Do you agree that this is right?
ING in the Rhodochiton entry agrees, and has both the correction to the species epithet and the extra information that Otto & Dietrich's name R. volubilis (as 'volubile') is illegitimate (which it would be now that the Kew Rule is expunged). I think you could add a citation to ING to bolster your note about the gender.
Ah, good find; will do. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. If you look at the Tropicos entry for the genus Rhodochiton here, it has the date as 1834, because it treats the authority as Zucc. ex Otto & A.Dietr. Thus Zuccarini did something not counting as publishing Rhodochiton before it was properly published by Otto & A.Dietr. in 1834. The type species is given in Tropicos as Rhodochiton volubilis (again a correction from the original epithet volubile) – everyone agrees this is the type species. If you now look at the Tropicos entry for Rhodochiton volubilis here it gives an 1832 publication by Zuccarini alone (i.e. no "ex"). I don't understand how this can be right: if the binomial was validly published in 1832, then surely the genus name was too? Or am I missing something?

Peter coxhead (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

IPNI has a comment on Rhodochiton volubile Zucc. that it is "in syn.", which is helpful, but it's amazing how non-published that name is. It's here. He just says "Rhodochiton volubile Zuccar. in litteris.", meaning, presumably, that he'd written letters to people that included that name, but had never published it. IPNI removes names that are not validly published, but in this case does it fail article 36.1, "when it is not accepted by the author in the original publication"? I'd say so, he'd used it previously, but now he's listing it as Lophospermum atro-sanguineum.

If you are suggesting database changes, I think it would be nice if Tropicos listed Rhodochiton volubilis Zucc. as invalid (with their two stars). Since it is invalid (according to me) and not merely illegitimate, it would be nice if they listed the accepted name of the type species on the genus page as well. (I'm not sure that IPNI wants to accept suggestions these days, but perhaps they would.)

P.S.: I *think* that Tropicos has some instances of better interpretation of the required terminations on names than the other databases such as TPL and "WCSP in review" do, but it is hard to insert as a stable citation when it differs from those other sources. (For example, there is some recent silliness on Emmer, which I feel unable to combat because only Tropicos has what I believe to be plausible data.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, in my sporadic efforts to iron out Asplenium, I've sent feedback to both IPNI (correcting a genus authority and then a confusing later homonym situation) and Tropicos (various) and gotten prompt and helpful replies. Choess (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh good. I must have hit a lull at IPNI, but have been keeping notes for later about matters that might interest them … Tropicos responses that I've had have been great. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As an amateur and a very recent convert to the joys of taxonomic debates, it does bother me that every time I've researched a genus in detail in preparation for Wikipedia editing, I've quickly found pretty obvious name errors. Anyway, some responses to above:

  • As ever, Rafaël Govaerts at WCSP has replied extremely quickly saying that WCSP (in review) has been updated to the epithet atrosanguineus. However, this won't show up in TPL, as I understand it, until the next version – I have e-mailed them in the past and their reaction has been that they just reflect the source databases.
  • @Choess: yes, I've also found IPNI to be quite responsive. However, you don't always end up with agreement between these sources. When writing Roscoea articles, I queried Roscoea cautleoides/cautleyoides with both WCSP and IPNI, but they came to opposite conclusions, and although the latest monograph on the genus and WCSP use cautleyoides, IPNI only lists cautleoides. There are arguments under the ICN for both. Sigh…
[Peter: I foresee the day when you will be submitting nomenclature proposals to Taxon to be considered at the next IBC. ;-) ] Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to encourage someone to do something about conserving Meconopis (can't remember if you're aware of this one, but the type genus M. cambrica definitely belongs in Papaver according to all molecular phylogenetic studies, but this means all the Himalayan blue poppies need renaming unless Meconopsis is conserved with a new Asian type species). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sminthopsis84: when I have time, I'll try to compose a query for Tropicos re Rhodochiton volubil(e/is) or better still you might do it. It does seem that it was never published according to the ICN's definition (which is what Elisens says in his monograph sourced at Rhodochiton).
  • Re Emmer, I think that sometimes you have to be bold and relegate dissenting views which are pretty certainly false to a footnote. See e.g. Lophospermum#Notes. Tropicos did have Lophospermum nubiculum sourced to Elisen's monograph on the Maurandyinae which fortunately is online and does not have this name, only L. nubicola. When I pointed this out, they removed it. But TPL will remain in error for the present.

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You may like to comment...[edit]

... at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Plant field guides and manuals do not meet WP:MEDRS standards for reliability of medical information, since I remember you've encountered this issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)