User talk:Plantsurfer/Archive 3

Hello, Plantsurfer. This is Grayz654. My edits to the Fern information page were merely for English criticism. My reasons for the edit were that if you have a the singular form of "species", it is written as "specie". There were multiple occurrences of this mistake in the article and I felt I should try to contribute in some way for my first time editing an article. If you would like to take this up with both my English and Science teachers, I will gladly send you to them. Until then, please ask for the reason of the edits before blatantly deleting them with not just cause.

Conifer seed cones

I thought it worth adding something about berry-like conifer seed cones to the Berry (botany) article, since I found wikilinks in relevant conifer articles of the form [[berry]]-like, and changing them to [[Berry (botany)|berry]]-like didn't quite seem to work, in that there was previously no discussion of this kind of non-berry in the linked article.

However, the section title is "Fruits not botanical berries", but "fruits" doesn't seem right once female conifer codes are included. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it can't be forced into those definitions, but I think that one could legitimately end that section with a sentence to the effect that e.g. "In Taxus and Cephalotaxus, berry-like or drupe-like single seeded cones are produced in which each seed is partly enclosed by the expanded tissue of the cone scale or sporophyll on which it is borne." Plantsurfer 22:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you would check what I put at Berry (botany)#Conifer seed cones. Juniper "berries" are probably as well known, if not better known, than yew "berries", so I think should be explicitly mentioned. I've created a redirect to the whole section at Berry-like/Berrylike, so it should cover all cases where an editor might want to say that a plant produces berry-like structures. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Avocado

@Peter Coxhead: I am uncomfortable about the inclusion of avocado in the list of berries. Lauraceae have drupes generally, and this is what the WP article Lauraceae says: "The fruits of Lauraceae are drupes, one-seeded fleshy fruit with a hard layer, the endocarp, surrounding the seed. However, the endocarp is very thin, so the fruit resemble a one-seeded berry." Plantsurfer 22:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This goes to the heart of the points I made at WT:PLANTS, namely the lack of precision of definition. If you take the Stace definition, as an example, there needs only to be a "stony coat" enclosing the seed, on which basis I would say that an avocado is a drupe. Other sources use phrases like "stony layer", which raises the question of how thick the "layer" should be. The Flora of North America definition calls for an "osseous inner stone (endocarp) containing the seed(s)" – but what's a "stone"? An avocado is not a "typical" stone fruit, like an apricot or pistachio, say, in which the endocarpal coat is harder than the inner seed so is might well be called "osseus". Is the endocarp of an avocado "osseous"? As Sminthopsis84 wrote: "Drupes and pomes and even berries grade into one another depending on how much hard tissue is present and whether it completely surrounds the seeds." Avocados are clearly "drupaceous" by the FNA definition of this term, if not "drupes".

To be practical, in any list of berries, it seems sensible to begin with "typical", undisputed berries, and then add something at the end about marginal cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the source given in the Lauraceae article for the comment about drupes vs. berries, it says "Roth (1977) acknowledges that fruits of Lauraceae are typically considered drupes, but are better classified as a berry since the 'endocarp' is only made up of a thin, single-celled sclerified endodermis." The Flora of North America unambiguously uses "drupe" for Persea. I've altered the Berry (botany) article, and put avocados plus this source, complete with quote, under "Drupe" – please check. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've found sources, such as the Kew Plant Glossary, basing themselves on Spjut (1994), A Systematic Treatment of Fruit Types – which I don't have access to at present (not the website here) – which attempt to quantify the difference between a berry and a drupe, requiring e.g. the endocarp to be less than 2 mm thick in a berry. Spjut's website also requires a "bacca" to have a pericarp "with a thin outer skin-like layer, collapsing when removed from sarcocarp", which distinguishes pepos and others with a hard outer skin or rind from a "true berry" with a soft, non-self-supporting skin. All very complex! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hippophae

@Plantsurfer:, @Sminthopsis84: Another problem case is Hippophae. The Wikipedia article of this title describes the fruit as a berry (without a source). The Flora of China here says "Drupe globose, ellipsoid, or cylindric, sometimes longitudinally ribbed. Seed enclosed in parchmentlike endocarp, sometimes difficult to separate from seed." Stace (my bible as a British field botanist) describes the fruit of Hippophae as "a drupe-like achene", which is what is said at Berry (botany). Our article at Hippophae rhamnoides says "The oval or lightly roundish fruits grow in compact grapes" (whatever that means) and then under Uses says "berries" without qualification.

The German Wikipedia has longer articles on the family and its genera than we do, but isn't entirely clear either. It describes the fruit of Elaeagnaceae as achenes appearing to be berries or drupes ("wie Beeren oder Steinfrüchte wirken) but then describes the fruit of Hippophae rhamnoides as false drupes ("Schein-Steinfrüchte") without mentioning achenes.

So it appears that achenes can also grade into drupes.

What should our articles say? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Blamey, Fitter and Fitter say the fruit is an orange berry, but the distinction is too refined for that book. Heywood says fruits of Elaeagnaceae are single seeded achenes, drupelike through enclosure by thickened hypanthium, which is effectively what Stace 3 says: "fruit a drupe-like achene surrounded by succulent hypanthium". Since we now have the opportunity to be precise, maybe we should create a section in which we describe why fruits which look very like botanical berries fail to make it using the strict definition. Unless that strays too close to original research. Plantsurfer 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be useful for readers, and not OR if each part can be sourced. We should also have something about seed dispersal syndromes, e.g. the likely selection pressure for bird-dispersed seeds to be inside similar looking structures, which may explain why "berries" are built differently but can look superficially the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Drupe-like achene" sounds good too. It is nice to see that thanks to hard work by the two of you and others, the painful split that resulted from the berry page being targeted for "improvement" is actually leading to being able to include more technical material. It's very unpleasant to be forced to scramble like this, but nice that some good can come of it if people are able to put in enough effort. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: "unpleasant" is right. Are those editors who forced a split going to check the thousands of links which previously went to Berry to see where they should go now? I think we know the answer. I've been searching for articles that have links to "Plantae" or to "Plant" (so are likely to be about plant taxa) that also have links to "Berry", and replacing most of the Berry links by Berry (botany). So far I've done a couple of hundred articles, I think, but there are about the same again to do. And there are bound to be many other articles where the link should be changed which this search doesn't find, but a few hundred will be enough for me.

But you're also right that in the end the Berry (botany) article can be made much better, both by not having to include material on colloquial uses and also by being able to focus on botanical issues. I'm still trying to get to grips with the relevant terminology, as you see! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was resistant to the split at first, but we're much better off where we are now. Berry is now looking like a bit of a train wreck. Plantsurfer 17:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Trouble is, as usual, wherever one looks to fix this problem there are others (a province of France linked to a small fruit, drupes called berries, etc.). It would be ironic if that call for improvement were to leave behind a train-wreck at the site. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've completely rewritten Berry#Botanical definition so that it is hopefully both correct and accessible to non-botanists. It needs more references, but do please have a look. So long as the botanical stuff is correct, I don't intend to do much if anything with the rest of the article. Ironically, it seems to me that after being "improved" it isn't any longer a "level 4 vital article in Science" because it's not really scientific. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd agree that it shouldn't be called a level 4 vital article in Science. I *think* that no authoritative sources consider the components of an aggregate fruit (or a schizocarp) to be individual fruit, and I've adjusted your work at Berry#Botanical definition accordingly. There are plenty of non-authoritative sources that do that though, so I'm a little unsure. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: yes, you're right that botanical glossaries don't use this language; it's always tricky to map technical botanical terms onto more ordinary language. The FNA glossary says a fruit is "[a]ny unitary seed-bearing structure of a flowering plant", where "unitary" seems to be interpreted as meaning that e.g. a blackberry as a whole is a unit. I think one can write that a blackberry is a fruit composed of "fruitlets", since it's described in the FNA as "aggregated drupelets", and if a drupe is a fruit, a drupelet must be a fruitlet, no? I just think it's useful to non-botanists to point out that in a blackberry you can clearly see the components that are aggregated, which is why it's actually obvious that it's different from a true berry. If you don't like this edit, do feel free to undo it. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work. I guess it is start class now and that its importance for project Plants should also be derated. Ratings are needed for Berry (botany).Plantsurfer 22:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Another point: FNA calls the juicy part of the Taxus seed an aril. Do other sources say it is a seed-cone scale? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Both Stace and Judd describe it as an aril, Stace as succulent upgrowth (aril). Not clear whether this definition of aril in Taxus is the same as that in angiosperms, but it may be. Judd "...usually developed from the funiculus or outer integument. Plantsurfer 22:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be the more general usage of aril, which makes a lot of sense. I was recently looking at aril to add arillode. Litchi is quite cute, its ovule curls over, the outer integument is then missing from the inner part next to the funiculus, then a collar develops partly from the funiculus and partly from the outer integument. In older terminology that's an arillode, but if such a developmental path exists, it makes a lot of sense to use aril to include it. Distinguishing integuments and chalaza and funiculus and obturator as the starting points of development would need very intensive study. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer:@Sminthopsis84: yes, I've clearly generalized too far here. The morphology of gymnosperms is even more of black box to me! Please check this edit. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I think that's fine, nicely polished. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

For your editorial attention to chemical substance. Please note that there is attention at that article, with a couple of apparent programmers reverting the article to a much earlier sage, because they do not like the complexity—where the whole point of recent edits (as a chemist) was to be accurate, with regard to a broadly used but complex term. Keep an eye, if you will. When I am back to work I also will check in. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer: You spelled Aluminum wrong, which is why I corrected the spelling. Aluminum is the correct spelling according to my spell checker, as you can see from the attached screen shot, that it is underlined as being incorrectly spelled. I would appreciate that you change it back to the proper spelling please, and thank you.

Http://s1.postimg.org/7047iq70t/aluminum.png

Citrus micrantha

Thanks for the PDF. I am fairly unqualified to read it properly, in a professional sense, but it seems to say just what you said it did. Happily, users No such user and Sminthopsis84 have brought the Citrus micrantha article out of its shadowy half-life existence and into the light where it might actually grow. Best wishes Hamamelis (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thanks bruh

Doodemi (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Capsaicin

You reverted my edits so that now the Capsaicin entry under the Research section says this:

"It is also used to reduce the symptoms of peripheral neuropathy such as post-herpetic neuralgia caused by shingles.[25]=== Although capsaicin creams have been used to treat psoriasis for reduction of itching,[26][27]"

Can you explain what the "===" means and why you think it should be in the article?

66.210.29.137 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Moss life cycle

Good catch on the problems with this image in the bryophyte article. I have uploaded a corrected image to Commons and restored the diagram, with additional caption text to explain the color-coding scheme. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, that helps. Are you able to correct the spelling error at top right, where it says Hapliod gametophyte generation? Plantsurfer 09:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, scratch that - it appears my computer was showing me the cached version. Plantsurfer 09:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ostrich egg

Hello Plantsurfer. Would it be acceptable to insert the picture with this caption: "a big feminine gamete: an unfertilized ostrich egg" ? In fact nobody knows if it is, and indeed it is very probable it is fecundated, but as far as the picture, there is no difference.--Auró (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No. A bird's egg is not a gamete. It is a structure produced to contain, protect and nurture the zygote and the embryo that develops from it. Plantsurfer 21:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. It seems quite reasonable. If you have the reference it could be of interest to add this information to the article Bird egg.--Auró (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please refr to the introduction of the article Egg. Plantsurfer 19:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your definition as a "structure" seemed to admit the possibility that in the egg there are more living cells than the zygote. The definition at egg leaves no room for this (organic vessel). Of course, both definitions can also be true. What is the answer?--Auró (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. The definition at egg explicitly leads with the statement "An egg is the organic vessel containing the zygote in which an animal embryo develops until it can survive on its own." The answer is that, generally speaking, in birds and reptiles, the female gamete (which is not the egg but the ovum) has been fertilised long before the shell is constructed and the egg laid, by which time the zygote has undergone cell division and formed an early, multicellular, embryo. Plantsurfer 21:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation.--Auró (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

your revert at Aqua regia

hello!

you did [revert] my changing at Aqua regia. But I think you're wrong. I did calculate it at the talk. If I am wrong, could you explain me the calculation of this footnote? I mix it a lot of time so I wonder

--Struppi (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

See, for example, http://ehs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/Chemical_SOP_AquaRegia.pdf and http://chemistry.about.com/od/acids/fl/How-To-Make-Aqua-Regia-Acid-Solution.htm

The 1:3 molar ratio is derived from the following equation:

HNO3 + 3HCl -> 2[Cl] + NOCl + 2H2O

Most sources specify 1:3 volume mixtures of the concentrated acids. However, the molarities of the two concentrated acids are not the same. HCl is 12.1M while HNO3 is 15.9M. Consequently, a 2:3 ratio of nitric:hydrochloric acids would be closer to the ideal ratio, giving a slight excess of HCl. Figures obtained from http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/chemistry/stockroom-reagents/learning-center/technical-library/reagent-concentrations.html

Hope this helps. Plantsurfer 12:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Helium

Explain what is unconstructive of it? TekIonRLP (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Plantago lanceolata

Hi Plantsurfer. I'm trying to figure out why you have deleted the content you deleted (as "bullshit") from the Plantago lanceolata article. While some of it might have been a bit too specific, and some not the greatest writing, there was also content in there that looks perfectly good to me. Despite the vandalism warnings you issues, it's most definitely not vandalism. I'd like to work with the student to improve their contribution, but it's difficult when you reject all their contributions without any sort of an explanation. How can we proceed? Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the material you added was about a pathogen of Plantago lanceolata. The article is about Plantago lanceolata, so your students contributions were way off topic. If you want to develop Wikipedia content about Podosphaera plantaginis then the place to do that is in an article on Podosphaera plantaginis. You would be welcome to create such an article, but I would also point out that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not intended to be a teaching medium for providing students with practice in essay writing. Plantsurfer 17:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Lunaria (aka "money plant")

Look in seed catalogs such as http://www.burpee.com/perennials/lunaria/lunaria-money-plant-prod000076.html

or try an internet image search on:

money plant fruit pod

As for "money tree plant", it is what I always heard it referred as. I cannot now give the names of people who have been dead for several decades. Note that what shows up on the internet depends on what someone decides to put there, so absence of something does not mean that it hasn't been in existence for a long time.

agb

P.S. One of the reference librarians just walked by, and she said that is what she always called it. (We are in Illinois, but I have lived in several other parts of the country, so I might have picked up that name just about anywhere.) Perhaps I should ask what part of the world you are from. Perhaps people in England (or wherever your little corner of the world is) never use either of those names.

BTW: The reason for my internet search today was to get a picture of the plant with ripe seedpods to make a poster captioned "Who says money doesn't grow on trees." This was after finding a list of Things My Mother Taught Me that included

My mother taught me about AGRICULTURE: Do you think money grows on trees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.206.27 (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. Also look in "Flora, A Gardener's Encyclopedia", Timber Press, Portland Oregon. (Thanks to another reference librarian.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.206.27 (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Beril

My edite in article Beril was right, becouse "Cite error: Invalid tag; name "Mindat" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)." , but you delite my edite. Why? Please, see article and remove your change. W8w8w8w8 (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Mindat" - tag page doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W8w8w8w8 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• See end of article Beril - it's mistake in ReferencesW8w8w8w8 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Do you hear me? W8w8w8w8 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Beril

Hallo, and tell me on page please: what is wrong with my editing on Biril? W8w8w8w8 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fucus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Feldmann and John Stackhouse. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You missed Bromine too. Your edits in this area are making the articles less informative. I am trying to show in good faith what the elements look like as prepared for presentation.

Chlorine

Your edit isn't ok in my opinion, because ist is very valuable and educational. This image is a featured picture too. Did you read the describtion? All things are "commercial products" ...! I'm not a seller or other commercial contributor. Best regards, the image owner :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a clear commercial conflict of interest here, advertising in WP by stealth. Plantsurfer 20:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"commercial conflict" between whom??? No seller or contributor is named. No a seller webside is named. ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Other real commercial side: Mercedes-Benz ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Cadmium

Two points:

• The use as PVC stabilizers is written in the compounds section with references.

• Why are the red, orange and yellow pigments only used to colour glass?

_Stone (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

on point 1 - Thanks for pointing this out, my mistake.

on point 2 - They are not only used for glass, and the sentence does not say that. Plantsurfer 18:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Protist

Hi, Plantsurfer. I'm glad you removed that footnote, which J mareeswaran took from a comment I made in a more casual context. It does not belong in the article. However, the comment was certainly not intended to suggest that Protista is coterminous w/ Eukaryota. What I meant was that the least inclusive clade that could conceivably contain the contents of the traditional Protista would be Eukaryota itself (i.e. LECA and all its descendents). This was by way of explaining that Cavalier-Smith's Protozoa is not a clade, even in its most recent form. Deuterostome (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Deuterostome, Yep, plagiarism is the sincerest and most annoying form of flattery! Suggest you could try rewriting it in your words, but the original form was clearly quite wrong. Plantsurfer 20:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Nah, no need to rewrite. :) The comment was tangential to the article. Deuterostome (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Apoplast pathway

I was wondering why you thought my contribution the the apoplast page was incorrect.Ruffmegs (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruffmegs (talk • contribs) 10:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It excluded the cell wall, which is a primary diffusional space within which apoplastic transport takes place. Also, your definition contradicted the definition already given in the lead.Plantsurfer 10:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The wording must have been wrong. I meant my sentence to read that the apoplast pathway was the area consisting the cell wall and the space between cells. If I were to change the wording would you allow me to reedit it? Ruffmegs (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

ok, give it a go! Plantsurfer 11:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Acer pseudoplatanus

Hello Plantsurfer, we have both been making some improvements to Acer pseudoplatanus. I was planning on working on the article with a view to bringing it to GA. Do you care to join me? I mostly work on articles about animals rather than plants, but I am interested in and like trees, and I brought Betula pendula and Alnus glutinosa to GA last year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, what do you see as the main priorities? Plantsurfer 14:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't really considered too closely, but at the moment it is a bit UK-centric, what with three notable trees and a history section on its arrival in Scotland. In fact History is rather an unusual section for a tree. I would have thought "Distribution and habitat" was a more appropriate section, to include a paragraph on its Scotland/UK arrival, and others on its natural range, where it has been introduced and its growing preferences. It's a very successful tree; I have heard it said that it will overshadow and crowd out most other trees in our native (UK) woodlands in time. Some information is currently uncited, the description section could be expanded, as could the uses section, there is probably more stuff to add to the ecology section, the lead will need to be more comprehensive and the citations will need tidying up. So, plenty to do, but I wasn't thinking of rushing things, just working on the article on and off over the next couple of weeks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Scotland is, of course, the centre of the known universe, (or is that Wolverhampton?), but seriously it won't take too much effort to balance the article once the basic information content is in place. I have already removed some material that was uncited and OR. Post-glacial botanical history is of interest to many - questions of how fast these species moved into northern Europe, and by what agency, and from what refugia, and whether they can be considered native, etc. It is certainly a pretty aggressive colonist, but then so also is beech, which is alien in our neck of the woods, but breeding like rabbits, so sycamore has some competition.

On an entirely different subject, I have hardly dared to look at Botany since our attempt a couple of years back to get it to GA were undermined by a certain sniping, trolling contributor. The whole experience was deeply troubling and traumatic, and the lead contributor left the project entirely, but since then I note that despite the hostile reactions at the time there has been no attempt to alter the basic structure which we set up. Have you, by any chance, ever looked at that article, and if so, do you have any views on how it could be prepared for re-submission? Plantsurfer 21:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Botany, I see it is a GA and I think you must be referring to its FAC nomination in September 2013. The particular trolling editor concerned there was a major thorn in my side too, but has thankfully "retired" from Wikipedia. Different people have different views on the structure and content of articles, and I found some of the criticisms made by the editor concerned were valid while other were merely attempts to be disruptive. You could consult with other knowledgeable editors and give Botany another go at FAC. (I would be happy to help.) I once rewrote Tree completely and caused great controversy when a different editor disputed lots of points and inserted dozens of tags. I abandoned the article and moved on, but my structure and most of my content remained, and more recently, with another editor who I often collaborate with, steered it through GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, FAC of course. I think the main criticism was that it was felt that there was excessive coverage of plant science topics (e.g. photosynthesis) and that the essence of the article is the study of botany and not the information content of plant science. Looking at it from a greater distance now I can see that is a problem. I also dislike the sfn reference format, which is annoyingly complicated, especially for casual editors, and is uncommon elsewhere in the Plants project.Plantsurfer 11:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Side point re {{sfn}}: this is becoming more common for "top level" plant articles as Michael Goodyear has been making major expansions and improvements to them (see e.g. Liliaceae, Amaryllidaceae, Lilioid monocots, etc.), and it's the style he uses consistently. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting. Has there been a policy decision to this effect within project Plants - discussion and consensus reached etc., or is this just a single user's preference? Plantsurfer 16:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No discussion or consensus, just Michael's preference and decision. Strictly speaking, according to WP:CITEVAR changing an existing article to use this template should require prior consensus at the article, but as he's got several, including Lilioid monocots, up to GA status, I think we should respect his preferences. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's stick to the present referencing system! - With regards to our article, we need to decide what we are going to call the tree and be consistent throughout the article. The word "sycamore" is confusing because in the US this word is used to describe the American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), which seems to often be abbreviated there to "sycamore", and they call our tree "sycamore maple". Of course our "sycamore" has precedence datewise, and we are writing in British English, or we could just call the tree A. pseudoplatanus, but that is a bit of a mouthful. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we have dealt with the name adequately in the lead. Sycamore is widely accepted in Europe, and this is a European species, but we should be careful to be clear when there is any real risk of ambiguity. Plantsurfer 18:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Western Jackdaw

Hi, it was my understanding wikipedia follows the IOC World Bird Names List, that's why I changed Corvus to Coloeus. See: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/bow/crows/ As far as I know this is the accepted name in most recent bird lists. But I stopped wasting my time on wikipedia and other sites, because all of my corrections are being undone by people who think they know more about birds and bird names than me. The only list I now contact with my corrections and suggestions is IOC World Bird Names and let them incorporate them in their list. Goodbye and good luck making wiki worse every day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.144.192 (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not point links to "Foo (disambiguation)" pages.

honestly, who was I hurting? and I fail to see what is so constructive about turning a word like licoresse into liquorice. User:50.141.102.220 16:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Licoresse is a French word. Liquorice is the spelling of the title of the article. It comes from the Latin word 'liquoritia'. Hope this helps. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on the article's talk page. Plantsurfer 16:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

First, per WP:MALPLACED, you can not point a "Foo" link to a "Foo (disambiguation)" page, because it creates the false impression that the base page name has a different primary topic. Second, you can not change a redirect to point to a disambiguation page without first establishing in a discussion that there is a lack of a primary topic. In this case, there has already been a discussion-based consensus reached that "Grass" has a primary topic, so it would take a particularly strong consensus to overcome that. Third, when you plan on creating a disambiguation link, you must fix all incoming links first. bd2412 T 19:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand either your point or the terms you use in describing it. Please explain. Plantsurfer 19:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:FIXDABLINKS states:

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

Notice how "before" is emphasized there? You MUST NOT change this page to point to a disambiguation page until after you have corrected incoming links. That is the policy of this project, which I hope you will observe. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Pollination

I am not a botanist but I have been trying to improve the article Pollination, which had lots of citation needed tags, etc. The only place where the pollination process is explained is briefly in the lead, and this is against policy as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main text. Please could you look at my sandbox where I have written a section that tries to explain how pollination takes place. If I have made errors, please point them out or correct them. I will move the section into the article only after approval. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. Plantsurfer 19:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Succisa

References not right yet - I don't have the knowledge to correct!! Ref to "Stace" ref 8 .Osborne 13:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that better? Plantsurfer 13:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes - that looks better - thanks. I too lazy to check! Fell no needOsborne 14:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Glaux

Hi, yes, it seems that "Glaux maritima is a synonym of the accepted species binomial Lysimachia maritima (L.)", as per GRIN as well. So is there any reason why the page should not be moved to this title? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I would support the move. Plantsurfer 11:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Rhamnus frangula a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 14:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I acknowledge that I went about these moves in the wrong way, but that editing took several hours of work, and I will not be in a position to undo the damage your reversions have done any time soon. Please be more constructive with your criticism in future. Plantsurfer 19:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Compassionate727 isn't an admin, so couldn't have merged the page histories, which is what is needed to fix cut-and-paste moves. Sigh... I'll ask an admin to make the move; then you can restore your version from the page history. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Peter. Plantsurfer 19:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems that when a page is moved over a redirect, the redirect page's history disappears; I didn't realize this. So we should have saved your version before the move was made. Sigh... One day I hope to understand how Wikipedia actually works! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It's all so complicated! Never mind, it'll be all right in the end. Thanks for your help. Plantsurfer 11:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It's easy enough to recover those deleted edits - the only question is whether you want them restored in the page's history, or if you want them split into a sandbox. I'd be happy to do either one for you. Ian (Wiki Ed)/Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you please copy them into my sandbox? That would enable me to cross check everything. Many thanks, Plantsurfer 16:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored the two diffs to the page history. So your edits are this and this. Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Japanese knotweed

So should Fallopia japonica be moved to Reynoutria japonica? This paper seems to be the source of the preference for Reynoutria. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we should move it, despite the fact that Fallopia japonica will be the name in everyone's heads probably for years to come. Making it correct doesn't prevent people from linking to it with the older nomenclature, and they may be informed in the process. I think I am right in saying that this move will need an admin, since the target article name already exists, albeit only as a redirect. Plantsurfer 10:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it will need an admin – the mere existence of the target isn't the problem; it's when it has been edited post creation that it needs an admin. See Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect. If you care to ask at WT:PLANTS, I'll support you if needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Why this change?

I don't see this generalization in the source.[1] Help me. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 19:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

For a start, sulfur dioxide is not a sulfide. However, I would accept a change to sulfur compounds if that seems better to you. Plantsurfer 20:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup, let's do that. Good catch. I will fix it in a bit. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jackfruit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fig. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What about supposed "editorialism"?

Will you please give me some detail on what supposed "editorialism" you think I was doing at alcoholic beverage? Drunken Kindness (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read and understand the section of WP:MOS cited in my edit comment. Plantsurfer 13:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I did read that, but couldn't see how you believe it's supposed to be related to the edition I made. How about you please just be a cooperative editor and point out the connections that you believe there are and why you believe they are there, rather than just being someone who likes to pull out the old "LMGtfY" on people? Drunken Kindness (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you're back on the site now. Your non-discussion (not continued until finished, anyway) doesn't constitute your supposed correctness on the matter. So can I expect an answer to my question here in maybe a few to several minutes, please, or would you prefer to just go back to discussing via edit summaries for some odd reason (even though the Wiki's preferred method is this way)? Drunken Kindness (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drunken Kindness: you added "Rice wines like sake are, of course, as the term implies." The comment "of course" is un-encyclopedic; it's an editorial comment. Furthermore, it's not correct that "rice wine" is as its name implies; as the article on rice wine says, "strictly speaking, wine is the product of fermenting grape juice." Rice wine is made of rice, but it's not, in the strictest sense, a wine. So in my view Plantsurfer was doubly right to revert your addition: (1) "of course" is an editorial comment, and (2) it's incorrect. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

My point, Pete, is that it's obvious that it's made of rice, so stating that it's made of rice just looks silly. But if it's not really wine, then yeah, I guess I should put the quotation marks back around it.

And please explain what makes the words "of course" editorial and why that's a supposed "problem" for an encyclopedia. Drunken Kindness (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:EDITORIAL, as Plantsurfer told you in the edit summary. It's not a matter of our opinion, it's written down clearly in the Manual of Style that "of course" should not be used. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Peter, do not engage the sock. See here. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  15:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Plantsurfer 17:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Glutaraldehyde

I was going to revert the entire string of edits to glutaraldehyde, which looks like a mixture of advert, advice, undue emphasis on a hobby app. But I saw that you have been editing, and as you are highly experienced, I decided to hold off. Dont you think that this edits are a little overboard?--Smokefoot (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, this section is out of control, out of all proportion, and full of unsupported statements and frank nonsense. There may be a case for making a brief one-line statement of this application under the sterilisation section, provided it is sourced, but there is no case for having a section devoted to this application alone. I have not researched this topic sufficiently to have proper sources etc., but I am aware that glutaraldehyde is widely used as a biocide and cold sterilising agent in medical / healthcare and dentistry, and also in various areas of agriculture, animal husbandry, engineering and technology where biofilm formation is a problem and autoclaving techniques impossible or inapplicable. one example among many - Dow Corning sell a product UCARCIDE 150, which is a 50% aqueous solution of GA used to sterilise oil drilling wells. Many other such products and applications are listed in e.g. Handbook of Preservatives (see [2]). Don't worry about any interests I may have - I will support your attempt to restore balance here. Plantsurfer 10:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

May I aske why you made this revert please? 92.13.134.77 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

3rd time

It seems you don't want to answer the question, but for the third time, why did you remove the paragraph from the leaf article? 92.13.134.77 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, considering terms such as "'leaf' culture" get over a third of a million returns on google books, thus indicating notability, don't you think you're violating wp:due policy? 92.13.134.77 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"leaf culture" is not about the relationship between leaves and human culture.

No-one is going to dispute the idea that plant leaves play a role in human culture, but any account needs (a) to take note of what is in the Plant article and (b) to be balanced, dealing with major impacts, such as the use of leaves as food, building materials, fibre sources, etc. I entirely agree with Plantsurfer's action. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Allioideae

added a link pointing to William Herbert

Crinum bulbispermum

added a link pointing to William Herbert

Sprekelia

added a link pointing to William Herbert

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cell wall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Plantae

Plantsurfer, if you have an objection to something I've written on a talk page, or think I have made an error, please make the case in your own words, rather than reverting mine.

As it happens, Embryophyta, as proposed in Adl et al., 2012 is of identical composition to Plantae sensu Haeckel, 1866. The entry on Embryophyta in the revised classification reads as follows: "Embryophyta Engler 1886, emend. Lewis & McCourt 2004 [Cormophyta Endlicher 1836; Plantae Haeckel 1866"

In Adl et al., 2005, Sina Adl & his collaborators used Plantae; in the revised classification, they opt for Engler's group, Embryophyta (a junior synonym, but rules of priority don't apply here). Deuterostome  (Talk) 15:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Plant defines plants as Plantae sensu Copeland (1956) and includes green algae: therefore the article is treating Plantae as not equivalent to Embryophyta. We need to develop some consistency here across articles, so perhaps it would be appropriate to discuss this at Wikiproject Plants. Plantsurfer 17:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Deuterostome: as Plantsurfer says, the definition of Plantae agreed by WP:PLANTS for use in plant articles is as per the article Plant. Unless and until there is a consensus to the contrary, this is the definition that should be used in taxoboxes, although where appropriate other definitions should, of course, be discussed. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Singular or plural with family names

Hi, we agreed, as per WP:PLANTS/TAXONNUMBER, not to change singular and plural unless there were very good reasons. On my watchlist I have an IP going around changing singular to plural and you changing plural to singular. The only way to avoid edit wars and constant changing back and forth is to enforce the "leave alone" rule. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my apologies, I was unaware of that ruling. It seems wrong to me, but I won't change any more unless there are internal inconsistencies in usage. Plantsurfer 17:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I prefer the singular, but the discussion somewhere in the archives of WP:PLANTS showed that there were others who preferred the plural, and if you look for sources, it's actually easier to find sources saying you must use the plural than it is to find the reverse. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Plantsurfer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External respiration in plants

Is there external respiration in plant? Arijitbasu123123 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Plantsurfer 13:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Please discuss your concerns on talk, thanks.

Your recent editing history at Nigella sativa‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement!

Hi Plantsurfer, please allow me to get in touch because you have stated sympathy with environmental causes on your user page. I would like to invite you to check out the Environmental impact project page on Meta, where I am trying to create some momentum to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. My first goal is to have all the Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy. Maybe you could show your support for this project as well by adding your signature here? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Gold

Hello Plantsurfer, Regarding your reversion of my edit to Gold and your warning of vandalism please raise any concerns you have about the content on that article's talk page where they can be discussed further. Thank you, DC94 (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Seed plant pollen

Hi, are you able to verify this statement on Plant reproductive morphology, "Each male gametophyte consists of three or four cells within a pollen grain."? I don't have Gifford & Foster to hand, but I think that some of the gymnosperms may have more than four. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, it is a generalisation that really needs working up a bit. In Pinus, there are initially four cells per pollen grain, but two 'prothallial cells' degenerate, leaving two cells viable. One produces a pollen tube, the other divides to produce two sperm nuclei. Similarly, Judd in 'Plant Systematics' says "During development of pollen, the microspore nucleus divides into a small generative cell and a much larger vegetative cell. . . . the generative cell usually divides into two sperm within the growing tube. ... In a minority of angiosperms .... the generative cell divides into two sperm prior to anther dehiscence and the pollen is shed in the three-celled stage. There is a paper by Smith-White (1959) describing pollen development in Styphelia in which there may be only one surviving cell per pollen grain. Plantsurfer 22:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Lemon

What would be the name provided in the lead sentence of the Lemon page? If it's a source of some kind, then it should be formatted as such like a footnote. You see there is no comma afterwards. It looks somewhat obscure especially in the first sentence because it catches your eye right away. Hopefully this can be resolved somehow. Thanks! Tinton5 (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you Plant for the info. As you can maybe tell, fruit is not my forte. Have a nice day. Tinton5 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)