User talk:Sminthopsis84/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sminthopsis84. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Flax

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

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

Did you ever get to this? (I just saw this.) Do you have Flax on your watchlist? See latest edits. CorinneSD (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That article needs a major re-organization as well as smaller-scale changes, and the major part has defeated me so far. I looked at the latest changes which look a bit odd, but on checking the citation about safety, it does in fact say that flax oil in general is reasonably safe, not just the trademarked product that is the subject of the application. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

An IP editor has attempted to improve the prose in Flax – see [1] and the edit just previous to it. Besides the spelling error introduced in the first of the two edits, I'm not sure the second edit is an improvement:

In "If the flax straw is not harvested, it is typically burned, since its stalk is quite tough and decomposes slowly...", the possessive adjective "its" would normally refer to a singular noun, and in the new phrase "flax straw", "straw" in not really singular, it is uncountable, referring to quite a bit of straw in a field, not just one stalk or one plant. I think your judgment about these edits is needed. CorinneSD (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edits. In the edit by Zefr, I saw this sentence:

Flaxseed has low concentration of cyanogenic glycosides and does not present a toxicity risk from consuming flaxseed products.

What do you think of the prose, specifically the repetition of the word "flaxseed"? CorinneSD (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Hey, I just realized it's Monday, and I thought you didn't edit on Mondays. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops! I put that down to jetlag.

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So now that it's Tuesday ... I had another bout with that page. I still think it is rather a mess, particularly with repetition in the sections about how the crop is processed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhubarb

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

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

I was just reading the latest comment at Talk:Rhubarb#toxicity oxalic acid. I glanced at the article and was surprised by an image in Rhubarb#Toxicity of rhubarb flowers. The photo is very dark. It looks like it was taken at night. Isn't there a better photo that shows the plant's flowers than this one? CorinneSD (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Found a better photo. It's a pity there isn't a photo of the roots available. The comment on the talk page has been adequately dealt with on the page, I think. (Sorry to have taken so long to look at this.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Opopanax, Bdellium

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

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

Many thanks. I'll try and support if you get reverted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Opopanax

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

I looked over the page history, and it seems to me that Sminthopsis84 is quite correct to revert your changes. All the sources I've looked at confirm that "opopanax" is a term with a very confused meaning (see the definitions here and here). You are picking out one sense and making it the meaning in the article. It's never quite clear to me what the best solution is in such cases; if enough information is available perhaps more than one article might work. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

He mutilated the article by putting the history section into the introduction, and he deleted a referenced sentence stating that Commiphora erythrea was the ancient source of myrrh, while today it is Commiphora myrrha.

Identifying ancient plants is a difficult matter to start with, in addition, many plant names have changed their meaning throughout history. For biblical plants, the older literature is Loew, Zohary and Moldenke, aside from Feliks, who wrote the plant entries of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2nd ed.), but none of their important works is available through Google books. --El Cazangero (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"deleted a referenced sentence stating that Commiphora erythrea was the ancient source of myrrh, while today it is Commiphora myrrha": please point to that statement in the page history, I can't see it. You are mutilating a number of articles by removing disambiguation information intended to help the reader. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is actually there as the penultimate sentence of the History section in this version. However, if you look at the referenced source here it's not clear that it's well supported. The relevant bit is in the last paragraph of the first column on p. 4 where, as far as I can make out, the authors are actually repeating information from their reference 3, so if it is used in the article it should be sourced to Tucker, A.O. (1986) Frankincense and Myrrh, Econ Bot 40, 425–433, or to this source cited in Hanuš et al. (2005) if we can't get hold of the Tucker paper.

Also the botany in Hanuš et al. (2005) is very confused. Look at col. 1 p. 6 as just one example. There they have "Commiphora myrrha Holmes" twice, "Commiphora myrrh [sic] (Nees) Engler" once, and then plain "Commiphora myrrha". Are these meant to be the same species? They have "C. molmol Engl. ex Tschirch (Somalian myrrh)" as a distinct species on p. 4, "C. molmol (Engl.) Engl." explicitly as a synonym of Commiphora myrrha (Nees) Engl. on p. 7, and then later on the same page (p. 7) "[a] natural product isolated first from Commiphora molmol and later from Commiphora myrrh [sic] oil". Basically it's an unreliable source for any botanical information, however reliable the chemistry may be. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. The ancient descriptions are of great interest, but they are difficult to relate to modern species; the best we can do is to cite the ancient and modern sources, and state clearly from them what the possibilities and uncertainties are. This goes for all the articles involved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Balm of Gilead

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

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

Flax

Did you see the comment at Talk:Flax#Rancid flax product dangers? CorinneSD (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder about this edit to Flax: [2] While flax may be mentioned in the Ayurveda, I'm not sure that this information should be included in a sentence about traditional Austrian medicine that is referenced.

Also, I was looking at the edit just before this one: [3]. While it is true that peacock words should not be in WP articles, there may be something special about the stability of properly stored milled flax that is worth mentioning. Perhaps a different adjective would be appropriate. (I also think cutting out all qualifying adjectives from articles makes the writing boring.) What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you and have reverted both of those edits. Perhaps you can think of a better adjective to replace "remarkably". To change "remarkably stable" to "stable" also removes any qualification, so the statement becomes untrue, claiming that no chemical changes whatever will occur. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Beetroot

You'll appreciate the latest edit to Beetroot. Beets on hamburgers. Hmm. While you're there, you might check the edits just before that one by the same editor. CorinneSD (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my gosh. I just saw all the pictures higher up on this page of beets used in cooking, and lots of discussion and other pictures. I missed all that when my computer wasn't working. Well, what do you think of beets on hamburgers? CorinneSD (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: Strange that the citation seems to imply that it is plain tinned beetroot that goes on a hamburger. I agree that that could be uninteresting, but the vinegar flavour makes all the difference. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Walnut 2

Is the latest edit to Walnut all right? It looks like a link to an article in a foreign language Wikipedia -- de -- is that German? Is that usually done in WP articles? CorinneSD (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what should be done about that. The editor is correct, that there ought to be a link in the left-hand column to the German wikipedia, and that coding achieves that. It should be encoded by the interwiki, but when one goes to add it there, a problem is revealed. The German wikipedia has gone (in my opinion quite overboard) with merging pages, so they have the page Walnüsse, which is the plural, Walnuts, and have Juglans, and Walnuss (walnut) redirecting there. The interwiki can't handle the fact that the English Juglans page already links to the German Walnüsse, so it won't allow any links from the English Walnut to the German wiki. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. Quite complicated. I'm glad you are able to figure out these kinds of things. CorinneSD (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

An editor added "not a nut" after "peanut" in the article on Walnut. I believe the editor is right in saying it is not a true nut, but then perhaps "peanut" should be removed from the list because it is a list of nuts other than walnuts. Without peanuts, there would be only two examples left, almonds and hazelnuts. Do you think that is enough, or should one more type of nut be added? CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC) CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That is trivial information, not something that people should base dietary decisions on, but I edited it to more accurately reflect what the citation says. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting edit to Walnut: [4] Americans usually pronounce "herb" (and "herbicide") with a silent "h"; I think British English pronounces the "h". I don't know about Canadian English. So "an herbicide" is O.K. for Americans and "a herbicide" for Brits. What does one do in such a case? Does it depend upon the variety of English that is predominant in the article? Or should we use "a herbicide" since at least some people in the U.S. pronounce the "h" (probably more in "herbicide" than "herb")? CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panyembrama

I was just looking at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panyembrama and was about to vote when I saw the caption under the photo. I had never heard "sacral" used to mean "sacred". Before making any comment about that, I decided to look at the article on Panyembrama and was surprised to see the word used at least twice in the article, including in the lead. I looked the word up on Wiktionary and saw two definitions: 1) of the sacrum, and 2) sacred. I always thought the only meaning of "sacral" would be the first one. (When I see "sacral" I think immediately of the [lower] back.) I was surprised to see the second one. Do you think it's all right to use "sacral" to mean "sacred" (instead of the more common "sacred") in both the article and the caption? CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is a less common use, but not as I first suspected only listed in wiki sources; there are established dictionaries that have that entry. In this case, I think that "It includes movements from several sacral Balinese dances" would suggest lower-back movement, and it would be better to say sacred! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, since I believe it was "sacred" that was meant, as in the article a contrast is made to secular dances. CorinneSD (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I just looked at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panyembrama and saw a recent comment -- actually two comments -- by User:Crisco 1492. Have you read them, particularly the first of the two, in which s/she offers an explanation of the use of "sacral"? Do you think that sufficiently explains the use of "sacral" over "sacred"? CorinneSD (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've left a suggestion there, but I suspect that people would come along and remove what they see as redundancy, so such a change might not last. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I can only back away from that. Crisco and S-P seem determined to ignore the ambiguity, and S-P has already reverted someone who tried to change to "sacred". Edit war; a pity. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sacred Pedal Dance. .. what no article? botheration. Hafspajen (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacral? Hafspajen (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversion at Panyembrama, and argument not accepted at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panyembrama. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well -I am the wrong person to ask - if both are correct,- because they sound just the same to me. Hafspajen (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. It is easy to back away from this. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I hope so - I don't care to make Crisco mad, for a minor issue - I like him a lot and we all rely on his generosity and knowledge at the FP project. Hafspajen (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas W. Whitaker

On 27 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas W. Whitaker, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that botanist Thomas W. Whitaker was honored for his work with squashes and pumpkins (pictured) by having a squash variety named after him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas W. Whitaker. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Gerrit Dou

Toward the end of the fourth paragraph in the section "Interpretation" in Gerrit Dou, at Gerrit Dou#Interpretation, there is an in-line citation in square brackets:

[de Jongh, 1968–1969].

Right after this is a sentence beginning "De Jongh...". I'm just wondering whether the "d" in "de Jongh" in the citation should be capitalized. CorinneSD (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Those citations are horribly broken (I've tagged them). MOS:NAMECAPS doesn't specify, but Charles de Gaulle uses a capital when starting a sentence "De Gaulle led a government in exile". I think that is a usual style. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think the cap at the beginning of the sentence was wrong; I just wondered about the absence of a cap in the citation. CorinneSD (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In styles that I'm used to, the person's name is capitalized in citations and bibliographies in the way that they would capitalize it, so in this case with a lower-case de. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh

A convention for naming geographic locations in Bangladesh is proposed. You are invited to discuss. – nafSadh did say 01:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see that a discussion is taking place, but it's not really my area. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Who is Vertmnus

Arr, my computer types weird today. Hafspajen (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A green-grocer?

--Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Green green

	Green Award
	Salat af rucola, gulerødder, parmesan og solsikkekerner - Danish salad for you. Hafspajen (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A reminder of how similar Danish is to English, particularly the loan words like parmesan. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the Danish steal Parmesan fro English, naughty them. Hafspajen (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

OH; the painting is gone into pieces!!!! Does anyone remember the exact place of this stuff?? -- Yes. They're all numbered.

Seeing this photo and reading your caption gave me an idea: that would make a great game for parties: to see which team could make the most interesting portrait with vegetables. CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Rucola" is arugula, a delicious Italian salad green. What is "gulerødder"? In the picture it looks like sliced peaches or mango. There's a WP article on Vertumnus. I had never heard of him; now I've got to read the article. I wonder how Emperor Rudolf II liked this depiction of him. CorinneSD (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't know what he thought, but I love that cut cabbage or lettuce for his forehead. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I love the painting. I looked closely at his forehead and saw that the vegetable has tiny bumps on it. At first I was thinking it could be the bottom of a bunch of celery, but then I thought celery has no bumps like that. Now I think it might be the bottom of a squash -- a Cucurbita! What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what that vegetable could be. It is rather like a melon, but to me it still looks leafy, not endive, but if leafy, it would have to be a very broad-headed vegetable like a Boston lettuce ... (Enlarging the image is rather alarming, he has the bottom of a turnip sticking out of his throat!) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that this picture should be nominated at Featured Pictures. Sminthopsis, do you want to do it? It is your find. It has an article, it's alright in size, looks good, it is sharp, interesting - good - in all ways. We can help you to nominate - if you get stuck. Hafspajen (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, not sure I'm brave enough for FP. Wouldn't we need to list all the plants shown? Perhaps some scholar did that already. Over at the top right are odd things, a longish pale one partly hidden by grapes and some very vague dark shapes (above the Crataegus monogyna with the two cherries). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

They are probably more interested about the composition that the vegetables, but here you go: a flower decoration, corn, onions, ~~kronärtskocka~~ Artichoke, ~~kålblad~~ cabbage foils, cherries, pears, chestnuts, apples, olives, figs, mulberry, grapes, plums, pomegranate, big white radish, some Crategus berry, right, upper corner, endive, sockärtor, Mespilus, commonly called medlar, various pumpkins, wheat stuff. Odd dark shapes are just leafs. What's that stuff they use for his beard? Hafspajen (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Great list! Only a botanist could come up with that list. Re the beard: Mulberries, millet, hops? If this is anything close to a portrait of Emperor Rudolf II, judging from the "bags" under his eyes, either he wasn't getting enough sleep or he needed a face-lift. CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think - facelift. So, Sminty are you are you not nominate it? Or shall someone more experienced do it like Corinne? Hafspajen (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll defer to the experts and spend my time on my to-do list: Cucurbita, gynoecium, Balm of Gilead, whatever else is mentioned on this page that I haven't responded to, watchlist items ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, CorinneSD, that if Sminty doesn't feel like that - maybe you should try - after checking it with Crisco I guess... Hafspajen (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be glad to nominate it. Will User:Crisco 1492 see this without a ping, or do I need to ask him elsewhere? Crisco, did you see my question to you at User talk:CorinneSD#Ki Hajar Dewantara? CorinneSD (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd convert that to JPG if I were you. No, I didn't see the question. Will check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Eh, Corinne. You sometimes add the ping after you singed the post - and this is why it will not work. It has to be a ping + a recent, fresh signature - otherwise - no ping. Hafspajen (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 - I doubt she knows how to do that. Do you think it worth a try, the greengrocer? Hafspajen (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

K, uploaded here. Compare how they display (JPG, TIF).16:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I think, by now - the nomination is rather - OK. Sminty - still, want to try? Otherwise I guess Corinne . And if she doesn't like it either ... in sheer desperation I might do that myself, because it is good. Hafspajen (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

?? Hafspajen (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please go ahead with the nomination, I'm very happy to leave it to experts like yourself. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD - feel free to nominate. But this time you have to go to the WP:FP and add that into the other nominations, put the template title in the row where it say current nominations. Hafspajen (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I will nominate it, but I don't know which image file to use. I was confused by Crisco's comment above about a JPG file and a TIF file. Shall I copy the image file from what I see when I click on the photo of the painting above? Also, I was reading the information on the image file (and saw all that information about the Swedish museum making the photo available). It says there that, if known, the photographer must be mentioned. The photographer is Jens Mohr. Do I need to mention the name of the photographer in the nomination? Who is the "creator" -- the painter or the photographer? CorinneSD (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Use JPG: they are better. File:Porträtt, Rudolf II som Vertumnus. Guiseppe Arcimboldo - Skoklosters slott - 87582.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that Morh guy. The creator is certainly Archimboldo. Hafspajen (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You can mention the vegetables, though. Hafspajen (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I nominated it. Did I do it right? I noticed that the tif version of this image file appeas in quite a few more WP articles and pages than the jpg version, but I guess I can't add those. I had everything ready, but was going back and forth between different pages and inadvertently left the page without saving it so had to start all over. But I think I've got it right now. CorinneSD (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I go now to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates# Current nominations and if it is there I will be happy. If not, I come back and scream. Hafspajen (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WELL DONE!!! It is there alright. And it got a vote too, already. Hafspajen (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I will do so right now. I thought a picture wouldn't even be nominated if it were not the right size. CorinneSD (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is rather good to have a picture like this nominated. It is playful and fun and it is also good quality. It si also sharp and good quality and has an own article. And it is really a good artwork. What more do we need? Hafspajen (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought you just told me it didn't meet requirements. CorinneSD (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the Archimboldo, I mean. Hafspajen (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you see my tiny comment at the Vertumnus nomination? (Just joking.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

P

Carrot. Gul=yellow rød=red. Also, yellowred-- carrot. Hafspajen (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. The Danes call a carrot a yellowred? Interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I had just assumed that rødder was somehow related to root (blush, wonder what the car in carrot means, or the rot for that matter). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the etymology from the article Carrot:

The carrot (Daucus carota subsp. sativus; etymology: from Late Latin carōta, from Greek καρωτόν karōton, originally from the Indo-Europeanroot ker- (horn), due to its horn-like shape) is a root vegetable, usually orange in colour, though purple, red, white, and yellow varieties exist. CorinneSD (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What an excellent reminder of the importance of scholarly sources; an incompetent amateur inventing wikipedia might come up with the idea that gule had come to be pronounced car from isolation over the centuries. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Gul- is like "gold". CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ping

I just received a notice, clicked on it, then clicked on "View changes" to see it. It led to a diffs page on Rothorpe's talk page. On the right was added a ping to both myself and Rothorpe, with a comment. But when I looked on Rothorpe's talk page in that section, User talk:Rothorpe#The World Is Not Enough (song), there was no ping or comment. I then looked on both the other editor's talk page and on the article's talk page and found nothing. How could there be a notice with a ping and it not be written somewhere? This editor says that we must discuss an edit on the article's talk page and not on another editor's talk page. I've never heard that. Is that some kind of rule? Rothorpe and I discuss edits all the time. CorinneSD (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be it. Rapid deletion by Rothorpe. No, I don't think it is a rule, just an opinion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Basically nothing, just the size, the species, the color and the habitat. Hafspajen (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Different language, perhaps? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Same language!!!Björn (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hard to believe. Taxonomists must be having a lot of sleepless nights. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Olé!!!! Björn (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Beetroot 2

I was surprised to see just now that you had not offered an opinion in the on-going discussion at Beetroot#Requested move. I also had wondered why the article was called "Beetroot". I had never even heard that word before. We always call the vegetable "beet", plural "beets". Of course, we were usually referring to the round, dark red root, but now I know that many people cook and eat both the root and the leaves, often together. But I can understand the logic of those who oppose the move. I just wonder what you thought. CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. But it is the root, not the Beet...Hafspajen (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, I an afraid I joined the club who thinks WP:FLORA Is better. Hafspajen (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Oh frabjous day! WP:FLORA is great! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Some common namer will now bite my head off for this. Ack ja, livet är svårt. Hafspajen (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought about replying yesterday when the discussion was much shorter. Have done so now. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I read your comment, but, not being a botanist, I'd like to understand your comment better. Is the beet that is used picked in sandwiches in Australia the same as the round, dark red beet root that we use in the U.S. and that is prepared into pickled beets, or is it a different root entirely? (P.S., you never replied to my comment a few sections above this about beets in Australia.) And, you said beets grown in a garden are called "silver beet". (a) Is that because they look silver? and (b) What are those used for? CorinneSD (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same as pickled beets in the U.S. (but cut differently, which fits better in sandwiches). Pickled beetroot sandwiches is good in a sandwich, if it doesn't slide out as the little circles do. Oops, I missed out the link for Silver beet, which I've now added. I don't know what Australian gardeners call those red and yellow cultivars of the leaf vegetable, if they grow them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

2000 or 4000

Olive tree of Vouves? Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I just made a few minor edits to the article to improve the wording. I had never heard of this tree, and I found the article interesting. I was surprised that there was no image of the tree! I have a question: the type of olive tree was a red wiki-link. I put it into italics simple because it sounded like a Greek word. I'm wondering (a) whether there should be a link there at all, and (b) whether the word should be in italics. CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Tried to find picture, none. Only thing is a pic showing some other olive trees in a valley in this area .. I don't know if we should use that ...? Hafspajen (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a picture of it at the citation I just added to List_of_olive_cultivars, top of page 664. It's a book published by Wiley, don't suppose that makes it accessible to wiki projects, but perhaps it could be pointed to. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe there's a picture of that old olive tree of Vouves on the Greek Wikipedia (is there a Greek Wikipedia?), and, if not, perhaps a note could be added to the Greek WP page for Vouves asking about a photo. CorinneSD (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, no photo there. Yeah, we need a Greek to go there. Hafspajen (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No page there for the place either, just a red link for Άνω Βούβες so far. [5]. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, weird. Don't know any Greek editors, though. Hafspajen (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Can you help? We're looking for a photo of a tree in Greece. Read this section. CorinneSD (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I've looked around on the web, but couldn't find anything with an appropriate license. I've emailed a couple of Cretan friends, perhaps they can find something, or take the photo themselves. In the meantime, I've added a few things to the article. Cheers to all, Constantine ✍ 10:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Greek connections arrived!

Hafspajen (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Constantine. I saw the photo of the tree in the Flickr link. It's magnificent. Then I looked at all the other photos of Greece (or was that Crete?). So beautiful! CorinneSD (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Just crazy, look at these ... Hafspajen (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Very nice. Cypress trees can get old, too. Do you have any photos of very old cypress trees, to compare them? CorinneSD (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Should't we have a template åå, gå och dränk dig .... File:Borovikovskiy PtDerzhavnoy.jpg? Hafspajen (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad she isn't drowning the dog. Are those nasturtiums? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What's aa, ga och drank dig? What a lovely painting! What's that yellow fruit, above right? At first glance I thought it was a flower, but upon closer inspection I saw that it was a fruit. I had never seen fruit shaped like that. What is it? CorinneSD (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

File:James Tissot - Triumph Of The Will, The Challenge.jpg

Hm, that's Buddhas hand. Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Not my talk page. Your talk page. No, it's not your talk page. It's Sminths' talk page. Here. Sorry. I'm afraid the comments, out of context, might be misunderstood. CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And what's that picture (painting)? Who is that on the ground? CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It is called the Triumph Of The Will: The Challenge. Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

(EC) No...I meant "combination of Hafs' incomplete knowledge of English", etc. Right above this. CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Not my talk page. ~~Your talk page.~~ No, it's not your talk page. It's Sminths' talk page. Here. Sorry. I'm afraid the comments, out of context, might be misunderstood. CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And what's that picture (painting)? Who is that on the ground? CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The woman in armor have to be the depiction of the Will... who probably defeated that woman on the floor. The woman on the floor is kinda half human and half animal - probably illustrating the less valuable sides of the human nature - or so. Hafspajen (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Or the Will is defending herself from the snakes the snakes and already defeated the animal-woman- .. ? Hafspajen (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see online, nobody knows what the other paintings in the unfinished series would have shown. Perhaps Will hasn't made an appearance yet, but will avenge this gruesome challenge eventually. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't that fun maybe, after all.

Hafspajen (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

File:くまモン.JPG

Beer is the world's most widely consumed and probably oldest alcoholic beverage. It is the third most popular drink after water and tea. However this is a Björn. Björn (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

There is much truth in typos, bear, beer, ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oenothera rubricaulis

Sminty, why on earth we have no article on Red-stalked evening primrose, Oenothera rubricaulis? [6], [7], [8] , [9], [10]100704hm a bit disgussant Hafspajen (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Hm, is it a Scandinavian flower? Hafspajen (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the latest list, it is a synonym of Oenothera biennis, and I've added that here. The "certainty" rating is 2 out of 3, not absolute; perhaps they'll change their mind at some point. In the meantime, there is now a synonym list at Oenothera biennis with that citation that could be updated if needed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that was it. Thought I recognized this plant. Hafspajen (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sminthopsis, are you still here? What do you think about this old edit? [11] Hafspajen (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm more-or-less here, though my computer is having trouble. That's not a good IP; looking at their latest edit, do you think File:St Bernard with barrel alt.jpg is really a Saint Bernard? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean it is not a B. dog? Or it has short to hair? Some varieties of B dog got short hairs. File:Saint Bernardhund.JPG Hafspajen (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought its face didn't look quite right for a St B.; the stop seems to be quite gradual. Perhaps a cross-breed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And what do you think about THIS edit? Hafspajen (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you having trouble reverting spam? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC), thanks.

Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So, I made an article for Corinne, and now I will make one for myself File:10 Inmaculada Concepción (National Gallery de Londres, c. 1618).jpg about this one. Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If I can get rid of that mark. Hafspajen (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you adjust pictures, say with GIMP? I wondered about the effect of the camera flash in the Ribes image above with the lizard and the bird nest. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Citron

I just made a few copy-edits to the article on Citron. There were a lot of little errors in syntax.

The last paragraph in Citron#Nomenclature was really bad. I wonder if you would mind checking that I got it right.

Removed some of that, it really needs added material, but the taxonomy of citrus is very difficult. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, when it got to the scientific parts of the article, Citron#Description and variation, I decided to stop and let you review the rest.

I might get to that later, but for now I've made so many changes on the article that someone might object, so better to wait for a while. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Finally, I wonder if you would read the section Citron#Perfumery. It seems to me to read like a brochure for each company's perfume(s). I guess the inclusion of a section on Perfumery makes sense, but I wonder if there isn't perhaps too much information there. CorinneSD (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Perfumery dealt with. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is what we are talking about when we say = Wikipedia is not an image repository. Hafspajen (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Except it does seem to be an image repository! Tagged it, but suspect that there could be resistance to removing images. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I told Corine, some editors like to remove galleries and cry - Wikipedia IS NOT AN IMAGE REPOSITORY!! - and so, even where they are perfectly all right. Like a day ago at this article. Hafspajen (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to access this file? There are a lot in this commons category that look broken to me when I click on the thumbnail. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are accessible. I mean it works for me. Hafspajen (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, it works now for me too; must have been an intermittent problem. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting plant. What kind of fruit is that? I saw "Ab plant" and did a search for an article and found nothing. Is there an article about that plant? CorinneSD (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Redcurrants or the false strawberry? Hafspajen (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The person who took those photos has the initials AB, and seems to use that and a number in the file names. Arbutus andrachne#In literature is a strange section that looks like a quote within a quote but no credit for the inner quote. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I had never heard of that tree or fruit before. That section looks very strange. I wonder if it is really punctuated correctly. CorinneSD (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I'd failed to find the source, but trying again today gave success. I'd be glad if you'd look at how I've formatted it, whether (sic) is warranted because the genus name was printed with a lower-case letter (species epithets like Andrachne were often capitalized until recently, so I don't think that is a problem), whether that is a reasonable way to list the editor's footnote, etc. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're asking me. I'll try, in a few minutes. I see another editor has been making a number of edits. You'll have to judge those, but I wondered about this wording in the latest, or almost the latest, edit:

...that are common by all varieties of citron.

That sounds a little like the dialect that would produce, "How's by you?" CorinneSD (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Scottish or German, and no doubt other languages as well. Now that Citron has a "see also" at the top, I think I'll leave it alone. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

AAaa, what do you think about this edit? Hafspajen (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

.

.Very nice blues sky yes. City Hall of Palma de Mallorca, Spain, do you like it? Hafspajen (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

what do you think about my new article? Northeaster (painting). Was thinking of nominating it maybe some day. Hafspajen (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice! I think footnote 3 needs a source as a quote, or something. As it stands it could be called WP:OR. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Tell me how to do it. Hafspajen (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

See what you think of what I did. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sminty, it is called [12] The Fog Warning, http://www.winslowhomer.org/the-fog-warning.jsp. Hafspajen (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh good. I only found the film (now with hatnote). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

'orry. Hafspajen (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No 'pology needed, it's a normal part of weaving a new page into the fabric. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit? [13] The reason I'm asking is because I know that when it comes to citrus fruit, the word "sections" has a specific meaning. If you think the change in wording is all right, the grammar needs fixing. CorinneSD (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the original was better, but needed a grammar fix. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now see that it did. Both the before and after were ungrammatical. I prefer the original, with the grammar fixed, also. CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Julia Wilmotte Henshaw

On 9 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Julia Wilmotte Henshaw, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Canadian botanist, combat ambulance driver, and political activist Julia Wilmotte Henshaw (pictured) urged women voters to support conscription, yet was also anti-suffrage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Wilmotte Henshaw. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Bio Star award

		The Bio-star
		For EXCEPTIONAL work in the areas of botany, wiki teamwork, and wiki friendship. HalfGig talk 00:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Aw shucks, HalfGig. The teamwork that I've seen lately has been really good, only because, I think, the attacks from nearly a year ago that have mercifully ceased. It's amazing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A Kremna rezina for you!

Kremna rezina is a small cake designed to serve one person. They are often served with sugar sprinkled on top Hafspajen (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks! Here's a little decoration for the top of it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Enlarged other detail. Hafspajen (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you thanking!

I would like to you to expand and copy edit the article citrus taxonomy that I have created, I like to see the complex issues discussed and resolved. I noted your writing on your user page that you are professional in this. I have brought on the table a lot of references and links of studies in this matter. Every article has more than the information I was able to extract from them, and also a lot of contradictions! Here is were professionalism is needed. Good luck! Riversid (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I doubt that I have the energy required to deal with citrus taxonomy. You could try asking at WT:PLANTS if there is anyone keen to help out, but I happen to know that another dedicated professional botanist gave up on wikipedia a couple of years ago, and one of the things that particularly frustrated him was trying to deal with that difficult group in the face of the determined other editors who were getting their information from outdated sources but kept insisting that it was correct. It was a nightmare then, and unfortunately it still is. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Riversid, nice to catch you here. Do you know that I posted at the article talkpage twice, and you never responded? It is considered rather rude too ignore other editors agf post... Hafspajen (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see you anywhere, I'm not sure to what you are referring to. Riversid (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

At Buddhas hand. Hafspajen (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wisteria

What sort is this - it has long long long flowers. Hafspajen (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

They have amazing gardeners at the Biltmore Estate: willing to combat the fearsome weed Wisteria sinensis with the short racemes, and propagate the Wisteria floribunda as an ornamental. That's what is known as true grit in the gardening trade. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the wisteria in the picture at the left the Wisteria sinensis? Does that mean you don't like it? I like both types. CorinneSD (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It can be a bit panic-inducing to have to push your way through a thicket of thorny hawthorn and wisteria when an angry humming bird is trying to tell you to get away from its nest and there are cottonmouths nearby. Humming birds seem meaner than mosquitoes somehow, under those conditions. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I like them too. But I want to know about the long one. Hafspajen (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The long one is often said to be quite a lot more difficult, but I wonder if it just takes a long time to get a plant that flowers reliably. Someone I know trained a young plant for years hoping it would flower, but then it died. There are hybrids between the two. I don't think I've ever seen a white one that I thought was as beautiful as the darker colours. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed one in a house near by I live, but never went in to ask about it. We Swedes don't socialize much. Hafspajen (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't? How strange, but true; when I look in Commons for Sweden + Party all the pictures are about politics. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's all we do. Hafspajen (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafs, didn't you get the ping on my talk page at User talk:CorinneSD#Another Swedish speaker? CorinneSD (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

well, -- I did. Hafspajen (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And considering what we CorinneSD - were talking about, I better stay away. Hafspajen (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Saint Lucia's day!

"Good Morning"Sminthopsis84:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia!
13 December is the day when Swedes perplex the rest of the world by showing up way too early in the morning dressed in white tunics, candles in their hair, singing and bringing saffron buns and breakfast in bed to nice people. Hope you have a bright day! Hafspajen (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A bright day to you too! We had one here yesterday, but today is dull. P.S.: I looked up a recipe online for Lussebullar and put it through Google Translate; it turned "2 påsar saffran à 1/2 g, 2 dl socker" into "2 bags of saffron à 1.2 g, 2 cups sugar" ... that amount of saffron could break the bank, and I'd bet that the yeast would be killed by all the sugar. That might be why the real Lussebullar are only available in Scandinavia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Weather:Stormy. Hafspajen (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You forgot the raisins, the milk and the cottage cheese. Hafspajen (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I found a recipe that doesn't have kvarg, because after seeing versions with majonnäs and choklad and vanilj, I thought the plain one was probably the original. It just has one raisin in each, on the top. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What??? majonnäs and choklad and vanilj, NO! Heresy. NO NO NO: just use a little kvarg. Only just to make it softer. It wont give any taste at all. Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the heresy part I could guess. I think I will try making these next week. Your explanation is necessary, I had assumed that the kvarg would be in the middle as a lump, like the pastry sometimes called cheese danish. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What's kvarg? CorinneSD (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Quark (dairy product). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I just looked at the article on Quark. I had never heard the term "quark" used to describe a type of cheese. You learn something every day. CorinneSD (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's Quark (dairy product) - CorinneSD ...

Hafspajen (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I made some buns. They turned out very well and were popular. One friend in particular was very impressed and plans to make more. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Is anybody home. I would need backup. Snow in Western Art will soon go live and it is not perfect. Hafspajen (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it in a sandbox somewhere? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Several sandboxes were, three actually. Can you explain the Neolitic thing? Suddenly I realized that it is not comon at all, that was wrong of me. Hafspajen (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

OK; got that. Hafspajen (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That first sentence looks good now. (Off for Monday break.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen Hafs, yesterday when I read your comment just above:

"Is anybody home. I would need backup. Snow in Western Art will soon go live and it is not perfect. Hafspajen (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)"

I thought you were asking Sminth or me to look at the article and correct any errors we found. (I thought you were including me in your question, "Is anybody home?", since you knew I'd been watching this page.) It also sounded like there was some urgency: "Snow in Western Art will soon go live and it is not perfect," so I got started right away. I thought you had finished working on it (at least for the time being). I had no idea you were still working on it. When you asked me to wait until you were finished, I stopped right away. Now I see you have asked Sca to go over the article. Does that mean you don't like the way I copyedit? CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD, now. I do like it, of course. I was slightly stressed about the fact that the other guy accused me by copyvio, me using his article - that happened afterwards I posted this. It was very urgent to remove it and find references. About Sca .... well, it is his article. It was his idea, he chosed the pictures, ... and .. made me do it , well, sort of. I wanted too, actually because it was interesting. But now it was his turn to get a bit engaged on this article really. I tried to do everything you asked me, or have I missed anything? Hafspajen (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD ... I like your edits!!! Hafspajen (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. I don't know if you missed anything. Last night you told me on my talk page to stop editing and to wait until you told me you were finished. So I've been waiting. I guess you want me to read the article now. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't know it was Sca's article until you just told me. CorinneSD (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it is now corrected. Hafspajen (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafs Could you please read the talk page of Sapsaree? CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What bears breches. English name for Acanthus? --Hafspajen (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Quark (dairy product)

Sminthopsis84 Sminth, I'm posting this here because there was some discussion of quark in this section a few months ago. Feel free to move it. I was looking at the latest edit to Quark (dairy product) (and I don't even remember what it was), and was skimming the lead, when I found a sentence that contains an ambiguous pronoun. It's the last sentence in the lead:

It is somewhat similar to yogurt cheeses such as the South Asian chak(k)a, the Arabic labneh, and the Central Asian suzma or kashk, but while these products are obtained by straining yogurt (milk fermented with thermophile bacteria), quark is made from soured milk fermented with mesophile bacteria.

It's not clear whether the initial "It" refers to Italian ricotta, which was just mentioned in the previous sentence, or quark. It says in the previous sentence that ricotta is made from whey, and I know Persian kashk is also made from whey, so that would suggest that "It" refers to ricotta. Whatever you decide, I think a noun should be used instead of the pronoun to eliminate any confusion, don't you? CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know what language experts say about how people understand that sort of sequence. To me it is okay because the subjects of the preceding sentences form a chain back to quark, "Quark can be ... It is distinct from ... It is similar to ...". However, as you say, it is unnecessarily complicated. I've made an edit, but could you take a look to see if joining two sentences makes it too complicated in a different way? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's all right now. Do you think "can be compared to" clearly means "is similar to"? To me, "can be compared to" is a bit unclear. CorinneSD (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. People say that a lot but one can, after all, compare anything with anything else. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Millet

Do you have Foxtail millet on your watchlist? Can you review the latest edits? CorinneSD (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether navane akki is that species or not because this amazing site doesn't cover Kannada. Since the languages weren't in alphabetic sequence anyway, I didn't see a reason to revert. The taxonomy is too varied to be able to add good citations for it; some sources consider foxtail millet to be a subspecies, others a cultivar group, and some a variety. There are weeds as well as the crop that are called that, but sorting them out would require an expert. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was reading the setaria article and made one copy-edit. I saw that foxtail millet and one other species before that (forget now) are capitalized. Are they supposed to be capitalized? CorinneSD (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where to look. Did you mean the common names? There is a contentious decision to downcase those that I disagree with. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's Giant Foxtail and Foxtail Millet, both in the third paragraph of the lead in Setaria viridis. Elsewhere, even in this article, "foxtail millet" is lower-case. I don't care either way; I just like things to be correct and consistent. CorinneSD (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I feel the same way. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I feel the same way too. Hafspajen (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

But nobody is going to tell me which is correct at Setaria viridis?

Did you see the animated thank you at User talk:Bladesmulti#Auto-archive? CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Doesn't bring back good memories. I gave one once to Fylbec. On the Simple Wiki - before she banned me from her talk. Hafspajen (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the category on commons to chose from. Hafspajen (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about these edits? Post-Impressionism is written with big letters. Hafspajen (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD ? Hafspajen (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that the movicon brought back bad memories. Thanks for the link, but now I don't want to use them. Regarding the edits to that article, I think they're all right. Awien's edits are definitely an improvement over what was there. If you want me to go back a little further, I will. Awien fixed a link to the article on Post-Impressionism. In the article title, both "Post" and "Impressionism" are capitalized, so Awien got that right. But I don't think it was necessary. I think it would have led to the article anyway even if written in lower case. (But Awien neglected to put the hyphen between "Post" and "Impressionism". I didn't try the link now. Does it work? CorinneSD (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, just use them. She doesn't have a monopol on them. Hafspajen (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Rather creepy animal, no? Relatives are worst... Hafspajen (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have Millet on your watch list? What do you think of this edit? [14] CorinneSD (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, all of that is unsourced. There was already some of that sort of material in there already, so I think it would all need to be excised. The English pages about the individual species aren't good enough, unfortunately, to justify saying that lists of vernacular names aren't needed because they are elsewhere. Also, I don't know whether the wikidata links are all good enough that it would be easy to find the names in other languages from there. I think this would be a lot of work, and it would need a very knowledgeable person to be able to do it easily. (To summarize, I'd say that the page is running away from anyone willing to improve it incrementally.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That's too bad. CorinneSD (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Brahmanbaria situation

As Geographic.location is not only interested to discuss, wouldn't stop doing whatever they likes and even removing TALK page contents -- it is apparent that they should be reported. As you observed the whole thing, can you file a report? – nafSadh did say 21:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Another user has stepped in, so that helps a lot (though the warning is not for the behaviour that I'd most want to see stop). We now have the situation that some mention of those abbreviations with citations has disappeared, and I think that eventually it should go back, but not until things settle down. I think the next step is to wait and see what happens next. P.S.: I can't help wondering if this could be the same person who was repeatedly moving Kulaura Upazila from Maulvibazar District to Sylhet District. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed. A lot happened while I was not watching in last couple of hours. Orduin fought well but he is a victim. :( Though he appears to be a new login, from his editing quality it looks like he has some experience.

I see Geographic.location and his obvious (so vividly obvious!) sock Wikigeo.int. This guy is tremendous! He copied my signature for illegitimately warning me. Then when Wikigeo.int started to talk, he is using Orduin's signature! In the sock investigation, Armanaziz is reported. At first sight of B-Baria's history, it might seem he is the master; but from the Armanaziz I know (not personally, in Wikiproject Bangladesh) I would not accuse him of such blatant disruptive behavior. Thank you, and thanks to @Orduin:, @Vanjagenije:, @De728631: for stepping in. – nafSadh did say 01:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Holy ****. This I really struck me. It is Armaanaziz who is reported. He copied whole userpage from Armanaziz -- whom I know. – nafSadh did say 02:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Be careful: it is not Armanaziz who is suspected to be a sockpuppet, but Armaanaziz, those are different (one "a" more in "Armaanaziz"). I believe there might be even more accounts of this same person, so be sure to report them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geographic.location if you suspect. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wolfdog

I have no idea what was going on with User:Wikigeo.int's page. I don't even believe I've ever even communicated with that user. I had to look back in their history to see what you were referring to and it seemed to be related to User:Orduin: another user name I don't recognize. It certainly was information from my own talk page. Did any of that get figured out? Wolfdog (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The user copied all the information on his page from other user-pages. He is currently vandalizing pages allot. I am trying to keep the pages the way they are until he gets blocked, but it has been difficult. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Wolfdog:for your reply. I thought it might be the case that you had no idea this was going on. I've just filed a request for a sock investigation, but there is some strange and determined behaviour going on. I don't think you need to be involved unless your page is attacked, which I think it hasn't been. (The user pages of the two signons also look fake to me.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Orduin: I think you should step aside for your own protection. If these people are blocked, everything they have done can be reverted, but if you try to fight them you will be blocked. Sorry, but that's the way wikipedia is. I urge you to step aside. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to make sure others who come across this mess know what is going on. I've given up. I might also request page protection for the pages to ensure that other sockpuppets do not continue this one's work. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 23:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The trouble with page protection is that it can be enacted on a bad version of a page ... and they might just move to making messes on different pages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy to see this. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sminthopsis84. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
Message added 23:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sminthopsis84. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
Message added 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For helping with the Brahmanbaria situation. – nafSadh did say 03:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Tea is a good idea. It might take quite a few cups on separate tea breaks to rebuild the necessary fortitude to go back and see what sort of condition the Brahmanbaria articles are in ... in a couple of days time, assuming that no more bizarre vandalism occurs in the meantime. In the meantime we could ponder that age-old question: is it refreshing to be reminded of how very strangely people can behave? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep. In last couple of days I watched two very bizarre character. One is this guy with Brahmanbaria; (he probably played with Paltan too -- thank God! that triggered us to put forward a BDPLACE standard). Another one is on an AfD.

Anyway, you were really confused with the Upazilas articles. I guess BDPLACE might help you there too. With a lot of experienced users taking break and with many enthusiastic new editors in Wikiproject Bangladesh, a well versed community standard is much needed. I am planning to help set up those and will always appreciate your feedback. – nafSadh did say 04:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Something to watch out for: upazila articles with nonsense demographics sections copied from random places. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I just don't understand...

I just don't understand why two intelligent people who share similar interests can become so upset with each other in such a short time. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can MAYBE explain it. People actually don't like to get help. Especially men. They think they look week. So now when the magpie is already a FP and the article is fine, I an not needed anymore. You explained yourself very well on your own talk - Why would you do such a thing you would revert her/him and re-insert images that s/he had removed, several times, it seems. That's guaranteed to upset Hafs. Well,it did - and Freud would have said - because you probably knew it will, deep inside. It was good relying on me - but when things are fine, nodody wants to admit any more that it was someone else who helped you. Hafspajen (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafs, I'm so sorry you are going through this. I hate to see you upset. Just now, upon reading your comment, I thought of another strategy you could use when things start to deteriorate in the process of editing an article. I know you care a lot about articles and especially images and that you don't like to leave things in bad shape, but you might consider just simply stopping editing if someone is reverting and reverting again, or beginning to be argumentative or disrespectful -- stopping without saying anything -- that is, refusing to interact. It will be the other editor's loss. You can always keep it in mind and return to it in a few weeks or months. There can be no argument or hurtful words if one of a pair of editors withdraws from participating. It's just a thought.

Another thing you could do -- and maybe you did it but I didn't see it -- is just to say, "I've been trying my best to do X, but you keep undoing my work, and I don't understand why," and wait for a reply (without doing any more editing until you get a reply). CorinneSD (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD what do you call this? If you go on interacting with Sca as I notice you do, you will notice he is not that easy always to do have to do with. Contrary that he is trying to say now, I had lots and lots of patience with him, even if he was rather harsh with me sometimes, and this is not the first time he does this kind of trick on me, with galleries, and pictures, both in this article and others simply restoring his own version causing a lot of white space. Here this was my version - and this is his, and his version makes a big gap in the article. He put that back several times. Already there he reverted to things as he wanted them to. I never made anything abut that because I thought better of it, but he does this kind of things. Once he works with an article it should be his version. Not the first time, as I said, that is why I was pointing out WP:OWN. If I would have return, return to it in a few weeks or months to fix the gap in the Koller article, he would revert me again. And nobody does things like this to me, except he. When we work on articles with others (not him) we all respect each others edits and discuss changes. Hafspajen (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing featured pictures

of organisms based on location. Just invite you to look into c:Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Categorizing_Feature_Pictures. J e e 18:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Terschelling

I've been reading the article on Terschelling, and I was surprised to learn that cranberries grow there. See Terschelling#Cranberries. I just wonder about something. The first sentence in the second paragraph in that section is:

The cranberries, finding the environment favourable, established themselves on the island.

Is it just me, or does that sentence sound like it is personifying cranberries? Or is that standard language for botanists? CorinneSD (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it sounds a little old-fashioned to me, but quite familiar language for botanical discussion of wild plants. It's not really clear from the article whether the cranberries grew by themselves initially, but I think they did. I found a statement elsewhere "The rambler, who thought he had found a barrel of wine, was disappointed and threw the berries out in the dunes of the island." So, I think it is fair to say that they established themselves. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Beauty contest

Maybe some, but not all
'Mrs Mahler Mem Fred Tompkins'
'Queen Sirikhit Diamond Crown'
'Hawaiian Wedding Song Virgin'
'Chia-lin'
'Barbara Belle'
Beaumesnil 'Parme'
'Chocolate Drop' x 'Pao de Acucar'
'Empress Frederick'
× Cattleya mossiae
'Hermine'
'Little Angel'
'Marjorie Hausermann York'
'Miva Breeze Alize'
'Nobile's carnival'
Pernell George Barnett 'Yankee Clipper'
'Portia'

How many of these should we use in a gallery for Orchid? Or rather -shall we - or - shall not. My thought was using it in the section Uses - since they are cultivars made for decorative purposes. See also CorinneSD 's talk. Hafspajen (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A few of these would be nice, I think. But what about other decorative orchids such as Phalaenopsis and Dendrobium? A couple of thoughts: I don't find Mrs Mahler Mem Fred very decorative. Some of the white ones are under-exposed, but that would be appropriate in the evening, but looking around in commons I don't see any images of someone wearing orchids. (It's nice to deal with virtual Cattleya rather than the real thing; some relatives of mine grow them, and the scent gives me a migraine.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

New I was missing something. I am rather tired now, so I won't be able to do much right now, but yes, Phalaenopsis and Dendrobium too. Hafspajen (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sleep well. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy holiday season

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, best wishes for a happy holiday season ...II

		Happy Holiday Cheer!
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Hafspajen (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* ''[[Garcinia gummi-gutta]]'' – [[gambooge]], garcinia cambogia (a former scientific name now used as a [[common name]], brindleberry, brindall berry, Malabar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Rose

Wonder what rose could this be. Gloire de Dijon? Was painted in 1881. In those times there were not too many yellow roses on the market. Hafspajen (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it looks like 'Gloire de Dijon', which has a tea-rose look. It could be a perfect match for some of David Austen's roses, but they, of course, didn't exist then. Rosa 'Chromatella' = 'Cloth of Gold' is another tea-noisette that has the right look and was introduced in 1843, but there must be quite a few possibilities. I think you are right that it would be a named rose and not an unnamed seedling that an artist would paint. I bet Simon Saint-Jean, his teacher's teacher and known for being criticized by Baudelaire for using too much yellow ([15]), would have painted the same plant. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have grown Gloire de Dijon - and it was pretty much like that pic ... sort of crowded -pretty full and looking a lot like the picture ... Hafspajen (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"Quartered", I see. I looked at Commons and at Phillips & Rix which show it without that shape, and P&R say "A Noisette, though closer in appearance to a Tea". That might be an example of something that I've seen with 'Gloire des Mousseux' that people are growing slightly different-looking roses under the same name, perhaps because over time small genetic changes have crept into certain lineages. The leaves in the image could be tea-rose-like, so that would fit. I don't know what those red buds on the right are, or the upside-down rose leaf on the right that looks completely different from the others. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Quartered" was it. I am aware of that problem. I think we have several roses that are marketed under the same name but actually are different, even here is difference between let's say Denmark and Sweden or Germany ...or France. A bit bothersome. Hafspajen (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A wild guess about the red buds ... thinking about the grayish leaves - Maiden's Blush? They do have rosy-red buds to start with. That's one rose you should try. Hafspajen (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What the heck ... that goes to a moth. Hafspajen (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, that was wrong - Maiden was yellow buds. I was thinking of Mme Plantier, white but have rosy-red buds to start with. Hafspajen (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what R. alba leaves look like on the back (the only rose leaf I can recall that looked like that was made of plastic, so that's no help). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they look grayish. Hafspajen (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You both know I don't know much about flowers. I assume you've been discussing the yellow roses in the painting. Sminth mentioned leaves that are a different color from the other leaves. I clicked on the picture to look at them more closely, and something occurred to me. Is it possible that the large yellow rose and the two smaller roses are not the same type of rose? They look a little different. That would explain two types of leaves. CorinneSD (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

He certainly used mixed bunches a lot, but in this case I think the yellow roses are all the same type. Those that eventually show the "quartered" look in the middle (where the central petals are shorter and fold around one another to make sort-of divisions, often looking like 4 lines radiating from the centre) often look in earlier stages as if they might produce the high-centered form of a "modern" rose instead. For example, this gallery shows a "normal modern" flower starting to open that later opens to have the denser petals in the middle. I think there might be three different types in that bunch, the yellow roses, the little red ones with the delicate bracts, and that other leaf in the right foreground. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So you think the three pinkish-gray leaves in the right foreground are from a different rose? Thanks for the link to the images of the pink rose opening. That's amazing -- the second image shows the rose just beginning to open and it looks like a regular (modern) rose; the later ones show that it is the crinkly kind. I had never seen that kind of rose before. To me, it looks like a small peony. I'm not sure I like it. It looks like a rose on growth hormones although it's probably beautiful when you see it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, aren't we confusing, three leaflets=one leaf. That rose is quite rare because it doesn't grow very easily. The flower isn't particularly large, which probably saves it from looking totally unnatural. It can look very beautiful. It is cleverly named after Château de Malmaison to appeal to those who love rose history, and it is a rather dramatic achievement in rose breeding by being very different from roses that came before. I like it, but probably because it looks better in real life against the darkness of its leaves (and without those waterdrops). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, from looking at the 'Souvenir de la Malmaison' gallery, the thought comes up that one of its offspring, 'Gloire de Dijon', as Hafs said, is very much a candidate for the identity of that yellow rose. Hafs, I think you nailed it the first time. The confusion between different sources could well be because some people look at younger flowers, and some at older ones, and there might not even be much genetic divergence between different lineages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't realize that the three little leaves were called leaflets and that together they constitute one leaf. Interesting. I glanced at the article on the Château de Malmaison. If the flower has some connection to the chateau, perhaps a picture of the flower could be added to that article. CorinneSD (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should put a picture of the rose on the page about the Château. It was named quite a bit later, as an homage to the Empress; I don't think we have quite a good enough photo of it yet; if we started putting rose pictures on each of the pages for people etc. after whom they are named, there would be a lot of them, and it could become a way for rose breeders to get themselves publicity (name a rose after every person who has a page in wikipedia). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't that difficult maybe - they were very few Yellow Roses before ... Hafspajen (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafs, did you mean to provide a link to a Dolly Parton song? CorinneSD (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, moths and Dolly Parton.. no, I didn't. Actually I think it should be an article about them. At least on the Old roses, Marechal Niel, Rëve de l'Or, Gloire de Dijon... If not individual articles at least something of th early yellows. Untill 1700th century or so there was no yellow roses to talk about. Hafspajen (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I was told off for making stubs about rose cultivars, so I stopped. Someone objects to stubs. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Who told you off? That wasn't nice. Is there a rule against stubs on WP? CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Who was that ? NO, there are NO rules against stubs on WP, of course not. Let's make stubbs on roses NOW. Hafspajen (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact that there were no yellow roses before the 1700s makes yellow roses unique among roses, so an article is appropriate. CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. 1824 came Park's yellow scented from China to Europe. And before that Rosa foetida come - to USA in 1819. that became the Yellow Rose of Texas (rose). Harison's Yellow then ... The Yellow Rose of Texas (song) was inspired by this rose. Carolus Clusius might have grown it but he didn't used it to breed with it. Hafspajen (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need stubs. I fixed the moth problem as a small start. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OK; now you made me go throug your archives but I still don't get it who was the one who objected creating rose stubbs. Hafspajen (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was on this page (it might even have been in email). I started making some pages in April and May of this year, then my efforts were "corrected". It might be one of those things that happen when people who originally speak a different language are more or less direct than is expected in the other language. I'm told that German or Hebrew speakers are particularly surprising sometimes to English speakers by their directness that comes across as laying down the law or demanding that the person do something rather than merely a comment or a request as was intended by the speaker. I plan to forget now that it was ever said in the context of roses. I do quite often see people nominating a stub for deletion because it has "no substantial content", though. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am more confused than ever. A German Hebrew admin nominated your stubb? Hafspajen (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, when someone nominates a stub that I care about for deletion I scramble to add to it. These ones weren't nominated, but I was told that what I did was not appreciated, that adding stubs reduces the average quality of wikipedia pages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Was it Rosa 'Perle d'Or' and Rosa 'Cécile Brünner'? Hafspajen (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have to be that discreet, - well - but I still think that it sounds extremly WEIRD an admin should object to article stubbs. Hafspajen (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Pic on the creamy yellow buds - we should have a pic like this too. Hafspajen (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Nice. Hafspajen (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not admins, just people who consider themselves to be cleaners of messes, messes like my work, apparently. Yes, I made those two and Rosa 'Blush Noisette' and had planned to try to make one per week, but it became depressing to deal with the reactions.

We need to send photographers out to the gardens that charge admission, which is where the old roses tend to be (unless they prohibit photos, of course). That wikicheese project is inspiring. The trouble with photographing gardens, though, is that most of us don't live near enough to such a garden to make repeat visits through the season, and I don't think it would work to request funding for travel, just maybe for the admission fee. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, whoever it was - sounds weird to jump on an other editor who creates articles. Hafspajen (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we could do some more rose articles, now that an other editor takes care of Corinne's questions and projects she directed to me... how about that yellow rose article? Hafspajen (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I rather not interfere with Sca's ideas any more. Hafspajen (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafs I'm not sure what you mean by "now that another editor takes care of Corinne's questions..." but in any case, I pinged you and left you a message about American artist articles with no images at User talk:CorinneSD#Artist articles with no images, and you haven't replied. (I spent some time going through articles to make the list; haven't finished yet.) If I ask a question, I welcome replies from any editor who can help to answer it. I hope you don't feel that if I get help from Sca on something you will not help me or discuss things with me. Sca was helping me put a poorly translated article into English. I would really like to know what exactly has upset you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I will not interact with him any more, because I do not think it worth my efforts any more after his ways towards me, I am sorry. I invested tremendous amount of energy and time in him just to be hit on the head. I will not go any more where he is, because I don't think really he did appologized and meant it too. He stopped interacting with me, never returned to my page and archived everythng from his. I don't want to discuss things with him. Feel free to follow his advices and nominate anything he suggested. Hafspajen (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I am sorry. This was wrong. I am getting just as a big idiot like the others. I imagine you wanted us to be friends again, so you started a lot of treads trying to get us involved with each other again... And I AM angry with him and let that go over you. SORRY. But I still think it has to come from him, not from you... because it was his choice to behave like he did. I didn't put up a big sign on my page - this editor is not welcome, like some did it with me, right after I apologized. He can try, if he wants. But somehow I don't believe that it will happen, I think it is just a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. So I will not get involved. Hafspajen (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. But just because you answer a question I have posed to you on a topic he has raised doesn't mean you're interacting with him. You're interacting with me. You can answer the question on your or Sminth's talk page if that makes a difference. I think you could have avoided this problem with Sca if, when he first did something that you didn't like, instead of losing your cool and expressing a lot of anger at once, you simply asked something like, "Are you now saying that you want to be in charge of the images in this article?" and waited for an answer. If he said, "Yes", then you could have simply said, "All right, but I'm very disappointed. I already put a lot of work into this article," and left it at that. Then the ball would be in his court, and he would have to respond. What you did was to throw everything at him -- anger, reasons why you should be allowed to continue choosing/organizing the images, feelings of betrayal, etc., etc. -- almost like you were a lawyer in a courtroom. After that, what can Sca say? Not everyone can deal with that kind of onslaught. To be on the receiving end of that does not lead to conciliatory responses. I think this is especially true of exchanges in writing on-line because no one can see your face, hear the tone in your voice, put a hand on your shoulder, etc. It's very hard to gauge the real extent of the other person's anger (is he or she really, truly angry, or just frustrated, or amazed, or just joking? It's hard to tell.) If you had simply expressed your disappointment, he might have felt more inclined to explain his point of view. I think he was put off by your anger, and didn't want to discuss it anymore. There was some kind of misunderstanding in there somewhere, but it never came out. I'd like to suggest that the next time this happens, you try a different approach: use carefully chosen statements and questions, and wait for a reply. I think sometimes you forget that other people have feelings, too, and different points of view, and that it takes some good listening and carefully expressed thoughts and questions to reach common ground or to bring the other person around to your point of view (that is, get the other person to agree with you). You're treating Sca as if he is all bad and you want nothing to do with him. The truth is that you know you share a lot of interests with him and have similar backgrounds and a good intellect. If you'd like to repair your friendship with Sca, you might consider apologizing to him. I know this goes against your grain, but you would be extending an olive branch, and being the bigger person in all this, and then re-gaining a good friend. Well, that's all I'll say about it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I could have done this and that - but I haven't. He could have done this or that - but he didn't- and actually I feel HE was to throwing suddenly everything at me. I was the nice part in this case. I was running around helping him, developing his ideas, taking care of everything he wanted me to do and he was explicitly told me he will not do anything. He didn't helped me with much things. Why can't anyone understand ME: I did not deserve the way he was treating me. I was on the receiving end of what HE started - reverting four times and that is a behavior on Wiki considered as a major hostile behavior - and incivility. Maybe you haven't heard about WP:Three revert rule. And that does not lead to conciliatory responses, yes, and he started it. I will not apologize for getting angry when he treated me unfair. And - maybe we don't have a common ground - my ground towards him was being nice and helpful. I also said several times I dislike spooky things, and I think one has to be able to decide what one wants on ones own talk. When Gareth told me he hated queen Elisabeth, I removed her picture speedily from his page and never thought a second about that it was something against me personally. I don't know what kind of grounds he started that edit war with me. Nobody of my friend have ever started an editwar with me, ever. Maybe you have not heard about WP:Edit warring. Read that, and read about Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I was apologizing to YOU, but I don't want to discuss this more. He have just as much responsibility, if not more. Hafspajen (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I have read your secret exchange - and it is as I told you, he will not do anything more. That : sorry I reverted you however many times — though I didn't actually revert, I re-edited.- it is not a real I am sorry. It is not being sorry for I did you wrong = it is however many times - and means - yeah, you complain, you blow up the whole thing - however many times ... what does it matter. What does it matter what you say, how many times it was? and by the way, I never reverted but reedited. That is all self justification, not being really sorry. I might be bad at writing in English but I am not stupid. I understand what that means. It means: - I never did anything wrong, you are just exaggerating. And when people tell me I am exaggerating, they tell me : what you feel and think it doesn't matter. And that - is not apologizing. Apologizing is different. That means to be concerned, to think over everything and to be able to admit if something was wrong and also change what you acknowledge, so it will not happen again. If you want it even more plain: as Dr Phil say: You can't change what you don't acknowledge. And not acknowledging that it ever was anything wrong - is not making thing god again, it is just: oh, will you stop having feelings that bothers me. If I behaved stupidly I am able and also use to apologize, and if I would care for someone I would never think twice about it. Apologizing implies caring for the other person, not just wanting to tell them to stop having feelings that bothers you and stop accusing you. There are small differences - but there are there - and one who has ears can hear them and those who have eyes can see them. Hafspajen (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yellow roses

Yellow roses, good. I think we need some work on the species pages as a foundation; many of them are pale yellow. I have access to Eugster, C.H.; Märki-Fischer, E. "The Chemistry of Rose Pigments". Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English. 30 (6): 654–672. doi:10.1002/anie.199106541.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Not sure how much of it I understand, though. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

In my Rose Lexicon there is a rather clear time line - in 1824 came Park's yellow scented from China to Europe, and rose breededr started a program growing it. And before that Rosa foetida come to Europe with Clusius - from Turkey. That one was imported to USA in 1819. the one that became the Yellow Rose of Texas . But Park's yellow scented was flowering continuously, Foetida didn't. Hafspajen (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Here.-> http://www.rose.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/History-of-Roses-Tea-Roses.pdf Hafspajen (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Park's yellow scented. Hafspajen (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And this: There were no yellow roses (as we know them) were grown during the Regency period. There were a few species (single, 5 petal flowers) in the Burnet class and some others I mention below, but I suspect none of you, if you saw them, would say they were roses. There were some yellow roses in Persia, but they could not survive the colder European weather and were not grown in England until well after the Regency. Up until the introduction of China Roses, the colors of roses were mostly shades of pink, white (esp. in the Alba class) with a few deep pink or purple (mostly in the Gallica class). That's pretty much it. Hafspajen (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A Google book Park's Yellow Hafspajen (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit of a puzzle how Rosa hemisphaerica (R. sulphurea, R. rapinii) fits into the garden history. Very prickly, apparently, perhaps in some sense not a "garden rose". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We have to build everything, even just to make a page about Park's yellow (and Hume's blush) we need the basic species pages to be cleaned up enough for links to them to make some sense ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Rose petals of all colours contain flavonoids in quantity, and it was assumed that the yellow colours of roses are due to flavonol glycosides until in the 1960s it was proven that carotenoids are also present in yellow roses. In fact, the flavonol glycosides only contribute to petal colour when their concentration is high; in combination with the yellow from carotenoids they bring a brownish tinge to some roses (demonstrated in Rosa 'William Allen Richardson' and Rosa 'Whisky Mac'). [ref Eugster & Märki-Fischer]

Are we going to this? Hafspajen (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we can do it. There's more interesting material in that paper about the chemistry, which I'll digest some more. Then I'd like to make pages about each of the important old yellow roses, then replace Yellow rose with a real page about roses that are yellow, and move the existing page to ...(disambiguation). I think the new page would be at least as notable as Blue rose. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Blue and blue. That's more lilac. Hafspajen (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo ID

File:Cucurbita_2011_G1.jpg, in that photo there is definitely C. pepo. I'm think the one at the back is C. moschata. Maybe some are C. maxima. What do you think? Some of these are very hard to distinguish from just a photo. I think we can post at FAC within a day or two. HalfGig talk 14:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

How many cultivars do you think, five? That big blue one at the back looks to me like 'Queensland Blue', which is always said to be 'C. maxima', but I think it is difficult to tell from the fruit. I don't know well how to recognize different cultivars, so please take this with a grain of salt: I think the most likely C. pepos are the two round orange ones with green flecks far right and centre. Let me know if you want me to read something over, I'm not managing to keep up with my watch list at the moment. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There are at least 5 cultivars and yes as we know the cultivars are very hard to distinguish at times, not just the species: 1-the pale blue one at the back is probably Queensland Blue (C. maxima) but could be moschata (see this). Queensland Blue has an acorn shape if you can see the whole thing but we can't see it here; 2-the orange ones are C. pepo; 3-the two pinkish ones I'm uncertain; 4-the two big grayish ones on the left are C. maxima, I think; and 5-the one in the left rear, I'm uncertain. Note it's shape is quite different from the other two grayish ones. I'd say at leasat 3 species here: C. pepo, C. maxima, C. moschata. That's what I'll change the caption to. HalfGig talk 16:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, we're in some danger of the image variant of WP:OR here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a hazardous guess, I think. I'm not at all sure about the C. moschata identification. Although I'm totally convinced that there are at least two species in the image, I don't think we can say that if the photographer didn't own up. Could a different image with better original data be found? Or perhaps asking the photographer might yield some cultivar names. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've asked him over on Commons, see this post. If we do end up using only one of the two photos (this one or current info box one), which one should it be? I'm assuming C.Chap votes for the current one since he did the swap and took the photo. ;-) HalfGig talk 17:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I also like the one that is at the top of the species section. It's a closer-in shot so the fruits are easier to see. My only issues with the one currently in the box is that the fruits are a bit small and lighting is a tad dim, so they're harder to see easily. HalfGig talk 17:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind which image is used, they are both good. There's something to be said, I think, for the top image showing the fruits as clearly agriculturally important, whereas the later image has more of the look of curiosities that mightn't be as edible. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The infobox image is in full sun; the fruits fill the frame; there is a strong colour contrast between the different types in the image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. We have a group slight preference for the current infobox image. For now I'm going to comment out the FP photo, pending on if and what the uploader on commons says. We can always put it back in. I plan to nom this at FAC with all three of us as conoms on 31 Dec or 01 Jan. Sound good? HalfGig talk 18:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Loathe as I am to be listed as a person who nominates pages for anything, I guess it makes clear that it would be a conflict of interest for me to support the nomination, so okay, I'm happy to be listed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand your trepidation. I shy from it too but someone has to do it. According to this tool we are the top three editors (scroll to the bottom of the page). HalfGig talk 18:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Good gracious, what a lot of edits. We are all well ahead of AnomieBOT and ClueBOT combined. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Sminthopsis84!

Happy New Year!

Sminthopsis84,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you Hafs, that is very kind of you. I will advance into the new year brandishing asparagus and lemons. That should keep the trolls at bay. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Move of epilepsy article

Have moved back as I am not seeing consensus. Needs further discussion. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Sminthopsis84!

Happy New Year!

Sminthopsis84,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. CorinneSD (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Why didn't the fireworks come out as they did on my talk page? CorinneSD (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you CorinneSD! I've replied on your talk page, and I BROKE IT! So sorry! I pinged someone who changed a template at around the time when it seemed that things stopped working properly, so I hope they can sort out the problem. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

testing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Sminthopsis84!

Happy New Year!

Sminthopsis84,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

And now...

A new year dawns . . .

...and maybe the path through the forest of life will look like this.....

Best wishes Sminthopsis84 for a happy and healthy 2015
PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

How lovely, PCW, thank you. Forests are such wonderful places. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Tilia

Prompted by the two images at User talk:Sca#Arboreal longevity, I first read the article on Kaditz Lime Tree and then skimmed the article on Tilia. In the section Tilia#Germanic mythology there is a photo of lime/linden trees in a cemetery in Jutland, Denmark. I had never seen trees that look like that before. I just wonder if you could tell me what those woody clumps at the tops of the trees are. Where does new growth emerge in the spring? These trees don't look like the tree in the image at the beginning of the article.

Also, in the article on Kaditz Lime Tree I noticed that there is no link to the article Tilia in the lede. I'm wondering whether it should be at the word "lime" or "lime tree" or at Tilia. CorinneSD (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Those trees are pollarded. It can only work with some species that are able to produce buds for new growth next to severely damaged wood. I've added a link to the species. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the link to the article on pollarding. As I read the article I made a few small edits to improve clarity. (Feel free to undo any or all.) I was puzzled by a sentence in the second paragraph in pollarding#Species:

It removes rotting or diseased branches to support the overall health of the tree, living and dead branches that could harm property and people, as well as expanded foliage in spring for aesthetic, shade and pollution concerns.

I don't think this sentence is as clear as it could be. I understand everything up to "property and people". After that, it doesn't make sense to me. Does pollarding remove expanded foliage in spring? CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of the elements in that last part after "people" could mean. I've tagged it with "clarification needed". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Shortia galacifolia

I've done a 5X expansion of this and put it at DYK. Can you look it over for wording, accuracy, and so on? Thank you. HalfGig talk 22:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, I think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Landscape

Sminth and User:Hafspajen A few of us have been discussing a re-working of the article Landscape. See Talk:Landscape#Discussion from my talk. One, User:Zaereth, has begun the trimming that was discussed, which I applaud. I'm wondering whether you would like to write a section or two such as "Landscape in (or and) art", "Landscape in (or and) architecture", or "Landscape in (or and) gardening". If you have any other ideas for creating a better article, please feel free to add them to the discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather busy for a few days ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Foxtail millet

I saw that an editor has renamed a section in Foxtail millet from "Terms for foxtail millet in other languages" to "Names", and added "In the countries where it is cultivated, the foxtail millet is known as:" before the list of names. I can't judge the appropriateness of the change to the section heading, so I'll let you judge that, but I just want to point out something. Because of that added sentence beginning, what should follow "the foxtail millet is known as" is the name, not "in + language". If you think that sentence beginning is all right, what do you think of reversing the order of each item in the list, putting the name first, as:

...is known as:

thina in Malayalam

navane or navane akki in Kannada

etc.

Also, if you decide the new sentence beginning should stay, I wonder if the word "the" before "foxtail millet" is needed. I think just "foxtail millet is known as" is sufficient. CorinneSD (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think having the added sentence makes some sense, since this plant is a weed in other places, and a list of the names just where people grow it to eat it seems appropriate. I agree with your suggestion about reversing the order of each entry, and also that taking "the" before foxtail millet is more standard English (putting it in there I think is a feature of Indian English). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:Hzh#Foxtail millet. Hzh knows Mandarin Chinese and, I believe Japanese and maybe also Korean. CorinneSD (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're joking, right? CorinneSD (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, you're joking. I just re-read the caption. CorinneSD (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC) I had been focusing on the plant and not the first words in the caption. CorinneSD (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC) I feel really stupid that I wasn't sure you were joking or not. I thought, being a botanist, you were pointing out a different kind of millet. I guess botanists are not always serious. CorinneSD (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it can be very hard to tell. (Don't feel foolish, surely even a fine copyeditor like yourself could sometimes misread a word or two.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Herbal tea

I was just reading the article on Herbal tea. I noticed in the third paragraph in Herbal tea#Popularity that there are a lot of capitalized names of teas and combinations of teas in different languages. The capitalization does not seem consistent. When you have time, can you check this? CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed. The foreign-language words should be italicized, but the species names also need to be. I'm not sure what to do about that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Schnapps

First I read the article on Liqueur. From there, I decided to read the article on Schnapps. I was surprised to see the last section in the article on Schnapps. Do you think it belongs there? CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No. That should be removed as per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's three of us in favour of removing it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I've removed it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"clarification needed"

The previous lead paragraph didn't even attempt to define paratype. I think my edit is a big improvement. If there is something that needs clarifying please do so. Bhny (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fennel

Do you agree? [16] CorinneSD (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The statements are not medical advice, so the requirement for citations are not so strong. The more blog-like one isn't actually a blog. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sminth An editor added a quotation to Fennel, but put an external link at the end of it. I don't think external links belong in the middle of articles, do they? I don't know whether there is a better place to put that link. [17] CorinneSD (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What a mess. The material in EOL was a mess copied from wikipedia. Changed it here to cite the actual source, which is in Portuguese. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen that acronym, EOL. I did a search for it and saw Encyclopedia of Life. Is that it? I had never heard of that before. Is that a WP project? Do you contribute to that, too? CorinneSD (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. They use a different style of editing: "curators" sign up, non anonymously. I did sign up for it but then I asked to have my signon removed because they were displaying my name as if I were totally responsible for the material about a whole plant family that I hadn't had time to check, let alone polish. Later they decided that there wasn't enough material being added, so they'd copy from wikipedia: scary, huh? (They have Prunus simonii completely mixed up with nectarine, and I don't know how to get it fixed, though I left a comment about a year ago.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I decided EOL was worthless (well, worth as much as Wikipedia, but failing as an expert vetted alternative to Wikipedia and thus pointless) when I saw they had a page for Kalanchoe rhimbopilosa, a typo that originated here. Scraping Wikipedia for additional content on taxa already sourced to reputable database is kinda understandable (but ultimately pointless). Scraping Wikipedia for the taxa themselves? ...shudder. Plantdrew (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I must be in a resilient mood today because I find that example hilarious. Shuddering hilarity is generally the best kind. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I just took a good look at the image to the right of a cavy's defense mechanisms. Were you suggesting something about Wikipedia editors? CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No, Haffy put the picture there and expects me to add a caption, so I tried to explain the picture. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just kidding. I should have put a ";)" after my comment. CorinneSD (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this all right?... [18] CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, but the person should have corrected spelling consistently. MOS:RETAIN stipulates that whoever got in first gets to determine spelling, so I've explained on the talk page that American spelling has taken hold on that page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

List of distributed computing projects

Thank you for your helpful update to a project listing. Could I twist your arm into sharing your two cents on a question I raised concerning that article? Your opinion would add greatly to a stagnant discussion. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wilhelm Nikolaus Suksdorf,

Suksdorfia violacea has been
nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Sminthopsis84. Wilhelm Nikolaus Suksdorf, Suksdorfia violacea, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for Did you know consideration to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 02:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita foetidissima

I was just looking at the article on Cucurbita foetidissima, and I made a few minor copy-edits. As I was going through the section on "Uses", I noticed that there were two instances of unpaired double quotation marks for italics. (They're highlighted in red in Edit Mode.) Since I don't know exactly what should be in italics, I thought I'd just point it out to you. CorinneSD (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(Happened to see this.) The problem seemed to be in the citations; I've converted these to templates which I think has fixed the problems. The article could do with some copy-editing, though, as there's quite a bit of "note form" writing. Over to you, CorinneSD! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Peter, I did my best to put it into more acceptable prose. If you have time, would you review my edits just to make sure I didn't say something that's not correct? CorinneSD (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Much better! I'm always inclined to use |abbr=on with {{convert}} – it avoids arguments over the US spelling "-meters" and the ISO spelling "-metres". I also prefer to reduce the default number of decimal places shown; for example when using inches, who can measure to 1/100th of an inch? Also you often find that (as here) the converted Imperial/US customary units are suspiciously close to whole numbers, suggesting the original measurement was in these units and the metric ones have been obtained by conversion. I suppose the °C should also be converted? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I've wondered for a long time how to limit the decimal places so that one doesn't get things like 7.2 inches, or 4.8 miles. What does the "0" or "1" after the last pipe mean, or do? I agree about avoiding meters/metres, but sometimes one might want to use the full words for other units. Does that method (adding 0 or 1 after the last pipe) work when you haven't entered "abbr=on"? CorinneSD (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The "0" or "1" is the number of decimal places. You can also use "-1" meaning round to the nearest 10, "-2" meaning round to the nearest 100, etc. You don't need the "abbr=on" to make the rounding work.

The trouble with using full words for other units is that editors will then argue that it's inconsistent to have some units spelt out and not others, and then we're back to how to spell "metre". I've seen several nasty and completely pointless edit wars over the spelling of units. Stick to abbreviations is my advice! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. CorinneSD (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. I was offline for the last couple of days, and come back to see that this is all taken care of. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In Cucurbita, after I saw your edit undoing my edit, I changed two other instances of "Cucurbitaceae" from italics to Roman (regular) font. I saw one or two instances of the word in italics in the References, but I don't know whether they should be changed. CorinneSD (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted. Done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Pattypan squash

I've decided to go through the various squash articles. The last few sentences in the article Pattypan squash are:

Pattypan is a good source of magnesium, niacin, and vitamins A and C. One cup contains approximately 20 to 30 calories and no fat. It is often sliced, coated and fried until golden brown, or simply boiled. In Polish cuisine, they are pickled in sweet vinegar.

I noticed that the squash is referred to in both the singular and plural. I've highlighted the verbs in boldface. I wonder what you think of the switch from singular to plural from the second-to-last to the last sentence. What would you change? CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you do notice a lot. I suppose I'd take the easy way out, trying to avoid having editors wondering whether "squash" can be used as both the singular and the plural, and consequently would just change "they are pickled" to "it is pickled". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess squash is spoken of in the singular and the plural. Would it improve things a little if we just change "they are" to "squash are"? CorinneSD (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yellow crookneck squash

At the end of the first paragraph in Yellow crookneck squash is the following sentence:

Its name distinguishes it from its close relative, the yellow summer squash, which has a straight neck.

I believe "its name" refers to Tromboncino, which is mentioned toward the end of the previous sentence. Do you think that the average reader will figure out (without clicking on the link and reading the article) that "Tromboncino" means "little trombone" (I'm just guessing that that's what it means)? CorinneSD (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is related to the Yellow summer squash page, which I fear might not be salvageable. I'd like to see the sentence "Its name distinguishes it from its close relative, the yellow summer squash, which has a straight neck." removed entirely. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps not, see next section with insight from HalfGig. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Both of these are mis-named. They're not always yellow. I'll go fix both articles. I should have jumped on this long ago. HalfGig talk 23:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yellow summer squash

The last sentence in Yellow summer squash is:

It is available all year long in some regions but is at its peak from early through late summer.

I'm just wondering if "from early through late summer" is really clear for people who live outside of North America. Wouldn't the use of the names of the months (such as "from June through September"), either instead of "from early through late summer" or in addition to it, be clearer? CorinneSD (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but think of the Australians! The usual advice is to use seasons for the life cycle of plants (see MOS:SEASON). You could say something like "from early through late summer (June through September in the northern hemisphere)", but then there's always the problem of those who live in Alaska or the far north of Canada and Europe. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but does yellow summer squash grow in Alaska and the far north of Canada and Europe? I guess it could, but those areas would have a much shorter summer growing season, perhaps just late June through mid-August. Sigh... I was thinking that it would not be so inappropriate to use the growing season of the areas where it is native, but now that the squash has spread to the rest of the world, the time of the growing season gets complicated. I wonder if "June through September" is not even correct for Mesoamerica, where the growing season would be even longer. CorinneSD (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Yellow summer squash page is not an asset to the reader. The source used does not support a statement that yellow summer squash cannot be of a crookneck type. There are a lot of sorts of yellow summer squash, not just the kind pictured on the page, as for example in this image. P.S.: Alaska produces magnificent vegetables, grown in glass houses on that excellent volcanic soil, and with the long summer days causing the plants to grow at a tremendous rate. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be renamed to Yellow straightneck squash or Straightneck squash. HalfGig talk 21:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, that would help a lot! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. The kind of yellow summer squash we see is straight, only slightly bumpy, and all light yellow (like the ones in the background in the last photo you posted just above). I hadn't seen the one with the green at the bottom that was in the article. I'm glad you explained that. Oh, yes...regarding Alaska, I had forgotten about those long summer days. CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled; the yellow squash that we call "summer squash" is only slightly crooknecked (sometimes slender and slightly curved at top), but only very slightly bumpy, not like the one in the image in Crookneck squash, but not as smooth and shiny as the one in the image in Straightneck squash. What is that? CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, the squash seeds available from the larger seed suppliers each year change rapidly, and at any one time many of those available are hybrids. For example, this site says "many hybrids are short-lived and cannot be reproduced because their parents are not publicly available. Thus, the collection contains several crookneck and straightneck hybrids that no longer exist. However, newer ones have replaced them and the number of extant cultivars in these groups appears to have changed little in 20 or 30 years." I think the kind you describe could well be derived from crossing a smooth-skinned yellow straightneck or zucchini with a warty crookneck type, perhaps a bit like this. Perhaps seed produces are choosing to market summer squash that are more alike now, rather than choosing them to look very different from one another. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the photo in the Stokes link. The color is all right, but the ones I'm speaking of (which have remained the same since I was younger), are shaped like the crookneck ones -- fatter at one end and with a slender, curved neck at the other -- and they are not shiny. They are like the one in the article on crookneck squash but just not quite so bumpy as that one. Maybe they are crookneck squashes but just picked while young. CorinneSD (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think the various kinds are generally less bumpy when young. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Spaghetti squash

I didn't see any problems in Spaghetti squash, but I wanted to ask what you and Peter thought of the prose style of the lede paragraph. The sentences are all short.

Also, in most of the article, the squash is referred to in the singular, but in Spaghetti squash#Cultivation it is spoken of in the plural. What do you think? Would you change it or just leave it? CorinneSD (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just curious -- what makes the flesh come out looking like spaghetti after the squash has been cooked? CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. Some melons and other cucurbitaceae have somewhat fibrous flesh some of the time. I'd guess that when it is cooked, some areas of the flesh with more water-soluble pectin-rich cells fall apart, causing the more solid parts to separate as strands. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track there, although I have no info to back this up. I love that stuff, incidentally, and have had it many times. Taste is a bit different from that of spaghetti, and texture a bit crunchier. But still great stuff.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you? I asked a few people here if anyone liked it, and the answer was no. Perhaps we aren't preparing it well, or are using an inappropriate sauce. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Zucchini

I went through the article on Zucchini and found very few problems. I just wonder about one image in the article. It's the photo of the golden zucchini in the section Zucchini#Cultivation with the caption "Golden zucchini harvested in summer". It looks like it is a double squash, two squashes stuck together. While it is interesting, I believe it is unusual, and I would think an illustrative photo should be of a more usual specimen. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that it would be better to have a photo of a more usual specimen, or a set of them as in some of the other photos in the Commons category. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In this recent edit, an editor moved a sentence to later in the paragraph, in a place which admittedly makes more sense, but upon reading the entire paragraph, I don't think the sentence is needed at all. Here's the edit: [19] It already says that meat is optional. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it is a sort of emphasis that the dish can be popular in that form, that it might be something you'd find in a vegetarian restaurant. (The sentence certainly fits better in that position than it did earlier.) I don't know if there are guidelines for pages about cooking that might say that succinctness is required. Most of what I've seen are quite chatty. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it could go. Vegetarians prefer meatless, so what? Rothorpe (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor just added an image of golden zucchini to the article [20]. It's a pretty good photo. I looked and saw an image of one double golden zucchini later in the article. I don't think it's as good an illustration as the one just added, and I wanted to ask you what you thought. Then, upon finding this section, I re-read the first comment, just above, and saw I had commented on that image of the double golden zucchini before. Now there's another image. Does the article need both, or would one be sufficient? Which image do you like? CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the new image is good, and it's even in a good place. That later one, with the caption "Golden zucchini harvested in summer" is rather strange. Summer harvesting seems to really mess up the vegetables, possibly should be outlawed. I think it could go. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Porteresia

Concerning Porteresia, I was just following Kew's World Checklist.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that was what you were doing. Sorry if I was curt. It's a problem when different authorities are using different classifications. In this case, I think the number of sources about the genetics that use the Porteresia name, plus the Banglapedia mention of it as economically important are good reasons to have a page that discusses the different taxonomic opinions, rather than just sinking it as a synonym of Oryza where the species is not discussed. In what I was trying to do today, I seemed to run into nothing but that kind of problem, should Turpinia malabarica which is listed as unresolved in ThePlantList have a page, it does; should the Pseudopanax colensoi page be moved to Neopanax colensoi, ... quite frustrating. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I hesitated to do that redirect on Porteresia. I long ago established a policy of adding to existing pages but not deleting anyone else's work unless it is clearly wrong. I will, though, reword something to make it more intelligible, which is necessary in a thoroughly appalling number of cases. In this case, I scanned what was there and decided that it did not have much worth saving, that it did not do a good job of explaining disagreements over the status.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

See if you think it is okay now, with just a bit more added. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Very good. Much improvement. Only problem is that Kew says the thing grows in India, Pakistan, and Myanmar as well as Bangladesh.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw elsewhere that it grows around the Bay of Bengal, so Pakistan seems strange, unless it has been introduced. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

All I know is what it says on Kew. And Kew is never wrong. Well, almost never.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What you do in that sort of situation is to say "It has been reported from Pakistan" and give the reference. If you say "It also grows in Pakistan" then you are vouching for the accuracy of the statement and accepting responsibility for this. But if you say "It has been reported," you are making a 100% accurate statement, as yes, it has been reported from there. But the responsibility for the accuracy of the report you are passing back to the author of the reference.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've used "reported" when sources aren't clear [21] - but beware of Manual of Style agitators lurking in the grass, waiting to pounce and tell you to "stop using 'reported' and simalar [sic] WP:WEASEL words" [22]... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words??? I guess weasels are wiser than people give them credit for. What I outlined is simply good sense, an attempt to be totally truthful in a case in which sources disagree. What are the alternatives? Say with certainty that the plant is found in Pakistan? Or say with certainty that it is not? We need more information than we have available to resolve the question of whether it grows there or not. I stand by what I said as the appropriate way to handle this.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Weasels might generally use better spelling that some MOS enthusiasts. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the "weasel words" battle cry often interferes with accuracy in wikipedia. Over-zealous "copy editing" often destroys the meaning of carefully crafted sentences. Why remove "its" from "it should not be planted in areas previously occupied by its close relatives" unless the discussion is about gardeners who are closely related to one another and who occupy areas (which is wasn't). Over-zealous copyediting creates bloopers like "the an allele" from "the a allele". Any one interested in forming a league of anti-copyeditors? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Never knew that: the Washington state geologist was reported to regard the mudslide as one of the largest landslides he's seen. is a veasel word, any part of it. Washingtonpajen (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. My first thought was that weasels might be digging animals, one of whom was employed as a geologist to investigate the landslide, but "The least weasel does not dig its own den, but nests in the abandoned burrow of another species such as a mole or rat.", so such employment seems ill-advised. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think he is the guy? File:Ducreux - Louis Antoine de Bougainville.jpg Bougainvillea? --Hafspajen (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. He looks a bit slimmer there. See Philibert Commerson. Commerson's name is the one that is "correct". He made it clear who he was naming it after: "Nomen à D. de Bougainville itineris Commersoniani duce.", as can be seen here, page 91. Bougainvillea Comm. ex Juss. 1789 is a conserved name as per the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature Appendix E3 "Bougainvillea Comm. ex Juss., Gen. Pl.: 91. 4 Aug 1789 (‘Buginvillaea’) (orth. cons.) [Nyctagin.]. Typus: B. spectabilis Willd. (Sp. Pl. 2: 348. 1799) (typ. cons.)." and that is also listed in the the International Plant Names Index. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This weasel seems to prefer action to words... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Now I want a pet weasel. Perhaps that would disqualify me as a wikipedia editor (and the chipmunks and flying squirrels on this page might object too). 22:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Pansy

Just wondered what you thought of this edit to Pansy: [23]. CorinneSD (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I asked Kwamikagami User talk:Kwamikagami#Pansy because s/he's one of the etymology experts. When I left my first message to him, I thought it was a real change to the etymology section. Only later did I see it was a kind of re-organization, with a new section being created, but I'd still like to know what you think. Do you like the series of one-sentence paragraphs? CorinneSD (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edit. I'm just curious -- why did you remove the line about pansy in Spanish but not all the other ones about pansy in different languages? CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The other entries such as "In Hungary it is known as árvácska (small orphan)" had at least some mention of what the name means, but the Spanish was just a bald statement about a name that is used, which the interwiki should handle adequately (I didn't check whether the Spanish page needs more information on it). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

credentialism

Hello Sminthopsis84, I edit the Open Education Sociology Dictionary. I noticed traffic coming from Wikipedia and saw the dictionary's definition of credentialism was linked on the credentialism page. Out of curiousity I viewed the revisions and you commented "The sociology dictionary is a bad citation; it is claiming that Ronald Dore's book was published in 1925 and that he popularized the problem, i.e., caused the problem." Your comment was based on this line: "The overzealous pursuit of credentials is called diploma disease and was popularized by Ronald Dore (1925) in The Diploma Disease: Education, Qualification, and Development (1976)."

First, 1925 refers to when Dore was born not when the book was published. Second, you are right, that was a poorly worded sentence that reads like Dore caused the problem.

Thanks for pointing out the flawed and confusing phrasing, it has been changed to: "The overzealous pursuit of credentials is called diploma disease, a term popularized by Ronald Dore (born 1925) in The Diploma Disease: Education, Qualification, and Development (1976)." Also, the date next to a name of a living person is contextually confusing so I have added "born" to remove the ambiguity. I am currently changing similar instances on other definitions to match this new convention.

Correcting this term inspired me to expand credential inflation and add credential creep during the next update as well.

Thank for pointing out the mistakes in the dictionary and keep up the good work.

Kenton Bell (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. There's a discussion at Talk:Credential_inflation#Proposed_merger_with_Academic_inflation suggesting merging 4 pages, but it is getting no added votes. Do you have an opinion about that? The pages are Academic inflation, Credentialism, Credential creep, and Credential inflation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

While I think it would be possible to combine these four terms, I am not sure how. Each are specialized terms from different authors highlighting unique facets. Thus what would be the headword? I have requested the primary sources through my university and will get back to you. Kenton Bell (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm so glad you have some ideas about this. Perhaps we can at least combine one or two as a start. Perhaps we could combine them all under whatever is the earliest term, or under a combination such as "Credentialism and credential inflation". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I reviewed "The Credentialed Society" by Collins and "The Diploma Disease by Dore." In my opinion, "credential inflation" would work best as the headword because it is more neutral, with "academic inflation" merged into the term. Additionally, "credentialism" could be listed as unique aspects of credential inflation. All the best and keep up the good work. Kenton Bell (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you please copy your comments to Talk:Credential_inflation#Proposed_merger_with_Academic_inflation, and I'll go ahead with the merger as soon as I get some time. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Wilhelm Nikolaus Suksdorf

On 7 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wilhelm Nikolaus Suksdorf, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that self-taught botanist Wilhelm Nikolaus Suksdorf is the namesake of the type species Suksdorfia violacea? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 00:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Suksdorfia violacea

On 7 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Suksdorfia violacea, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that self-taught botanist Wilhelm Nikolaus Suksdorf is the namesake of the type species Suksdorfia violacea? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Isatis tinctoria 2

Did you see the latest comment at Talk:Isatis tinctoria#problem with cited source; can we find a better one?? CorinneSD (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've replied there. Better sources seem to be available. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Wine tasting

What do you think of this and adjacent edits to Wine tasting? [24] Are prunes significantly different from the stewed prunes already in the list? Also (and this was there before these edits), how can "minerals" be a flavoring agent, if that's what these are? CorinneSD (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I haven't a clue about wine tasting, having always believed that in the text "John left the window and drank the wine on the table. It was brown and round." (Wilks, 1975) "It was brown and round" must be an oenophile's way of describing the wine, and consequently that I haven't a hope of understanding that code.

Perhaps a sophisticated palate considers stewed prunes to be different from prunes ..., no, I suspect that edit was a blunder. For "minerals", perhaps what is meant is sulphates, chlorides, phosphates. Those ions are mentioned, e.g., here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen, PaleCloudedWhite Do you know anything about wine? See above. CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't like the taste of alcohol, I know nothing about wine, or any alcoholic drink for that matter. However I think that any statements about the flavours of a wine should be based on sources - otherwise different editors could be adding ther own opinions, and probably disagreeing with one another in the process. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And seconed. Hafspajen (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thirded. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of ethanol, can anyone reading this figure out how to fix the notes at List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens? I tried to use template:Note, with a, b, c, d, e, f as the note indicators, but it produced numbers just like citation footnotes, so that was not an improvement. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Okra

I've started to read the article on Okra. I was looking at an image in the section Okra#Structure and physiology. It mainly shows one flower, but the caption says, "Okra plant while flowering". Since very little of the plant, apart from the flower, is visible, shouldn't the caption just say "Okra flower"? I see there is an image of an okra plant flowering in the section Okra#Origin and distribution. CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That image was changed without adjusting the caption; until 12 April 2014 it was this image. The image in the section Okra#Origin and distribution is much better; perhaps it could be moved up and the other one deleted. (The picture of the sushi with okra slices is interesting.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

thanks

Lukeisawesome999 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Groundnut rosette virus

I know very little about viruses, so I wondered if you could have a look at the article Groundnut rosette virus, which I have just expanded, in case I have made any howlers through misunderstanding the sources I used. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a tiny page before! I've made some changes, and have these further comments. The page is a bit puzzling about what is a groundnut; sometimes it clearly is a peanut, but at other times it appears to be all those plants listed on the disambiguation page. It seems odd to have a picture of healthy plants. Sub-saharan Africa is contrasted with places that are components of it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed the image and made some changes with regards to the other points you make. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cassava 2

I'm starting a new section on Cassava because the first one is getting rather long. What do you think of this edit? [25] I suppose one could look at it as: "One can't be too careful", but does anyone eat the peel of a cassava? I'll let you decide on this one, but if you decide it should stay, it needs a space added. CorinneSD (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cake

Sminth Would you mind reading Talk:Cake#Cake as a dessert?, which was posted in response to my edit [26], and I responded to that post. I feel there must be a real cultural difference here. I felt as if I were reading something written by someone from another planet when I read the edit summary and even the post on the talk page. I'm always glad to learn something new, but I need help to understand this. CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the other editor has a point (though "a sweet baked" is not a noun phrase). Some sorts of ceremonies involve serving nothing but a special cake, so it wouldn't be a dessert course as dessert is described here in the wikipedia. By that definition a surprise birthday party among co-workers where a cake is brought to someone's desk and divided among the participants would be an example of a cake course not being a dessert course. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course a cake can be served by itself for special occasions, but it can also be served, granted, often by the slice, as a dessert. But just because it is served by the slice doesn't mean the cake is not a dessert. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC) (Sorry. I sound like I'm arguing with you, and I don't mean to be.) CorinneSD (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Taro

I was looking at the article on Taro and was trying to find a picture of the taro root. Except for a busy photo in Taro#Japan, the only pictures of the root are all the way at the end, in the gallery. Don't you think it would be a good idea to put a picture of the root earlier in the article, since the root is the part of the plant that is eaten most often (I see the stems are also eaten)? CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a very confused page, I think. It has a taxobox for the variety within the species, but it says that taro is the tubers only. The leaves of that species are also eaten, e.g., as Patrode. I don't know enough about what the word "Taro" actually means. I'll ask whether anyone at the WP:PLANTS project has the knowledge required to sort that out. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I found a lot in the article to be confusing. Apparently there are at least two types, the "eddo" or "eddoe" type and the "dasheen" type, but at least one of those names seems to be used for the other type in some places. CorinneSD (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84 You might be interested in this edit to Taro [27] and the most recent discussion on the talk page at Talk:Taro#Japan section is problematic. CorinneSD (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a problem. I've added a note about taxonomy to Colocasia esculenta and Colocasia antiquorum, for what that's worth. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Cassava-based dishes

Is this external link an appropriate addition to Cassava-based dishes? [28] CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but it would be hard to argue that no such citation should be used. I've changed it to a citation from being an entry in the See also section. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Weasel for You

	A Pet Weasel
	https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sminthopsis84&diff=646247738&oldid=646238731 Hafspajen (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow! What whiskers! Onwards with the weasel words! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious

care of nature
Thank you, editor "in the name of that most noble species" with ferocious teeth and a good library for checking sources, for quality care of articles about plants, mammals and their people, such as Wilhelm Nikolaus Suksdorf, for redirects, pruning, cleanup and warning, for the firm stand on Monday, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm overwhelmed. Thank you Gerda, and thank you for caring about nature and pruning and Monday and all those other things that you watch over. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Bravo! Well-deserved. Sminth has been a great help to myself and the entire PLANTS project! HalfGig talk 02:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Barley

A lot of changes to Barley here: [29], and the edit right before it. CorinneSD (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Those look good to me. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fast-growing seedlings

Hello Sminthopsis84. A second opinion is requested: do you think this image - that was added to Rosa multiflora earlier today - is really of one-month old seedlings, as the file description states? They look more like cuttings to me. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, that is not plausible growth straight from a seed. Perhaps it was a seedling or sucker or cutting from the previous year sprouting in spring. That amount of growth would be possible in just a month, I think, and worth remarking on, but no fresh seedling could ramp up so quickly. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting to see the little Oxalis growing in the surrounding soil; I wonder if they're as persistent a weed in China as some of the species are in Europe? I seem never able to get rid of them once I have them... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as a child I spent some hours trying to sieve their tiny tubers out of soil in Melbourne, Australia, but it didn't have any lasting effect. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

When I was working at RBG Kew, one of the gardeners there said that it was safe to hand weed the bulbil-producing types only at a certain time of year, when the bulbils don't break off from the parents - but I can't remember which time of year that was. We were also told that Oxalis were the only things that would survive the giant compost heaps in Kew's stable yard, so they had to be disposed of separately.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to find that advice published somewhere, and citable in wikipedia ... Probably, though, the expert gardeners just pass along the best information to those they train. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed myself with the species that appears in my little plant-breeding nursery, is that their seeds mature very quickly - if I don't remove the capsules pretty promptly, within a few days they're ripe enough to explode at the slightest touch, sending tiny seeds flying everywhere.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps that's cute behaviour, but hard for a gardener to appreciate. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Die Dachstube

	Green Wikilove
	Could you please tell me wahat is that plant you grow? Hafspajen (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that; my handerchief is hidden. The one you remarked upon was Urtica dioica subsp. dioica, stinging nettle, no? In the picture, I think I see a mixture of Hedera helix, and perhaps a rose and a geranium. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Planting more encouragement, - Cucurbita looks excellent in the Signpost, thank you for what did for it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

We Did It!

See this. Great teamwork! HalfGig talk 02:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Congratulations HalfGig, you made that happen (though a lot of people helped). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think AC realizes how, by coming in so late in the editing process and making edits without first discussing them on the talk page, and then ignoring Half-Gig's comment, he has upset Half-Gig. Is there any way you can speak to AC about this? It's largely Half-Gig's article, and now s/he has left it. [30] CorinneSD (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Absinthe

I was just looking at the latest edit to Absinthe, and, while there, made a few minor edits. I have to ask you and Hafspajen about the Absinthe#Finland section. The last sentence in this section is:

The firm Altia Helsinki does, however, make Valhalla, an excellent herb liqueur made with Artemisia absenthium and other natural wild herbs; it tastes similar to many absinthes while being a pleasant 70 proof.

I wonder whether, "while being a pleasant 70 proof" doesn't sound a little like advertising. CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I imagine it does. Hafspajen (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Also "an excellent herb liqueur" sounds like advertising. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, another editor has removed the entire sentence. Probably a good move. Hafs, that's an incredible photo! I don't know if I would have the courage to cross that bridge. It looks awfully high up, and there is a big space between the upper wire railing and the lower one. CorinneSD (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Creepy isn't it? Wonder how they managed to build it. Hafspajen (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – nafSadh did say 12:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that is a nasty battle. I see that one of the participants has declared themself to be retired. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Minott Peters

On 5 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Minott Peters, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although Alabama Chief Justice and botanist Thomas Minott Peters owned slaves before the Civil War, he later championed equal rights for African Americans and women, and wanted Jefferson Davis hanged? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Minott Peters. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Cardoon

What do you think of this edit to Cardoon? [31] If the addition of "Malta" is correct, the phrasing needs to be revised. CorinneSD (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That was definitely tangled. I've adjusted it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Retiring?

Please reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I second the above. I'm sure you have your reasons. As a relatively novice contributor in the plants area, I've been inspired by your tireless efforts. Take care for now. Declan Declangi (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Donauwelle

	A no-particular-reason Cherry Tart
	To keep you in shape . Hafspajen (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Hafs. I would prefer to be kept in a cherry tart to being in a gilded cage. Wonder why the Avengers didn't think of that, it could have been a nice sticky plot for them to work with. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Millet

Hafspajen I just saw this Now I can't read the diffs you provided. I guess I have stuck my nose in the middle of something that I didn't know enough about. My initial impression of WPPilot (on FP, then on my talk page, regarding his photos) was that he was a very nice, friendly, interesting editor. I knew nothing about his involvement with Signpost until he asked me to help proofread his (future) entries, which of course I said I would do. When you suggested it would not be a good idea, I said "O.K." I already admitted my mistake in pinging him when you posted a comment telling me more. I guess I have a tendency to support someone who is hurt and angry, and I have continued to support him without really knowing all the details (about Signpost). (Seeing HalfGig and Sminth getting so angry at AC's approach at Cucurbita made me assume, perhaps wrongly, that his actions or comments back in Jan./Feb. might have contributed to WPPilot's being upset.) In your latest comment (link above), you explained a lot more, so that I could see what really happened, but since you undid it, it will be harder for me to read those diffs. I am learning that I should be more careful about supporting one editor in a conflict before knowing everything that has happened. Now I am starting to see that WPPilot has a quick temper. One outburst can perhaps be excused but I see now that he continues to lash out. Please forgive me, Hafs. My intentions are good, but I see that I keep making mistakes... CorinneSD (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Hafspajen (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

For you

	A Botanist for You
	As you can notice. He has an article too Hafspajen (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Met him? Hafspajen (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Alas no. Arabidopsis may be cute, but after being required as a student to attend a department seminar every Friday, seemingly always entitled "Characterizing the --- gene in Arabidopsis thaliana" one learns to stay away from any person who works on the --- plant. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"Characterizing the --- gene in Arabidopsis thaliana"? That shows an unusual amount of concern for precision and nomenclature from an arapidopsisthalianologist. I'd better check the incoming links to arabidopsis again for links which intend the species article. Good to have you back, Sminthopsis. Plantdrew (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Plantdrew. That's an interesting point. I suspect that the precision might be because there was a group working in the department on the allotetraploid Arabidopsis suecica, particularly the different ways in which genes behave in that species compared to the diploids. Goodness, gracious, we don't have a page about A. suecica. I wonder what other disambiguation links are needed to understand the short-hand of geneticists; S. cerevisiae works, and I thought of one more. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Those two and E. coli might be the only ones where a common short-hand specifies the species. The number of incoming links to drosophila and xenopus is rather daunting. Plantdrew (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Daunting indeed. This is a classic shorthand use. I've also added this, which I fear mightn't last. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

contented to see you

Fylbecatulous talk 16:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Fylbe. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bengali people#List of people in the collage

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bengali people#List of people in the collage. Thanks. nafSadh did say 21:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I'll stay out of that fight. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment

Utterly incredible. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1

Hello, Sminthopsis84. You have new messages at Hafspajen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (7th nomination)... Hafspajen (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't quick enough.

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is deleted. Or the deletion nom is deleted. Either way, what do you think about the proposal of the merging a of a genus with a family? (last entry) Hafspajen (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Why aren't you in my category? Hafspajen (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for tidying that up. A person has to be quick with their edits around here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

what do you think about the proposal of the merging a of a genus with a family? (last entry) Hafspajen (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ohhh. Thank you for the enlightenment there (I wonder if it really was an April 1 joke, but ...) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC

(Gloomily) ... probably not - I think it twas meant seriously. That I discovered when studying the rest of his edits.... later. 13:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

He did meant it seriously, apparently it was not a joke. Will you please motivate why we don't merge genus with family, so he can feel s/he - got a serious answer. They apparently think we are not taking it seriously enough. Hafspajen (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiTypes

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: You're entitled to use this category: Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, never mind; it's right below... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

will there be a category Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Joshua Jonathan soon? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter

	Happy Easter
	Happy Easter.... ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The Zen of wikipedia

Asteracea?

A reasonable misspelling, I think. Huge numbers of people get Rosacea and Rosaceae mixed up. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)?

What is that flower in the pic, do you know? Hafspajen (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Since it was growing in a suburb of Hobart, I would guess that Brachyscome is likely. There are some features visible in the photo, for example at the bottom right the corolla of a disk floret is visible, with five yellow lobes, so what is making the centre of the flower head yellow is not just the pollen and the stigmas, but also the disk corollas are yellow, which is consistent with Brachyscome. The ray petals do not appear to have teeth at the end (the 3 to 5 teeth that occur on some but not all Gerbera flowers, some cultivars being weird in that respect). This image shows variable toothing at the tip of the petal, so I think that is okay. I'd put that image into Unidentified_Brachyscome. The flower heads would be solitary, but they can grow all overlapping like that in cultivars. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Areca nut

I was just looking at the article on Areca nut and I saw that there are many "citation needed" tags and one "neutrality disputed" tag in the section Areca nut#Description, especially in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. If you have nothing else to do, maybe you can find some sources. CorinneSD (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I did a bit there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit to Areca nut? [32] I think the picture is unattractive, but I know that that is not a reason by itself to remove an image. Also, look at a number of edits, reverts, edits, and reverts just before this. The addition of the image may be an attempt to inject information similar to that removed in the reverted edits and avoid having to provide reliable sources. CorinneSD (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if the language of the newspaper comment appealed to someone. I've reverted yet again. That page could be trimmed further, I think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Willow

First, I'd like to wish you a belated "Happy Easter". Regarding Willow, is this correct? [33]. CorinneSD (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Fixed. Thank you for the belated "Happy Easter"; may you also enjoy a happy after-Easter week. May both of you have flowers and chocolate this week, and Gerda and Yngvadottir too (daren't link them, though, could cause more trouble). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User:CorinneSD - stay away from the infobox wars, unless you feel really passionately for them. Infoboxes are not needed, but there are several editors who are still pushing for them, like on the edit war at Olivier, that ended with one admin loosing his adminship, some got blocked, Yngvadottir who left, and so on. Also, Gerda is under restrictions and is not allowed to make any, so she should not be lead in temptation. Also User:Dr. Blofeld - well Dr. Blofeld - is number one at the list of Wikipedians by number of created articles with around 95,034 -10 000 articles. (Compare Alakzi who made six articles until now) If he doesn't want an infobox, that in is nobodies business - and that is how it should be, per Arb com decisions. Hafspajen (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean that if the original author of an article doesn't want an infobox, the article should forever not have an infobox? That sounds like the author (WP editor) owns the article, which I thought was against both the policy and spirit of Wikipedia. CorinneSD (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that it helped much with that Lulu comment. Hafspajen (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you know Corinne this infobox war was now going on for several years? Do you know what the Arb-com decision was? Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision - check here. And if it is too complicated: the outcome was: Articles do not need infoboxes. If after discussion at a talk page it is decided that an infobox is not needed, that should be accepted. That was a decision from the highest instance on Wikipedia. Anyone after this decision insisting on an infobox is a disruptive editor. Hafspajen (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:INFOBOXUSE Manual of Style which states "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". Hafspajen (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Also check what Rotorpe said: ... Hafspajen (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Botany Barnstar
	Thanks for your ongoing work editing and maintaining botany-related articles on Wikipedia. This topic area is not the most popular on Wikipedia, and your work is appreciated to help keep articles and content in correct form. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

?

What's a tanglulu? Can I have some? Hafspajen (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah - thank you very miuch, - for the tangHulu... not Lulu... Hafspajen (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so it is. Tanglulu seems to be someone else, or quite a few people. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Lulu Tang, maybe... the i-boxy won. Hafspajen (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hussain Muhammad Ershad's photo

@sminthopsis84 there is no military dressed photo of Hussain Muhammad Ershad. You should givd at least one picture that is military-uniformed of Ershad. MilitaryBangla (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not my area of expertise. There is no such photo available at Commons. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You can haz email?

File:Cat and bird mural in San Francisco.jpeg

Hello, Sminthopsis84. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Fylbecatulous talk 13:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BENGALISCRIPT

There is nothing called WP:BENGALISCRIPT. See Arr4's talk and WikiProject Bangladesh's noticeboard. --nafSadh did say 15:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If you enter WP:BENGALISCRIPT in the search box, the redirect takes you there. It is the same text as it at WP:INDICSCRIPT. WP:INDIC is not relevant, but I had mis-read what Arr4 wrote and didn't notice that INDICSCRIPT was different. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Arr4 mistakenly added WP:BENGALISCRIPT. What I meant by There is nothing called ..., is that, no one ever adopted WP:BENGALISCRIPT through any consensus. nafSadh did say 23:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Camellia

I was just looking at the latest edit to Camellia when I read a caption for an image of a reddish camellia that looks like a drawing or painting. Here's the caption:

Camellia reticulata is very rare in the wild but common in culture

What does "common in culture" mean? Isn't there another way to express this that is somewhat more comprehensible? CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it. Those Camellia pages have a look of having been made when there was too little information available online and without the benefit of books. Flora of China is now online, and if you wanted to spend some time improving those pages there's lots of information, like the snippets I just added/corrected at Camellia reticulata. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Names

I just saw a notice posted to another editor's talk page inviting participation at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh). I thought, if you were not already aware of this, that you might be interested. CorinneSD (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Zante currant

Do you agree with this edit to Zante currant? [34] CorinneSD (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I worked on that a bit. The previous edit was an even bigger problem in my opinion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Pedanius Dioscorides

I was just looking at the latest edit to Pedanius Dioscorides and I noticed that, while the name is spelled "Dioscorides" in the article, it is spelled "Dioscurides" in the caption to the image in the infobox. Is there any reason for that? CorinneSD (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC) I should have looked a bit further. The article on the Vienna Dioscurides is spelled with a "u", but the caption to the image in that article is spelled with an "o". CorinneSD (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why there are different transliterations. The Greek in the article has an o and a u, and "Dioskourides" also occurs in English. Certainly, he has been referred to by Latin authors as Dioscorides for hundreds of years. The German wiki uses Dioscurides, as do many other online German sources. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing

Hiya. I still cannot review pending AFCs even after APerson relisted me. I was very excited to help with reviewing as there are so many articles created. Currently, I'm just editing and giving advise to authors. I hope I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia, especially on subjects of science and animals. Btw, love your marcupial avatar. Nice to meet you. Adyoo3 (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It is frustrating when the tools don't work. My impression that you were not eligible to review was certainly influenced by some other vandalism that I had recently seen. Good luck with the reviewing, I hope you find some easy cases among those that you tackle. There is certainly a huge backlog. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Rubus fruticosus

I am confused by your changes last December to Rubus fruticosus and Rubus plicatus (but then, the whole situation is confusing). My reading of the situation would entail the article being placed at "Rubus fruticosus", not "Rubus plicatus". Not least, the article as it stands claims that the type specimen of Rubus plicatus is not of the same species as that of Rubus fruticosus, so the two names cannot be considered synonyms, and it would follow that the subject of the article cannot be legitimately called Rubus plicatus. Jarvis (1992) and McNeill et al. (1987) only deal with the typification of the genus Rubus and its consequences for the sectional nomenclature, and do not consider the nomenclature of the species in question. Unless and until the Linnaean name Rubus fruticosus is rejected under the ICN, it remains the only acceptable name for one species, and specifically the species represented by the specimen chosen by Britton and Brown, doesn't it? Am I missing something? I recognise that The Plant List considers Rubus fruticosus a synonym of the (junior!) name "Rubus plicatus", but I don't see that they have any right to do so. Wikipedia's normal approach is of course to follow the majority of reputable sources. It is difficult to know in what sense different authors are using different names, but "Rubus fruticosus" is far more widely used, and certainly refers to something. As long as it does, shouldn't we have an article on it? Was your move based primarily on The Plant List or were there other arguments in its favour? --Stemonitis (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that you summed it up by saying that the situation is confusing. What I was trying to achieve at the time was to have discussion of Rubus plicatus, a name that is commonly used, but which was redirecting to Blackberry. There are problems with Britton & Brown's selection of types, because they used a "mechanical" method of choosing, but it seems that there is no proposal to change that typification (none listed at Proposals & Disposals anyway). I agree that it could make sense to call the page Rubus fruticosus, but I choked on doing that back in December because USDA GRIN has R. fruticosus sensu stricto as R. plicatus and a separate entry for Rubus fruticosus auct. aggr.* "*used here in an aggregate sense, to include most of Rubus sect. Rubus non Rubus fruticosus L., sensu typo (= R. plicatus Weihe & Nees)". I considered setting up a page for the aggregate, but thought it wouldn't have a title that people were likely to find. So yes, if you want to move it to Rubus fruticosus, and add GRIN to the list of sources that use R. plicatus, please go ahead. I think there are probably more sources that could be added as well. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a real species R. plicatus, whereas R. fruticosus is a kind of phantom. It is unfortunate that that phantom is the type of the genus Rubus. I've no doubt, though, that our fellow wikipedians would never let us get away with having a page about each, which is what I would prefer to see, with the discussion of the type confusion on the R. fruticosus page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to explain a bit better at Rubus plicatus. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is a difficult situation. I do find it surprising that "Rubus fruticosus" redirects to a different species name, but I can't think of many better solutions. We can't really write an article on the true Rubus fruticosus, because the taxonomists and nomenclaturists don't seem to have settled firmly on an answer (otherwise "Rubus plicatus" would be sunk). The only possible alternative I can think of would be to redirect both species names to "blackberry", and mention the nomenclatural difficulties there (and towards the end, I would suggest). --Stemonitis (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

How about a disambiguation page for Rubus fruticosus, something like Crataegus pubescens? I'd prefer to preserve a page called Rubus plicatus in line with WP:PLANTS's logic that every species is notable. Perhaps then most of the explanation could be at Blackberry, with brief mention of it at Rubus plicatus? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that would be possible if it were clear what the meanings of "Rubus fruticosus" actually were. I'm not sure that's really the case. What is Rubus fruticosus sensu stricto? And "Rubus fruticosus agg." is apparently equivalent to blackberry, so there would be no separate article there. It does seem that there should be enough to write a decent article about Rubus plicatus, but I'm not sure Rubus fruticosus should redirect there. Stace (New Flora, 3rd edn.) does not include Rubus plicatus in Rubus fruticosus sensu latissimo, for instance. I suspect I shall have to go away and think about it.

On a separate note, I quite agree that every proper species is notable, but personally I would shy away from applying that to every microspecies; with apomicts, just about every individual is reproductively isolated, but surely not every bramble thicket is notable. (I do wonder why some botanists put so much time and effort into describing taxa that seem to me to be fairly worthless; I guess my opinion doesn't trouble them much.) --Stemonitis (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Stace is one of the people who has discarded the species name R. fruticosus, though he is using "R. fruticosus agg." as a synonym. He also seems to consider it to be different from R. plicatus. On page 241 he says that sect. Glandulosus is "often known collectively as R. fruticosus L. agg. 2 other sections (Rubus and Corylifolii) are often included within this aggregate, but they are probably derived from ancient and some recent hybrids between it and R. idaeus or R. allegheniensis, and R. caesius, respectively, and are here treated separately." He then lists R. plicatus as a microspecies in sect. Rubus (page 246), not Glandulosus.

"Rubus fruticosus agg.", according to Stace (and GRIN) is not equivalent to blackberry, since R. plicatus at least is a blackberry. I think there may be other sexually reproducing diploid species in section Rubus that don't participate in the species aggregate behaviour (perhaps outside the British Isles). I don't know what is the best up-to-date treatment of the ... organisms. I have heard that the North American Rubi still need a lot of work: Liberty Hyde Bailey unfortunately made quite a muddle and it is only rather recently that people are becoming sufficiently systematic about how they collect pieces of primocanes and floricanes so that a start can be made on sorting out the older herbarium specimens.

Aside: obligate apomicts are, by definition, not reproducing with any other taxon, since they do it all by themselves, and the Biological Species Concept means nothing to them. How they behave is interesting, which explains much of the study of them; rather than being an evolutionary dead-end, it now seems more likely that there are no obligate apomicts, and facultative apomixis represent a powerful strategy for adaptive variation. Apomixis correlates very strongly with a change in ploidy level, and apomixis predisposes to wide hybridization, so that offspring of an apomict can be significantly different. Rubus such as loganberries and boysenberries are good examples; it can be said (and it was for Rubus × loganobaccus) that a new sexually reproducing species was produced by a mostly apomictic mother plant. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I checked Flora of North America; it says nothing about the type species of the genus. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Mesenteries

At the moment there are no suitable articles to link to when referring to mesenteries in invertebrates, because the present article Mesentery is unsuitable for this purpose. In an effort to rectify this situation, I have created a draft article here. Since most of the information is accumulated from books and websites and I have no formal knowledge of the topic, do you think you could kindly look at the draft and tell me, or make alterations, if I have made errors? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, your draft has a scholarly look to it, but I don't know enough about the subject to critique it. Perhaps @Velella: might be able to help? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will ask Velella. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I am just off on a Wikibreak for a couple of weeks. I am also probably not the best to advise on this - it is beyond my remembered knowledge - but I might be able to poke around in my archived brain cells on my return. However, it looks a very reasonable article. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added a couple of the images you found and moved the article to mainspace under the title Mesentery (zoology). I will now make changes to the wikilinks that inappropriately lead to Mesentery. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

, or perhaps this is a more appropriate smile:

. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Cycads

Thanks again for catching my linking error.

I've just noticed that Cycad needs to be split, so that Cycad (=Cycadales) will cover the "modern" taxon and Cycadophyta / Cycadopsida will include a link to the Medullosales. Currently, the division, class, and order are all on a single page, so there is no way to properly fit the medullosans into the taxobox.

Would you like to do this? I can, but it may be a while before I find the time, and it might have to be a bit of a hack job if I do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to do a hack job too to do it quickly. I'd want to check on the latest classifications, to see if the ranks have been lowered as with the angiosperms. Might get to it next week. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Later comment: I've made a start, but it is going to be a slow process. The pages on nomenclature of fossil taxa need serious work, as do, of course, a lot of fossil plants. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The basics are done, I think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Coleus article

Hi! You reverted one of my edits to the Coleus article (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Coleus&diff=666633531&oldid=666571305). While the re-addition of Solenostemon is fine, I was wondering why you removed the taxobox I added? Would it be fine if I added it back? CameronNemo (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the taxobox because the genus name is not accepted, and added a note about that on the talk page. In general, it doesn't make sense to have a taxobox unless we are making a statement about the current classification and plan to keep it up-to-date. Coleus might not be very likely to move, but it could be possible, for example, for the taxobox to say that a genus is in a particular family, while no modern concept of that family includes the genus. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. But there is nothing on the talk page about that, FYI. CameronNemo (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for pointing that out (I was seriously confused about what page I was working on!). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me whether an article with the title "Coleus" should be about the obsolete genus Coleus or about the cultivars popularly called "coleus" (or perhap a redirect to the latter). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. There is surprisingly little coverage of cultivars at Plectranthus scutellarioides. Perhaps the current Coleus could be renamed to Coleus (genus), but I'm not sure if the page-name enthusiasts would approve of that. Perhaps this is a question for WT:PLANTS? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick question re: the Code and correction of names

Hi! You're quite the expert on the Code and I'm a bit unfamiliar with it so I thought I'd stop by (and bother you) with a question. I'm about to write another Oeceoclades species article but just noticed that Tropicos and IPNI both agree with the original description in spelling it Oeceoclades longebracteata yet Kew's WCSP uses O. longibracteata. Is that just a WCSP error or do they know something I don't? Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 19:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

;-) hmm, I thought that would be a quick one because the original spelling takes precedence, but it is astonishingly difficult. Article 60.8 might apply. I think it depends on whether you interpret bracteata as an adjective (which Stearn says it is, in Botanical Latin) or as a verb form, bracteated. That would determine whether the preceding component is longus/longa/longum meaning long, or "longe" as the adverbial form. If "bracteata" is an adjective, then recommendation 60G.1 provides the recipe for forming an epithet: remove the case ending from the genitive singular (longi/longae/longi), then before a consonant (b) adding a connecting vowel (-i- for Latin elements). IPNI lists 167 uses of longibracteata and 36 of longebracteata, which I think could be evidence that there are two schools of thought about how to write elegant botanical Latin. The databases certainly need to agree with one another. Perhaps you could ask for an opinion about acceptable Latin at the contact for one of the databases, specifically whether William T. Stearn's word is law. (Heaven forfend: this seems to require yet another clarification to Article 60 at the next Botanical Congress.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that extensive analysis and sorry for asking a question that required a bit more of your time than I anticipated! I do very much appreciate it, though. I'll write to WCSP to see what their reason for the change was, but I expect your analysis to be spot on. If they agree, is this something the folks at IPNI would want to know? Thanks again, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It was an interesting exercise, so no need to apologize to me. Except that IPNI possibly has this correct, so it could be considered to be wasting their time, I think they might like to know about this. Can you carbon-copy your message to the other database headquarters? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No need, I guess. Rafaël Govaerts replied very quickly and said that the original spelling should be maintained. He updated the WCSP entry, as well, but didn't comment on whether "breacteata" should be viewed as an adjective. At least now the databases all agree. I've made the necessary changes at Wikispecies and Commons. Thanks again for your help on this. I suppose I could have just e-mailed Govaerts but I'm glad I had your insight before doing so. You're the best! :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Congratulations on whipping all those databases into shape (there are a lot of them!). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your Deletion of Two Photos of "Pistacia atlantica"

User:Sminthopsis84, without any offense, it is my assumption that you may have been a little rash at removing the two photographs that I uploaded showing the Pistacia atlantica. This tree is native to Israel, where I live, and it is very common in the area of the country where I live. In old English, the common name given for this tree is "Terebinth," from the Greek "Terbinthos" or "Turpentine" tree. In fact, the English Bible (King James Version) still retains its old English name, a transliteration from the Greek. The problem which arises, however, is that here in Israel there are three well-known species with the same genera, but are visibly different one from the other, such as Pistacia lentiscus, now called Mastic tree, and Pistacia palaestina, yet all three species are called by the same Hebrew name, "elah" = אלה. If the problem here is with nomenclature, would you agree that I upload the photos again, but this time only under its taxonomic name? By the way, I have also taken close-up photos of the tree's foliage. And, yes, it is a deciduous tree, that sheds its leaves in the winter, unlike the Pistacia lentiscus that retains its leaves. The tree photographed by me is actually near my house.Davidbena (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Rash is not the right word; prudence is what is used when one removes material that might be incorrectly identified, because it is better for Wikipedia to have no information than to have incorrect statements. The problem with names from the bible is that it is not a botanically authoritative source, and as you say is still done in Israel, it uses the same name for trees that have been shown to be different species, whereas it might have appeared to casual observation that they were variants of a single species for which a single name would be appropriate. Because you were using the word terebinth in a non-standard way for English-speaking botany, it seemed likely to me that you had perhaps settled on the name Pistacia atlantica without critical appraisal of the characteristics of the tree. Your discussion indicates that you have thought about the issues, however.

There are a couple of other matters to consider: it is better to upload photos to commons.wikimedia.org. Those that you have loaded into the EN wikipedia under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Licence will eventually be transferred to commons, and will then be available to other wiki projects, the wikipedias in other languages, wikispecies, wikiquote, wiktionary, etc. If you are uploading more photos, I suggest that you go directly to commons.wikimedia.org.

For the page Pistacia atlantica we need to take into account Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY. The photos used on the page should be the most informative, not necessarily the most beautiful, and there should not be more of them than necessary. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to upload them again, under their taxonomic name. By the way, I have been quite successful in uploading photos directly through Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, rather than through Commons Wizard. Some editors have actually taken my photos and transferred them later to Commons. I'd do best to leave that up to them, since I have had no luck whatsoever with Commons. Perhaps after the Sabbath I can get to work on the pictures. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Rather than upload the images again, it is possible to request that they be moved (renamed). The procedure is described here, and involves editing to place a template on the file, {{rename media|new name|reason}}. You have been more fortunate than I with uploading to Wikipedia: I've had exactly the opposite experience so that now if I get tangled it is a reminder that I'm trying to upload in wikipedia instead of commons. Best wishes. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Sminthopsis84, I have done as you've suggested, and have added the template to the File pages of the two photographs showing Pistacia atlantica, and I've made use of only its taxonomic name.Davidbena (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice. I've added a link to the photos in Commons. Once the move is complete I think we should revise the choice of images on the page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, User:Sminthopsis84. By the way, we find a reference to three principal shade trees that are native to Israel (Palestine) in Hosea 4:13, namely: oak trees, storax trees and Persian turpentine trees, and all of them grow in the mountainous district of Judea.

[Original Hebrew]

עַל רָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים יְזַבֵּחוּ וְעַל הַגְּבָעוֹת יְקַטֵּרוּ תַּחַת אַלּוֹן וְלִבְנֶה וְאֵלָה כִּי טוֹב צִלָּהּ

(Translation) "They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, beneath the oak [tree] and the storax [tree] and the turpentine [tree], because the shade thereof is good, etc."

Yonathan b. Uzziel, in his Aramaic translation of the verse, has rendered the Hebrew word alōn in the verse as belūṭ (בלוט), a word still used today in the Arabic dialect spoken in Israel for the oak tree (Quercus boissieri; var. Q. palaestina). He has also rendered the Hebrew word livneh in the same verse as leban (לְבַן), a word similar to "luban" and which is still used today in the Arabic dialect spoken in Israel for the storax tree (Styrax officinalis), and which tree produces a bright-yellowish semi-poisonous fruit called in Arabic “abhar.” He has also rendered the Hebrew word elah in the verse as būṭmā (בוטמא), a word similar to "buṭum" and which is still used today in the Arabic dialect spoken in Israel for the terebinth tree (Pistacia palaestina; var. Pistacia atlantica). It should be noted that the Elah valley is home to many of the latter of these two species, for whom the valley takes its name. My impressions are that there is most likely not any of this name in Hebrew but what was originally applied to this one tree alone, although now there be three species of trees growing in Israel which all bear the name "Elah."

In the Aramaic Targum of Genesis 30:37, Onkelos (Aquilas) the proselyte has rendered the same Hebrew word livneh as leban (לְבַן), meaning, storax tree. Likewise, Rabbi Saadia Gaon, in his Judeo-Arabic translation of the Pentateuch (Tafsīr) has given there the name lubānā ( לבאנא) for the livneh, an Arabic word that is used for the storax.

ויקח לו יעקב מקל לבנה לח ולוז וערמון ויפצל בהן פצלות לבנות מחשף הלבן, וגו'

The Septuagint on Genesis 30:37, like all the above, has also given the Greek word στυρακίνην = styrax (or what, in modern Greek, is now called στύρακα) for the tree that is called in Hebrew livneh. However, as one can see, there is inconsistency with the Greek translation. The same Hebrew word in Gen. 30:37 which they render as styrax is rendered in Hosea 4:13 as “poplar” = λεύκης. Because of this discrepancy, many who are unfamiliar with the flora of the mountainous districts in Judea have speculated on this one tree called in Hebrew livneh (Heb. לבנה), a name suggestive of being “white” in colour, and they have, accordingly, translated the word in some English texts as meaning either a “white alder” or “poplar” (Populus alba). Still, based on its Arabic cognate, the Hebrew word livneh means storax. Its Hebrew name (livneh) is derived from the fact that in the summer months when there is a sweltering heat, the leaves of the tree begin to curl until they reveal their whitish undersides, giving the tree a white appearance (hence its name "livneh" = derivative of "white"). The biblical verse should be translated into English in this way:

(Translation of Gen. 30:37) “And Jacob took the succulent rod of a storax [tree], and an almond [tree] and a plane [tree], and stripped bare their bark, exposing the white, etc.”

Again, the word rendered here in Hebrew for the third tree named in the biblical verse is ‘armōn (Heb. ערמון), which is properly translated into English as “plane tree” (Platanus orientalis), although the same Hebrew word is sometimes improperly translated in English texts as “chestnut tree,” based on Rashi's old French translation of the word. Our translation, however, follows the Aramaic Targum of Onkelos (Aquilas) who gives the Aramaic word delūv ( דְּלוּב) for the same tree, and which name is also found in its Arabic cognate (delub = دلوب), meaning, plane tree (Platanus orientalis), just as it is transcribed in Rabbi Saadia Gaon's Arabic translation (Tafsīr) of the Pentateuch for that same verse.Davidbena (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi David. What a complicated puzzle it is to discover the original meaning of references to particular plants in old documents. In botany it is a well-known problem that plant names and plant common names have been extremely misleading over the centuries for medicinal plants, often because someone interprets even a detailed description according to what they have seen locally and concludes that their local plant is the one mentioned in a foreign text. Just as an aside, I trust that you are familiar with the wikipedia policies that everything that is added needs to have a citable published source (WP:NOR), which I just thought I should mention in case you are tempted to add your own deductions to wikipedia pages. It's a limitation of what can be done here.

You may have seen the sections above on my talk page about Bdellium, Opopanax, and Balm of Gilead. Those are pages where a major battle over content erupted, and I feel that I need to go back at some point and see if I can improve matters at all, possibly by restoring older content. A particular editor was very insistent that biblical references are all that is needed, and that subsequent scholarship, such as botanical research on what Balm of Gilead actually was, were inappropriate. I haven't had the energy required to look recently at the states of those pages, which is why I haven't removed the discussions from my talk page. This sort of subject matter can become very fraught here.

Has the information that you've placed above been published? Would you be interested in trying to add notes about historical (mis)translations of some plant names to the various pages about the plants concerned, with a citation for each?

That must be a magnificent terebinth tree in the Valley of Elah. Looking at the large maple tree in my garden that would be a similar height, it's shade would extend only about 30 feet, nowhere near the 75 feet of the terebinth. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, again, User:Sminthopsis84. And, yes, I'm familiar with the WP policy of "No Original Research," and I had no intention of publishing what I wrote to you. It was just an observation, of sorts, and, no, it has never yet been published. The photo of the Persian turpentine tree that I made is one of the largest in the Elah Valley, and must go back to several hundred years. As for your question to me, if I'd be interested in trying to add notes about historical (mis)translations of some plant names to the various pages about the plants concerned, with a citation for each, the answer is "yes," given that I can find the time. It's also interesting to note that Dioscorides writes about certain gum-producing trees in his De Materia Medica (book 1, section 91; in some editions, section 71), saying: "Terminthos is a well-known tree, the leaves, fruit and bark of which are astringent and good for the same things as lentisk (mastic), used and taken in the same way... The resin is brought out of Arabia Petraea. It also grows in Judaea, Syria, Cyprus and Libya, and in the islands called Cyclades. The preferred resin is most clear, white, a glassy color and inclining to an azure [blue], fragrant, and smells like terminthos. The resin from terminthos surpasses all other resins and after it is the lentiscina (Pistacia lentiscus ?), then Spruce and fir resin."

Here, he differentiates between what he calls "lentiscina" (mastic?) and "terminthos," which might be the Pistacia palaestina, since I have actually collected from this tree a very sweet-smelling resin resembling tear-drops, found especially in the hollowed bean-like pods of the female tree. When these are placed on a hot coal, they emit a wonderful odor. Just an interesting note.Davidbena (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. In that case you might be interested in a paper from 1838 in which the botanical name Terminthia was suggested (but it is not accepted because the author didn't definitely state their opinion). It is in German, here, the actual mention of the name is at the bottom of page 134. Johann Jakob Bernhardi (1838), "Ueber die Gattung Laurophyllus Thunb. oder Botryceras Willdenow", Linnaea, 12: 129–136. I'm not quite sure what is being said there, but haven't tried very hard to translate it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Chittagong

Which lede would you say is better for Wikipedia? This one or this? --114.134.89.21 (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that the newer version has excessive detail that is not directly related to the city, so the older version is easier to read. There are some problems with both versions: "straddling" is not the right word to use, it means extending beyond the two sides of something; "water logging" should have an explanatory link, and the best available link seems to be Drainage; congestion should be linked to Traffic congestion. There is an extra problem with the older version which might explain why some material was deleted: unfortunately, the information within wikipedia about the Tea Horse Road doesn't support the statement that it had an end at Chittagong, although the citation clearly does. Work is therefore needed at the other page(s). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Cinnamon

Hello, Sminthopsis84 -- Do you like this image just added to Cinnamon? [35] It's all right, but I liked the previous photo a little better because it showed the sticks up close and showed how they curl. Also, strictly speaking, the caption for the new photo is not accurate since there's some cinnamon powder there. CorinneSD (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That image was substituted by Hafspajen with this edit, and there had been a comment "This looks 100% like cassia, not cinnamon (despite what the name of the file is)", which certainly justifies the change. I think, though that the comment comes from a dispute over what "cinnamon" and "cassia" mean, which comes from a conviction that there can only be one name for anything. The "cinnamon" so ubiquitous in North America could only be called "cassia" under that scheme. I don't agree with that inflexible view of language. The original image has the advantage that it shows two forms of a spice, and the ground spice is so common that it seems justified to show it in the lead. What do you think of changing the caption to the original caption, without the comment? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just to comment that the conviction that seems to exist among many Wikipedia editors is slightly different: yes, they will agree that there can be more than one name, but believe that only one of them is acceptable – namely the one with which they are most familiar. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. One might have hoped for a more egalitarian worldwide view in the digital age, but it has yet to arrive. Unfortunately, the same one-name-is-all-you're-allowed notion crops up in many ecologist's checklists, such as "coyote willow", but not "sand-bar willow" (what does it have to do with coyotes?). Fortunately, we have Latin as a tool with which to continue to try to communicate, and a set of rules about how to sort out multiple Latin names for the same organism. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Passive

You have a great page here, I have a no big deal question about your recent edit of seed saving (alias anti-Onan): why do you prefer the passive mode to the active mode on patent issuance? Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think we've met before. I changed "established that valid utility patents could issue on sexually reproduced plants" to "established that valid utility patents could be issued on sexually reproduced plants". For the active form I believe an agent would have to be specified, something like "established that the patent office could issue valid utility patents on sexually reproduced plants". The sentence as it was, I consider ungrammatical, but adding the explicit agent didn't seem desirable because it would be unnecessarily long, and I think unnecessarily explicit about who issues the patents, since that isn't an important part of the point being made by the sentence. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Also, "could issue" is an intransitive use of the verb issue. If you look at the verb definitions in Merriam-Webster [36], you'll see that, when used intransitively, issue means emerge, emanate, or result. It's a slightly different meaning from issue used transitively, when it means put forth or publish. The meaning here should be the transitive meaning, put forth or publish. That means it needs to have an object:

[The patent office] could issue valid utility patents. (Subj - [active voice] Verb - Object)

Valid utility patents could be issued [by the patent office]. (Object - [passive voice] Verb - Agent [which doesn't have to be mentioned]). CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nutmeg

What do you think of this edit to Nutmeg? [37] CorinneSD (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that is justified. It has an unfortunate implication that earlier writings from a different culture are known, but removing it has the arrogance of implying that local people didn't write anything down in any way. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but doesn't the addition of the word "European" completely ignore the rest of the world such as North America, South America and China? How about "Western"? CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC) (I know that word doesn't include China, but perhaps that could be assumed to be included in what the editor had in mind. Do you know what I mean?) CorinneSD (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be more general. I wonder, though, about Arabian explorers, who would come from west of the area in question, though would not normally be called Western. I don't see an easy solution to this. Perhaps the statement could be completely reworded to replace "the first" by something like "an early". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It avoids the whole problem. Which do you prefer?

Early written accounts of Banda are in Suma Oriental, a book written by the Portuguese apothecary Tomé Pires, based in Malacca from 1512 to 1515.

An early written account of Banda is in Suma Oriental, a book written by the Portuguese apothecary Tomé Pires, based in Malacca from 1512 to 1515.

We could just leave out "written", since (a) if it were only oral, we wouldn't know about it, and (b) it says, "in...a book".

Early accounts of Banda are in...

An early account of Banda is in... - CorinneSD (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I prefer the singular because it implies that it might not be the only early account. I think the plural was used because Banda was mentioned in more than one place in Suma Oriental. Do you think it is necessary to use the plural? If you think the plural would be more accurate, how about:

Early accounts of Banda were included in Suma Oriental

Early accounts of Banda appear (or appeared) in Suma Oriental. CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the singular sounds better. To use the plural sounds as if the author wrote down accounts from more than one person, which might or might not be true, but I think the singular covers all possibilities. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Lime (fruit)

Thank you for the good fix on "comprise" in the lime article. I'm ashamed to have made that error after I've studied that grammatical (word usage) issue so much! Holy (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! (I look it up in wiktionary every time File:Blush.png). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Paleobotanical authors

When I was working on paleobotanical articles, I found that sources virtually always followed the zoological practice of including the date as part of the author citation; I guess because paleontologists often need to make mixed species lists. Anyway, personally I would include the date for the authorities you added with the synonyms at Horneophyton. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I'm not used to thinking that way. It has often been suggested that there should be a merger of the two styles, so that zoologists include the previous authors and botanists include the year ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ferdinandusa

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ferdinandusa, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.theplantlist.org/browse/A/Rubiaceae/Ferdinandusa/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Australia

I'm reading the article on Australia. I came across a sentence that sounds awkward, on the border of ungrammatical. It's the first sentence in the second paragraph in Australia#Environment:

Australian forests are mostly made up of evergreen species, particularly eucalyptus trees in the less arid regions, wattles replace them in drier regions and deserts as the most dominant species.

Do you feel like working on it? CorinneSD (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I broke it up with a semi-colon and rearranged slightly. See what you think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It's much better. Thanks. Now I have a question about the article Environment of Australia. In the section Environment of Australia#Land, there is a map with the caption "Map of Australian vegetation". It is colorful, and there is a legend showing all the colors with a number for each color. However, that by itself isn't very helpful. The reader has to click on the map to enlarge it, then find the details for the colors in the "Description" part of the image file. I was wondering what you thought of adding those details in the caption to the vegetation map. If you think it is a good idea, I'd be glad to type it. CorinneSD (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be good. Others might consider it too much information, but I'd disagree with that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A little below that map is a section, "Carbon dioxide emissions". In that section there is a map (with a misspelled title), of "Energie ressources" in Australia. I don't understand that. The map is a neutral illustration of energy resources, and the section is on the somewhat negative point of carbon dioxide emissions. Shouldn't an article on the environment have a section on energy resources? A point about carbon dioxide emissions could be made, or a sub-section created, in that larger section. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ouch, depressing material. I added a citation to the carbon emissions statement that was missing one. That map of energy resources is (misspelled and) really only about coal and gas. This is a hugely political issue in Australia, with the government claiming that the native forests are a renewable energy resource (as discussed here), while stopping support for solar and wind power (as discussed here). I don't know why we have both List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita and List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, as well as List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita. It all seems to be rather a mess; perhaps because people who care find it too depressing to try to improve it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That's amazing to me. I thought Australia would be the ideal place to use solar and wind power. CorinneSD (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Multitudes are flabbergasted. Tidal energy is also a clear winner. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Melanesia

I'm reading the article on Melanesia, and I have a question or two for you:

1) The first sentence in the section Melanesia#People is a quote. It is referenced, but I've never seen a quote as the first sentence in a section of an article. There is no indication of who made the statement or when. Shouldn't there be some introduction to the quote?

2) In the second paragraph in that same section, we read, "Kayser, et al. proposed that..." I know that "Kayser" is the first name of a group of authors and "et al." means "and [the] others" who wrote the article, but is that a normal way to write a sentence in a WP article? If so, all right. Is the punctuation there correct? CorinneSD (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The quote might come from someone wanting to say exactly the same thing as the article says, but being unable to think of a way to say it differently, so putting quotation marks around it is them being honest (it's a good technique when writing a survey of published work, so that one doesn't accidentally plagiarize). However, the quote is actually a quote in the article from someone who was interviewed, Jonathan Friedlaender, so that is rather clumsy writing (I fixed the broken citation). Perhaps you can think of a way to rewrite that.

You probably saw this: "...says Jonathan Friedlaender, professor emeritus of anthropology at Temple and the study’s lead author", but, to me, that is just the author of the summary quoting from the published work, not an actual interview. I'm not sure if that makes any difference regarding your point, though; it's still a quote within quoted material, but I don't think the word "interview" needs to be used. I'll attempt something; see what you think and feel free to modify it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I think what you did is fine. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Kayser et al. made a suggestion about what may have happened in pre-history, so apart from saying something like "It has been suggested that ...", it seems a reasonable way to write what the content-creator meant. I haven't paid much attention to whether there is an official wikipedia way of doing that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh national flower

I posted a query at WT:PLANTS about the grammatical gender of Schinus a few hours ago and was a little disappointed to realize I'd done so on a Monday and you wouldn't be replying immediately. But Monday is almost over, and I have a question that I think will be right up your alley.

What is Bangladesh's national flower? I just retargeted Bangladesh water lilly from Nymphaea to Nymphaea nouchali, based on National symbols of Bangladesh and National Emblem of Bangladesh, which apparently quotes the legal designation (although now I wonder whether it's just shapla appearing in the relevant legislation, and Wikipedia has interpolated a scientific name). What confuses me is that Bangladesh Water Lily redirects to Nymphaea pubescens and the disambiguation page White lotus also claims that N. pubescens is the national flower. The Plant List accepts both species (but their species list has some red flags for me; not sure if it's reliable). I'm not quite sure what's going on, but there must be some issue with multiple applications of a common name or taxonomic synonymy confusing things. Maybe the legal designation has a scientific name that can unsnarl things. Plantdrew (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

White waterlily also claims N. nouchali as the national flower. There might be some other pages involved. Plantdrew (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sweet of you to expect me to know something about Latin grammar.

I think the question of Bangladesh's national flower is unresolvable to a species. Constitution of Bangladesh has some links. There is an overwhelmingly well-known sculpture in Dhaka, Bangladesh, which would be what people think of as the national flower, the shapla. The flower is white, and it stands a little above the water, a sort-of hybrid intermediate between N. nouchali and N. pubescens. The English version of the constitution says "The national emblem is the national flower Shapla (nympoea-nouchali) resting on water" (apologies for subjecting you to that spelling and the morphological inaccuracy). The Bangla version says only a floating waterlily flower, and the various national emblems show it at water level, in line with that. N. nouchali is the most common wild species, but it holds its flowers up high. Strangely, English Banglapedia says that N. pubescens is more common and is the national flower. I think the Bangla Banglapedia is saying that all waterlilies are the national flower (and then has some quite different statements about species that don't include N. pubescens. I suspect that "the latter" in the English Banglapedia is a typo for "the former" ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. What do you think should happen to the "Bangladesh water lily" redirects? It doesn't actually seem to be a common name so maybe they should be deleted? Or retargeted to Nymphaea? Or (what I'm leaning towards), convert shapla to a set index and redirect Bangladesh water lily there? Plantdrew (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That last option sounds interesting. Do you mean with the citations that contradict one another? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Which citations? And what contradiction? If it's a contradiction in application of the common name, I'm not sure there is a problem. Morphological contradictions could be a problem. Sigh. Now I'm thinking I should just redirect the whole mess to Nymphaea and be done with it (at least there's a possible citation for doing that with shapla). Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense botanically, but I think there probably are people coming here because they want to know which species is the national flower, and particularly whether it is shared with Sri Lanka, so in time more cruft would grow. That's a nice article. Do you think it would be excessive to have a set index a bit like the style at Greasewood, with images of the species, but with citations as well, to that article and to the EN Banglapedia, and the English translation of the constitution? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Haor

In the course of trying to resolve long-standing cleanup issues in the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, I came across this issue you flagged in article Haor:

Three habitat types in the Sylhet region were identified on the basis of a collation of systematic^{[clarification needed]} botanical records of Kanjilal (U.N. Kanjilal, P.C. Kanjilal & A. Das; Flora of Assam; 1934):

Although not marked as a direct quote, the sentence up to "Kanjilal" is taken directly from the cited Flood Action Plan report. So the "clarify" feels more like the comment of a peer reviewer of the report than the best approach for Wikipedia to take with respect to the material.

Do you have time to take another look at this? Perhaps you could rewrite the bit to avoid close paraphrasing/copyright violation of the source, or make it clear that it's a direct quote, and use {{sic}} per MOS:QUOTE (and a footnote, if necessary) to show that "systematic" is what the source says, even if the authors should have written "occurrence". Worldbruce (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Thank you for continuing to work on this vast project. I've simplified that text and made a few other changes on the page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)