Talk:Senecio angulatus
 | A fact from Senecio angulatus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 April 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,306 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Range map
[edit]I'm confused about the range map. They usually show the natural range of a plant, not it's cultivated range. This would only require one map for most popular plants as they're cultivated everywhere but Antarctica, making the information useless. Is this Wikipedia standard, range maps include its native habitat plus anywhere its cultivated without difference? --Blechnic (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- The range maps show only where the species is native or naturalized, unless I misunderstood something. What country is highlighted in any of the range maps where the species is cultivated? -- carol (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- The range in the taxobox and its primary range map (the large one) should be a plant's native range, not where it is naturalized. Is this Wikipedia policy to put such emphasize on naturalized areas over native? This confuses the reader when it is not clear, or when it is made primary. --Blechnic (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about wikipedia, but the greater world seems to put more emphasis on where the plants are growing now and much of the information about where the plant was originally from -- well, how does one verify this? One of the species I wrote about they were quite certain that the seeds had come from Italy and knew the botanist and were to the point of arguing about whether further samples were gotten from within the Herbarium walls or from outside. This is information from the mid- to late 1600s and it reads like a lot of name calling and accusations (only in an earlier version of the language as it is used now). To me, the interesting thing is where it is growing and what is similar between those locations. For example, a species that grows on old rocky volcano ground attaches itself to railway beds and walls in other places. Some of the senecio varieties have problems because they grow better at the relocated places. As a gardener, I personally had a plant that was totally not supposed to grow where I was living (due to the great latitude, shorter summers, etc) grow and mature -- provide the fruits; it was an accident but after the success I could see where the location and conditions had 'worked'. I find it interesting that you are complaining here where native and current maps have been provided and not where there are no maps and hardly any distribution information provided at all. Is the reader bored at work? Does the reader need something to do? I might be able to help.... -- carol (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- How insulting, childish, and unnecessary. --Blechnic (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not how it was intended -- I have been seriously bored at some of my workplaces. It should not be an insult to suggest that an active brain is attached somehow to your keyboard. There is another simple fact: I know of many tasks that could be accomplished at the wikipedia. The environment does seem to encourage the easily offended, however. -- carol (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Anything directed toward your interpretation of how I feel (bored, easily offended) is unnecessary and inappropriate. This is an encyclopedia. There are many things to discuss about the article. None of them include me. Please confine yourself to discussing the article on this discussion page, so that other interested editors and readers may do so also. Any personal comments about me are entirely unwarranted, so please do not continue along these lines. Thank you. --Blechnic (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not how it was intended -- I have been seriously bored at some of my workplaces. It should not be an insult to suggest that an active brain is attached somehow to your keyboard. There is another simple fact: I know of many tasks that could be accomplished at the wikipedia. The environment does seem to encourage the easily offended, however. -- carol (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- How insulting, childish, and unnecessary. --Blechnic (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about wikipedia, but the greater world seems to put more emphasis on where the plants are growing now and much of the information about where the plant was originally from -- well, how does one verify this? One of the species I wrote about they were quite certain that the seeds had come from Italy and knew the botanist and were to the point of arguing about whether further samples were gotten from within the Herbarium walls or from outside. This is information from the mid- to late 1600s and it reads like a lot of name calling and accusations (only in an earlier version of the language as it is used now). To me, the interesting thing is where it is growing and what is similar between those locations. For example, a species that grows on old rocky volcano ground attaches itself to railway beds and walls in other places. Some of the senecio varieties have problems because they grow better at the relocated places. As a gardener, I personally had a plant that was totally not supposed to grow where I was living (due to the great latitude, shorter summers, etc) grow and mature -- provide the fruits; it was an accident but after the success I could see where the location and conditions had 'worked'. I find it interesting that you are complaining here where native and current maps have been provided and not where there are no maps and hardly any distribution information provided at all. Is the reader bored at work? Does the reader need something to do? I might be able to help.... -- carol (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- The range in the taxobox and its primary range map (the large one) should be a plant's native range, not where it is naturalized. Is this Wikipedia policy to put such emphasize on naturalized areas over native? This confuses the reader when it is not clear, or when it is made primary. --Blechnic (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Senecio angulatus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015101701/http://gw.govt.nz/story10945.cfm to http://www.gw.govt.nz/story10945.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)