Jump to content

User talk:Curtis Clark/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Labiaplasty

Curtis, With respect to the inclusion of additional information and further medical-based definition to the term "Labiaplasty," I was surprised to receive a message accusing the additions of being spam-based. The information I attempted to include on the page was for the purpose of more completely defining the procedure of Labiaplasty. The information was tastefully worded (while I agree the topic may likely be often exploited) and cited a prominent and pioneering OB/GYN physician of women's health care and minimally invasive procedures. The outside links were legitimate and referenced further information regarding the procedure. I would, respectfully, appreciate further explanation of your decision to remove the information and of the warnings messaged to me regarding the changes. I feel they were unwarranted and would like to have a better understanding should this situation arise again.

Thank you, Jayne Brown jayne@jaynewaynedesign.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaynebrown (talk • contribs) 06:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point me to what you're talking about? I've never edited any articles on that subject.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Curtis, you left a welcome on Jaynebrown's talk page; Jaynebrown is being subjected to heavy reverting and block warnings by MBK004. --Una Smith (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I get it. Because I cautioned her about linkspam in September of 2007, it's fair game to accuse me of the latest reversions. I'd say "I don't play that game", but, honestly, I'm not even sure what the game is.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually looked up the diff. Una, do you use those saddle blankets? Are they as good as the Aeron riding halter? I hope it's not just a trick to get people into a surgical center.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I also went to her web site. Imagine my total surprise that she offers SEO services. Hmmmm. Maybe I should contact her clients and tell them about the Wikipedia spam blacklist....--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Jaynebrown clicked the link to your talk page by mistake, under stress. This user isn't posting the same links everywhere, so I think it is a case of an inexperienced editor trying to use their actual sources, not knowing how Wikipedia rates sources. I have no useful opinion re any of the products you asked about. --Una Smith (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation (based on only two data points and her web site; I didn't look at all her contributions) is that she is trying to do SEO for her clients by putting spam links in Wikipedia. That can indeed be stressful when one is caught and called out.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I wanted to say it a bit nicer than the templates, but, basically that appears to be what is going on. I don't think she'll be discussing the issue anymore. Oh, I see why you guys and gals are involved in it, she's also doing saddle blankets. --KP Botany (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but as a Wikipedia spammer this one is a lightweight. AGF, the newbie profile fits well. --Una Smith (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is the reason one should simply spell it out rather than spamming her talk page with creepy templates. Gives her a human being to interact with and a starting point, but makes it clear what the issue is. --KP Botany (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Would that she had asked me what my original warning meant, rather than waiting to contact me when it was by mistake....--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think, though, the welcome and don't add links warning is fine for a first shot, it's after that, if the user doesn't get it, when conversation is needed rather than more posts. But, yes, just asking what you meant.... --KP Botany (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the user is back using a different name, see User:Jaynewayne. I reverted the advertising they added and will leave a message on their talk page. - Josette (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nymphaeaceae

Can you edit the photo to sit in its section--if they're Nymphaeaceae?[1] I forget the markup for it. Thx.--KP Botany (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Like that?--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. I'll try to remember the article so I can do it in the future. --KP Botany (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Botanist-inline

Template:Botanist-inline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

IPA

Hi Curtis,

If you check out {{pron-en}}, you'll find IPA templates with links to keys for various languages which might prove handy. kwami (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, with /hɛtəˈrɒməliːz/, a short stressed o is usually /ɒ/, not /ɑː/. I know, it makes no difference in my dialect either, but we're trying to keep things dialect-neutral. Also, apostrophes don't make very good stress marks in some browsers and fonts. There's an IPA input bar at the bottom of your edit window that has the proper symbols. (Eventually I'll get AWB programmed to take care of that, but with 20,000 or so articles with the IPA, it'll be slow going.)

For all I know, that might be the expected pronunciation. I can't find the etymology of Heteromeles. Do you know what the meles is? kwami (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just starting to get my head wrapped around the standardized phonemic representations; I'm more used to the phonetic. I see even more clearly now the necessity to separate /phonemic/ from [phonetic]; some of the phonemic pronunciations, if pronounced phonetically, would sound really strange to any native English speaker, since they would combine disparate regionalisms in a single word.
Heteromeles means "different apple" (quite apt, as it turns out). "Apple" is μήλο, so the Sunset pronunciation is correct, and I and all the other botanists of my acquaintance "mispronounce" it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
What we have isn't exactly phonemic either: it's an inter-dialectical construct, so that the pronunciation in any covered dialect (i.e. not Scottish) is predictable from the transcription. I'm not sure there is any rhotic dialect that makes all the vowel distinctions of RP; if there is, then this would be phonemic for that dialect. Otherwise it's theoretical. kwami (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So, is /ˈeɪsiːʔiː/ with a clear glottal stop the conventional pronunciation for -aceae? (I think it's commonly /ˈeɪsɪ.iː/ in the UK.) Does it ever get shortened to just /ˈeɪsiː/? kwami (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

One hears both /ˈeɪsiːʔiː/ and /ˈeɪsiːʲeɪ/ in the US, the former being much more common. The glottal stop in the former is as clear to my ear as the medial one in uh-oh. I would not know how to pronounce /iː.iː/ (without a stop); making it into a glide simply prolongs the vowel even more.
I've never heard it shortened to /ˈeɪsiː/ by native US-English speakers with botanical training, except in rapid speech. But shortening to a single final vowel is common in non-English European pronunciations; I once heard the Russian botanist Takhtajan pronounce it /atsi/.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You fell for it

Not a big deal, but I thought I'd point out, with respect to [2], that the whole section was bogus (and I've removed it). My clue was the words "erectile disfunction". That's always an invitation to take a closer look, and the closer look showed that the cited sources didn't even mention poison ivy. Kingdon (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucky for us, you can't complain that Wikipedia mislead you unless you are willing to admit that you deliberately wrapped poison ivy around your.... Hesperian 12:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Fell for it? I prefer to think that I rose to the occasion. Seriously, as little time as I have for Wikipedia lately, I'm likely to fall for anything with a reference.... Hesperian, perhaps it was a homeopathic cure. I'd be willing to bathe in poison ivy at homeopathic dilutions. (Arguably, I frequently do, at the generic level. Our aquifer is fed by mountain rains that pass through areas infested with Toxicodendron diversilobum).--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandal on Cherry blossom page

Hi! Just a short note to let you know that an anon user appears to have deleted a couple of references, between two of your edits, see here. I see in the history of the page that you have reverted an edit from the same anon previously. I'm not in a position to judge whether the deletion of references was justified, but I thought you might like to have a look into it. Thanks, --NorwegianBlue talk 18:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the deleted references, and probably should have checked them, but I wanted to avoid getting in an edit war with someone who obviously has strong opinions. If you think they are valuable, please re-add them.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden

OK, I'm sorry I didn't add the other cite, or dig for more news sources, but here it is: [3]. Go to 11:50 a.m. today. It's not good news. I'm not adding it back or edit-warring with you, but I do think you should know I'm not making this stuff up. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war either, and please update the article. I happened to read the article you first cited, and another from a Santa Barbara paper, both from before they had reported on Ed's assessment, and I knew what those articles said. It still seems that the herbarium and library are intact, but the damage to the living collections is greater than it first appeared.
When I interviewed for the research director position in the early 1990s, I remember them discussing the likely damage from a fire. Based on their estimates then (that everything would burn to the ground), they evidently did okay.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Taphonomy - en.wiki omission

Next time you have five minutes can you add a few images of fossils to the taphonomy article? Any would be fine, but here's a few from commons that you could quickly choose 3 from. I will, when I get back to editing, find a good range of examples and rewrite the article to illustrate specific points, but for now it's silly not to have pictures of fossils in an article on taphonomy.

If you don't have time or interest, I will eventually get around to it, not in the next few weeks though. I'll also learn to format images one day. --KP Botany (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about that. My first attempt exploded the load time of your home page. --KP Botany (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. I only added two, since the article is short, but I related them both to the subject.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Clover?

Hi Curtis. On User:Neelix/Images/Unknown you ID'd flower 6 as Trifolium sp.; did you mean to ID flower 8? Flower 6 looks like a marigold. --Una Smith (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, fixed. Thanks.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Geraea canescens Question

In the article Geraea canescens I recently added a picture of what I thought was the seeds of the given species. You changed the wording from seeds to fruit and I was wondering why. They look like seeds to me.Chhe (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read this and this. If you've ever eaten a sunflower "seed", the outer husk or shell that many people remove is the fruit wall, and the inner "kernel" is the seed. If you look carefully, you can see the papery seed coat around it. Geraea works the same way. A good rule of thumb is that if a plant has flowers, its seeds will always be formed inside a fruit (even though the fruit may not be something you'd want in a fruit salad).--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I tried pulling one apart and I can see what you mean. It doesn't come apart as nicely as a sunflower seed, but there is a noticeable seed inside.Chhe (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
To ensure germination (Geraea has seed dormancy, and its relative Encelia has even more), we would often soak the achenes and remove the fruit wall—it's a lot easier that way.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Curtis I've tried to get these to germinate before and failed. Do you know how to get them to germinate?Chhe (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, direct sowing works when you don't want them to germinate. I would normally place filter paper soaked in water in Petri dishes, place the achenes on top, after a few days of soaking dissect off the fruit wall, and most of them would germinate. Were I doing it now, I'd use water agar instead. Removing the fruit wall is effective on Geraea, Enceliopsis, and every Encelia except E. farinosa, which in some cases also needed the removal of the thin seed coat, which is very difficult to do without damaging the embryo.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pluralisation of scientific names

I admit I was probably being a bit adamant when saying plurals "..are not allowed" but on reflection I can't bring to mind any situation when I might pluralise a scientific name. Quercus robors ? - I don't think so. Hedera helices - just too confusing. And what if, heaven forfend, that there were two species of the same genus differentiated only by the presence of lack of an s at then end of their specific name. It would be impossible to tell the plural from the alternative species. I know that is a little far-fetched but we have closely named species such as Euphorbia peplus and Euphorbia peplis differing in only one vowel. More to the point I am intrigued whether you know of anyone using pluralised scientific names?  Velela  Velela Talk   17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any examples in English; although nothing prohibits it, it is cumbersome and confusing, as you point out. They are routinely pluralized, though, in Latin—"Querci robustes et Hederae helices in Anglia habitant,"—although even in descriptions of new taxa of plants the singular is most often used: "Querco robusti differt..." (I may have the declensions wrong on some of these).--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

I've become rather defensive about them. :-) Hesperian 01:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. --Una Smith (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Curtis, you're tired of whatsisname disrespecting guidelines, so you join his side? --Una Smith (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Araneae, that since the custom among the mammalogists is to use common names, I defer to them, no matter which side pmandersonortheasterly takes. If the mammalogists respect the plant guidelines equally, we're good to go.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Vector (biology)

Canna (plant)

Can you look at the image mess on this page and make an executive decission. Our buddy User:Giantsshoulders is calling another user a "moron" and an "idiot." It would be nice to make a decision, which image to use, explain it to Muhammad if he's in the wrong, and politely nip the situation in the bud. I'm rather overwhelmed right now with personal life. Possible Hesperian can help also if necessary. Giantsshoulders needs to cut it out, regardless.

Hope all is well with you. Thanks.

--KP Botany (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Full name

G'day Curtis,

Cas and I are working Banksia prionotes up to FAC. On reviewing it, Guettarda took issue with

"... hence the species' full name is Banksia prionotes Lindl."

stating "I'm not sure that "Lindl." should really be considered part of the "full name" - it's the authority." I had a look through the Vienna Code, and it seems Guettarda is quite right: when the ICBN use the noun "name" they always mean a construct of the form "Banksia prionotes". In the section on author citations they use "author citation" to denote both constructs of the form "Banksia prionotes Lindl.", and constructs of the form "Lindl."; for example

"... therefore the correct author citation for Hackel's taxon is A. sorghum var. drummondii (Steud.) Hack. and for Piper's taxon A. sorghum subsp. drummondii (Steud.) Piper."

but

"The appropriate author citation for Baloghia pininsularis is Guillaumin, and not McPherson & Tirel, because..."

I've changed the article text to

"... hence the species' standard author citation is Banksia prionotes Lindl."

for now. Can I get your two cents worth on this?

Hesperian 11:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I like that wording. My gut feeling on "author citation" is that it should include the name; otherwise, what is being cited? Perhaps your second quote from ICBN is a result of not wanting to reduplicate the name; it could as well have read, "The appropriate author citation is Baloghia pininsularis Guillaumin, and not Baloghia pininsularis McPherson & Tirel, because..."
Nice article, btw. I wish I knew as much about some of the plants I've studied for decades.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; much appreciated.
One of the things I like about taking articles all the way to featured status is that is always something really fascinating in there that you wouldn't have found if you hadn't really dug. With B. telmatiaea, it was the coloured nectar. With B. epica, it was the taxonomic history. But this one has a plethora of interesting tidbits: the speciation narrative is just brilliant; the hybridisation counter-narrative is just as good; the keystone mutualism stuff is great; and the fact that it has been used as a focus of nutrition studies opens a whole can of worms that would usually stay closed for individual species articles. It has been great fun.
Hesperian 14:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I've done for now on the Nomenclature article - so if you could have a look through and let me know what you think I would be very grateful. Granitethighs (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a run-through maybe tomorrow (it's a Furlough Friday for the California State University).--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Prunus mume

Thanks for the correction. I assume by 1280px, you mean screen resolution. Mine's just at regular TV level (its not a computer), often displaying yards of blank space. It actually didn't occur to me until your rv about possible differences. So, sorry/thanks Hamamelis (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Formatting is always a challenge when the view can be anywhere between a cell phone screen and a giant monitor. I think the issue with that part of the article is that there are too many images jammed in the one section.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Elephantidae

Hello,

As I explained to Cygnis insignis, "an interlanguage links is mainly suitable for linking to the most closely corresponding page in another language". That's what the help page explains.

But there are other impacts to put the same interwiki on different pages : The bots are unable to maintain them.

I am very aware about the interlanguage issues, and I think you don't really know how it must be managed (what doesn't have impact on your other qualities ;) ). So I ask you to please revert your change on Elephantidae.

If you really think you're rigth and the es and it interlanguage links are more closely corresponding, I would appreciate your make the whole work of correction, that took me one hour, to correct interwikied pages.

Regards

--Hercule (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm basing my decision on a discussion at Talk:Elephant about whether to merge that page with Elephantidae. Part of that hinged on whether English speakers would use "elephant" to refer to mammoths or stegodons; as I read the somewhat vague consensus, the answer was "no". I think most English speakers would recognize them as being elephant-like, but different.
The key point that I didn't investigate is whether a Spanish or Italian speaker would call a mammoth or stegodon elefante. For that I apologize, as it turns out that elefante redirects to Elephantidae in both cases. Although this does not answer my question about usage, it is clear that the editors of both encyclopedias are not bothered by the redirect.
Ideally both en:Elephant and en:Elephantidae would iw to Elephantidae in es and it. On the basis of content, I still contend that Elephantidae is the closest match across all three languages. But, inasmuch as there is the bot issue, and if there is to be only one iw, it should be from Elephant, which is in much more common use in English, I will revert my changes.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Hercule (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Natural System

What should be done with this redlink: Natural System? Redirect to systematics and cover it there? Redirect to taxonomy and cover it there? Create a stub? It is kind of hard to write a stub on a term that was abandoned because it won. Hesperian 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always referred to it as "natural classification", so if it is to be an article rather than a redirect, it might best be at Natural system of classification (plus a quick Googling suggests that the term is also used in ecology). I think the article could easily have a substantial history section, since quite a lot was written about it when it was still avant garde. So if you don't have the references at hand for that (I don't), a stub would seem the best approach.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Curtis Clark! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 272 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Saul Landau - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dab pages

Hi Curtis. Poppy/draft reflects something I have been mulling over for a long time, that I have finally put into words: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary topic not necessarily an article. --Una Smith (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Eukarya on genus page

Hi Curtis, I see that you have reverted the change to add a Eukarya line to the Fragaria vesca page. I heartily agree, but there are other Fragaria pages where this has been happening. Can you suggest any links to policy statements or whatever that could help to quash this thoroughly? Best regards, Nadiatalent (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been pattern-and-practice for years. Perhaps someone at WP:TOL could point you to an actual guideline.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps the list of examples at Template:Taxobox/doc will do. I've reverted the changes. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona help needed

The current University Collaborations of the Month are
Ohio State University
&
Princess Nora bint Abdul Rahman University

Every month two B-, C- or Start-Class higher education-related articles are chosen for you to improve. Be bold!
This COTM is organized by WikiProject Higher Education. (vote for future collaborations or see past collaborations)
This collaboration is effective: May 20, 2011 — June 20, 2011 until someone updates it.
Pick the next WikiProject Higher Education COTM!

The current WPCPP collaboration for the period ending February 27, 2010 is:

Help us get the Cal Poly Pomona article to GA-status

--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on the wild horse articles! Montanabw(talk) 04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a beautiful photo; I just now added it to feral horse, where it belongs.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

I reverted your recent edit. Please see these images. [4], [5] and [6]. The sarcotestas is not removed. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops. So sorry. My misunderstanding. Oda Mari (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

nomenclaturally correct

Banksia L.f. is conserved against Banksia J.R.Forst. & G.Forst. (=Pimelea Gaertn.). Thus "Banksia is, strictly speaking, ambiguous. Yet there is a clear primary usage. My point is that there will always be a clear primary usage in such cases, because no more than one incarnation of a name can be accepted/valid/current (what is the right term here?) as the name of a taxon at any given time.

Just checking that we're thinking along the same lines. "Nomenclaturally correct" seemed to me an odd way to put it, but if you say that is right, I'll take your word for it.

Hesperian 14:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that any circumscription of a taxon (depending on the nomenclatural types it contains) can have but a single correct name (I'm not sure the recent ICBNs use that specific term, but it is equivalent to the zoologists' "valid"). That name is determined by applying the principles of nomenclature: valid publication (the botanical use of "valid") including typification, priority, and conservation. So Banksia L.f. is the correct name, and Banksia J.R.Forst. & G.Forst. is a nomen rejicendum (sp?). I avoided just saying "correct", because outside of nomenclature it's way too ambiguous.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Hesperian 02:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This might be useful:

6.6. At the rank of family or below, the correct name of a taxon with a particular circumscription, position, and rank is the legitimate name which must be adopted for it under the rules (see Art. 11). [7]

Curtis Clark (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, this is just what I needed. Effectively published valid legitimate correct. Hesperian 04:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

variety

Hi Curtis, a question prompted by this edit. Can I assume that A. sesquipedale var. angustifolium would not be the only variety? 06:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The naming of A. sesquipedale var. angustifolium automatically creates A. sesquipedale var. sesquipedale based on the type specimen of the species. Such a name is called an "autonym".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that; a bit lazy of me, but I couldn't think of the term and my contribs here are sporadic. I posted a link to your reply at the user's talk. Regards, cygnis insignis 05:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Common names

Just came across the holy grail: a reliable source that specifically discusses the relative merits of the various reported common names of a taxon. The taxon is Adenanthos and the source is E.C.Nelson's The koala plant and related monickers. This source points out that some "common names" for Adenanthos species are reported as such by government agencies but never actually used; others are so ambiguous as to be utterly useless; others are fabricated by the horticulture industry for marketing purposes; and some are just plain wrong. It is just the ticket. Hesperian 13:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article. Playing the Devil's advocate here, there are scientific names that could be written about in a similar manner. The examples that come immediately to mind are in the Liliaceae s.l., specifically the Themidaceae and Brodiaea s.l., where in a period of a half-century the taxonomy was completely reshuffled. I'm sure there are many more.
Countering my argument, the contention is for the most part among "correct names" (as we discussed above), and the disagreement is over circumscription and rank, a disagreement towards which one can marshal actual evidence. But those subtleties often escape non-systematists.
Getting back to Nelson's article and his remark about choosing a generic common name to append a translated epithet, it reminds me of family common names. Is it the Parsley Family or the Carrot Family (strangely it is seldom the Celery Family). As a Yank, I should prefer Sunflower Family over Aster Family or Dandelion Family. And what do we do with the Themidaceae (I vote for the Blue-dick Family).--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
If you can document the name (even for the genus) and expand the article, that could make an interesting April 1st DYK for next year. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


No it doesn't, but I hope it did

It's just that there are ways to point out clear mistakes other than saying "you fucked up". Particularly from a scholar's account. Do you thing I give a rat about my account's reputation? Do you think I'm trying to hide it for my sake? I was not doing because it made me look bad... I erased the entry because it made YOUR account look bad! Besides, given the amount of time I devote to improve Cal Poly Pomona's presence on Wikipedia, I'd be the last one trying to "fuck it up" don't you think? --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why I was so surprised, because it was so out of character for you to make a mistake like that. And I use the phrase "Boy, I really fucked that one up" often enough that applying it to others is just part of the package. Sorry if it offended. (Don't worry about my reputation; it's already far more complex than even I can imagine.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologize professor. Upon your explanation I understand that you meant it as "Hey kiddo, you messed up" and not like "Hey, you are a dumb f***". It's just that I take criticism from my superiors very serious and that's why I immediately corrected my clear and unintentional error. I promise it'll never happen again. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You're an engineer—pay heed to Henry Petroski. Failure plays an indispensable role in engineering; you're never sure that something works until it has failed, and that failure has been analyzed. In cases such as bridges and manned spacecraft, one would prefer to simulate failure, but that always leaves doubt, as we learned with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and Challenger. At a more personal level, none of us knows what we are capable of until we fail.
As I tell my staff, "Failure is not an option...it's a requirement™".--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cladobox

It would be great if you could help me replace the Cladobox on Sphaeropleales. Once it is merged with the taxobox, the template can be deleted. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'll let you do the honors on the cladobox. I removed the "authority" for the order; that refers to the formal author of the taxon rather than a reference. Most people don't bother with the authors of orders, since ranks above family are not strictly regulated by the ICBN.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! That was fast. The template is now deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Good catch @ diatom

Boy, do I feel dumb getting my singular / plural back-to-front. Thanks for setting me right!  :-) --PLUMBAGO 16:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually did a double-take when the IP made the edit, else I might have reverted it myself. --Curtis Clark (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Curtis Clark. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TaxonIds

A discussion is under way at Template talk:TaxonIds#Identifiers concerning the desired appearance of the identifers shown by {{TaxonIds}}. As a contributor to the last discussion, your input will be greatly appreciated. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review invite

Hi Curtis, we at WPEQ have Appaloosa listed at FA PR here. Would you like to take a look and offer us any thoughts/critiques/pointers/praises or whatever we may need? (kick in the backside, maybe? grin). You know enough about horses and the west to offer constructive feedback, but your eyes aren't crossed like mine are from looking at the dam thing too much! Montanabw(talk) 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea that the Nez Perce language was Penutian, Oops, I've got to stop following links...back to the article....--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I know how that goes, one link leads to another...! Thanks for weighing in and I hope to see more! Montanabw(talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Kim did another run though the genetics section to clean up some of my tangled prose, then I ran back through her edit. May want to continue to monitor to be sure we don't lose the forest in the trees or something! Montanabw(talk) 08:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Turning Ten

On Saturday January 15, 2011, Wikipedia will turn 10 years and people all over the globe will be celebrating Wikipedia on that day. No event is currently planned for Orange County Wikipedians, so I am leaving a message with some of the currently involved editors listed in "Wikipedians in Orange County, California" and "Wikipedians in Southern California" to see if we might want to meet on that day, lunch, dinner, group photo or other ideas welcomed? I will start a "Turning Ten" discussion thread on my Talk page to see if any interest can be planned for and determined. I am located in Old Towne Orange off the circle.Tinkermen (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Plant ID

Hi Curtis, Do you have any thoughts about this discussion of my (mis)-identification of a California native plant? It's a bit unclear at the beginning, but it's about this photo[8] that I took. Thanks, First Light (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. First Light (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Glad to help.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cactus article

See User_talk:Melburnian#Cactus_article re constant changing of "liter" to "litre" in this article. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR is such a serviceable policy, it's a shame to see crusaders, on either side. --Curtis Clark (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

ICBN query

If you have time, could you please look at Talk:Ternary_name#.22Ternary_name.22_is_not_in_the_ICBN? I know you're expert in this area. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curtis_Clark/Archive_6&oldid=1141591561"