User talk:Hesperian/Archive 42

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

Algae articles

Well done for successfully coordinating this major product recall. Melburnian (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. It doesn't bring a great deal of joy, but it certainly had to be done. Hesperian 01:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only obvious thing to do was delete everything as quickly as possible. I spent time trying to delay the inevitable.

Thank you for staying on track and getting the necessary job done in as timely a fashion as possible while respecting the need for community input. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure working with you; see you round the 'pedia. Hesperian 06:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Anybot algae article

Could you restore Staurocladia and its talk page? I had reviewed and corrected the errors in this article before it was deleted, but I didn't know about the AFD, or else I would have removed the article from User:Anybot/AfD. Thanks! SheepNotGoats (Talk) 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hesperian 23:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame the articles had to get deleted, but of course since they were littered with errors it was the right thing to do. Do you mind if I place that list of Algae (User:Anybot/AfD) over at WP:MISSING? I am not sure if there will be a line of people just waiting to make those articles, but it might get a small number of them get created? This is of course until (hopefully?) the owner of the bot comes back and fixes up the bot/tweaks it and it re ads the articles back again without errors. (I will send this message over to the bot author as well). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of botanists question

Some time ago I tried to go through the articles in cat:List of botanists with author abbreviations (or whatever it's actually called) and make sure that (a) they were in the List of botanists by author abbreviation, (b) that the author abbreviations matched and (c) that there was a redirect from the author abbreviation (or a link from a dab page). I didn't get very far before I was overwhelmed by the tediousness of it. Is this the sort of thing that could be checked via an automated tool relatively easily? (I know little about automated tools and scripting.) And if it is feasible, how hard would it be to check the author abbreviations against a database like IPNI? Any thoughts? Guettarda (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivial to write a script to identify articles in the category that aren't in the list. I can have that data for you as soon as I have a spare hour.

And it is reasonably easy to write a script to pull and the IPNI data and collate it by standard abbreviation. But it is non-trivial to match the full names, given IPNI typically lists all given names, whereas Wikipedia may not. If you want, I can provide you with a collated list to work through; e.g.

Abbreviation	IPNI says	Wikipedia says
Aa	Hubertus Antonius van der Aa	—
Aagesen	Lone Aagesen	—
Aalders	Lewis Eldon Aalders	—
Aalto	Marjatta Aalto	—
Aarons.	Aaron Aaronsohn	Aaron Aaronsohn (1876–1919)
Aas	O. Aas	—
Aasamaa	Heinrich Aasamaa	—
Aase	Hannah Caroline Aase	—
...	...	...

Hesperian 23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put into my sandbox a list of articles that are in the category but aren't linked to from the list. At present my script is too stupid to weed out links via redirects; I may update it when I have time to do so. Hesperian 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - this is very helpful. If you can do the IPNI list, that would be a useful resource, even if it would take some effort to work through. I would appreciate that. But there's no rush. Guettarda (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I fixed the script to weeded out the articles that are linked via redirects.[1].

I'll do the IPNI list, but not today. Let me know if you'd like any changes to the format above, any bells and whistles, etcetera.

Hesperian 03:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oop. Sorry I'm messing with your page. Perhaps I should keep the list of updates somewhere else? Anyway, it's time for bed here. Thanks very much. Guettarda (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No dramas. Feel free to edit it here, ~~or move it~~, or copy it, or whatever. I expect I won't be in your way much after today. Hesperian 06:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, don't move it; you'd take my whole sandbox history with you if you did. Hesperian 06:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've dumped a collation table. I've only had a quick look so far, but already it has revealed a few errors, which is a good indication that this will prove worth doing. For example:

Our list gives the standard abbreviation for Alphonse Pyramus de Candolle as "A.DC", but there's no IPNI record for that; I checked and the abbreviation should "A.DC." Similarly, "Benjamin" should be "Benj.", "Anderson" should be "E.S.Anderson", and so on.
IPNI has no entry for Louis Antoine François Baillon, so I would have to query whether he really had published any plant names; it is possible that a Wikipedian has confused him with Henri Ernest Baillon.
Our list associates "Bates" with Vernon M. Bates, but IPNI associates it with John Mallory Bates.

If you don't mind, I think I may pitch in and create some of those abbreviation redirects....

Clearly there is a lot of work to be done here. I imagine it is something that will have to be addressed in bits and pieces over a long period of time. Therefore I have to User:Hesperian/Notes/Botanists, alongside all the other stuff I never get around to doing. If you'd prefer it in your own userspace, or project space somewhere, go ahead and move it.

Hesperian 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I'm not greedy - I'm happy to share tedious tasks :) I was actually toying with the idea of copying the list to a subpage in WP:PLANTS, so that you could have your sandbox back. But this works fine as well. One more thing along these lines that I notices was the fact that some of these lack {{Plants}}, and some that have been tagged lack the "botanist=yes" parameter. Of course, since the list includes mycologists, being tagged by the plant project isn't a given...

Really glad I finally got around to asking you this. It's been bobbing around in the back of my head for the last 2 years. Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - I've found that IPNI doesn't have everything - there are authors who don't appear to be in their database. Guettarda (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating tool[2] I actually am trying to keep track of all the articles I created. There's a 40-article discrepancy between my count and what that tool turns up, but that might be due to the fact that they count dab pages. Guettarda (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of a good place in WP:PLANTS subspace, it might be better to move it there. I'm sure you won't be shy about editing in my subspace, but there may be some helpful wikignomes out there who would.

That tool bombs out for me; too many edits. So I wrote my own. This made me realise how hard it is to define criteria for article creation. Inevitably, a script will take the easy way out and count the pages that you created which are presently articles. But that means you won't get any credit if you overwrite someone else's redirect with an article, but you will get the credit if someone overwrites your redirect with their own article.

Ask and you shall receive. I've posted a list of untagged botanist articles for you.

Hesperian 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet.

As for the tool, yeah, I noticed it quit after 1100 articles. Luckily I have less than 1/3 as many edits as you do, and perhaps 1/3 as many articles created. (I kinda like the fact that it counts dabs; 490 is within range of a major milestone, while 450 is just large enough for 500 to feel oppressive.) Of course, the simple solution is to get every article you started up to at least a GA :) Speaking of which - if you need a GA review or something like that, let me know. I owe you a favour. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I ran it earlier this month, my raw count was 1362.

I don't believe in owing favours. This is a hobby, and therefore I generally won't do anything here that I don't feel like doing. I would hate to find myself obliged to do something tedious or uninteresting out of a feeling of indebtedness. I did this little scripting project because it interested me, and it turned out fun to do. A corollary of this is, you should feel free to ask me to do stuff, because I'll feel free to say no if I don't feel like doing it. Another corollary is, if working on this ends up horribly tedious, and you end up walking away from it, I won't mind in the slightest. Liberating, isn't it?

Hesperian 03:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, let me rephrase that - if you ever need something done that's within my skill set, feel free to ask. And I'll feel free to say no, if I can't do it at the time. I actually enjoy reviewing, but I rarely feel motivated enough to start. As for tedium - I kinda like having something that I can chip away at a little at a time when I'm in the mood. It took me 2 years to complete this list and get it through as an FL. Would never have happened if I'd try to do it in one go. Guettarda (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy chipping away too. I've been working on User:Hesperian/Notes/Taxobox cleanup on and off for about nine months now. This is why I keep all these apparently long-dead projects in my user space. Hesperian 04:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Patchy1Talk To Me! 20:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When to use the author name after a binomial name.....

Ok hesp (and guettarda if you're watching) --> User_talk:Casliber#Botanical_question. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing of smallness of seeds

Argh, I can't find some papers - this "but, as a result of its low flowering rate, is generally very low. However there are typically a very high number of follicles per cone, leading to relatively high seed counts. Seeds are very light compared to other species." - comes from ref 33 (??) do you remember? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was dumping notes onto Talk:Banksia prionotes as I read through the articles. Later, when I was reworking the notes into coherent prose, I got a little confused about which source that particular chunk of text came from. So I fact-tagged it, with the intention of sourcing it later. And then I forgot all about it. This version of Talk:Banksia prionotes confirms that it was sourced from Ref 33. Hesperian 11:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Busy

I'll have very little time for Wikipedia for at least the next two weeks. Hesperian 07:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I just used teh same template. Anyway, whenever you're ready, if you want to have first dibs on how you want to add the extra info to Banksia prionotes that would be great, I might have to leave it for a few days or more. I had planned on doing some myself over the weekend but got broadsided by other developments :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's on my long list of things to do before Friday, at which point I'll be going offline for over a week. Hesperian 23:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the queue of offline eds eh? :) Satu Suro 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; this week and next week are unusually bad, but beyond that the interruptions stretch ahead as far as the eye can see. Hesperian 00:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ling-ti Yu ...er Lu

Hi Hesperian, The entry in "List of botanists by author abbreviation" for L.T.Yu was authentic except for one thing. The name should have been L.T.Lu (Ling-ti Lu) see here, and especially here. Sorry for the error (yeah, it was me) and thanks for rightly removing it. Hamamelis (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information; I've restored it as "Ling Ti Yu", which is what IPNI says. I don't mind if you want to change the orthography back. Hesperian 23:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preview Image not Showing

G'day, I've done a brief google to see if I could sort this out but didn't find an answer so instead of wasting time I thought I'd ask someone who'd know, ie you. I updated Banksia_shuttleworthiana with an image but the preview image isn't showing. The full image link works fine. It might be something to do with the dimensions/resolution but I'm not sure. Any ideas?

MainlandQuokka (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got it to work by forcing image_width but I don't know if that was the actual original problem (it may have been just any change at all was required to fix it). Had this weird prob with images in infoboxes before and never quite figured out either the cause or the remedy. Orderinchaos 09:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be problems with loading of certain images across Wikipedia at the moment - see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 63#Image slowness. --Melburnian (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info. I just had a look and there was the "There is a problem with the image storage. We are in the process of fixing it" message so it could well be a problem at their end. MainlandQuokka (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pic, MainlandQuokka. And thanks for sorting it out, OIC. I'm not having any trouble with the image thumb, so I guess it has resolved itself. Hesperian 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, things are still dodgy. I went to Commons:Banksia to add the two images you uploaded, and half of the images there weren't rendering. When I went to w:Banksia splendida to copy the image filename, that image wasn't showing any more. I added the two images to Common:Banksia anyhow, and the save page showed displayed all the images!

I think we can safely write this off as a server problem; as Melburnian says, the current problems with the image servers are well documented. Hesperian 00:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project inactivity

I apologize if my inactivity tag seemed to carry a statement about your project's worth or value. It surely was not meant to. I have been updating the WikiProject directory lately, and many projects are inactive. Of perhaps 20 projects, however, I have received 3 complaints. It would be impractical to review each WikiProjects recent contributions and activity in depth - a cursory look however does the participants' work no justice. I tried to disclaim my actions on each WP's talk page, recommending immediate tag removal if it was placed incorrectly. In light of recent complaints, I will make my inactive criteria more stringent as well as leave a more detailed explanation on the WP talk page. Again, the tag was not meant to belittle or otherwise degrade the contributions you and your WP's members have made. Andyo2000 (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"you and your WP's members" LOL ... I don't think there's a great many wikiprojects with 2% of its articles as FAs/GAs. Orderinchaos 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah; still 61% stub though. :-( Hesperian 02:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Sorry for being curt with you. Pzrmd (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message from DiverDave

Hello Hesperian. I made an error yesterday, while attempting to disambiguate a page that I believe you created. The new page ticket of leave has been erroneously credited to me as the author instead of you. Moondyne alerted me to my mistake, and I have done everything in my present capacity to make it right. At his suggestion, I have added a note on the "Talk" page, indicating that you are the actual author of that page. Please let me know if there is anything else I can or should do to repair my transgression. It was never my intention to falsely claim credit; this was simply an honest mistake by an inexperienced but otherwise honorable Wikipedian. Thanks for your help, and also for your understanding. DiverDave (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DiverDave,

Thanks for letting me know. I've performed a bit of jiggery pokery and reassociated my edits with the correct article.

Hesperian 00:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou from SpringSummerAutumn

Thanks Hesperian, am blown away by your humbling comment! I will try not to disappoint, although there is definitely a lot I need to learn it's hard to know where to begin as this is all very new to me. I have signed up to the wikiproject for Western Australia and wikiproject wine and am slowly learning how to use templates by trial and error. Do you have any advice you can give for starting out? 1 August 2009 (UTC)

==Message from SpringSummerAutumn 1 August 2009 (UTC) Subject: unsorted list for List of vineyards and wineries== I am currently in the process of listing Australian wineries in categorys via state in List of vineyards and wineries as the list is too long and is unsorted. Is there a faster way to do this other than manually?

A favour re images

Hi. Sorry to use you as an infoline, but I'd like to ask for advice re an image question. I've posted the article on HMS (or HMB) Endeavour at FAC, and am most of the way through the process with the exception of an image question at the bottom of this. The Bayldon image is in the public domain in NZ, but what would I need to show that the same was true in the US? And out of idle curiousity, why do I need to show that at all?

On the replica one, if John Hill agrees that he took the replica photo and is happy to release it, what does he need to do at Commons to make that clear, seeing as it was uploaded there by someone else?

Feel free to either ignore this or suggest someone else I should ask this of - I'm no image expert and am just looking for some brief pointers on how to address questions in this mystifying field. Euryalus (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Wikimedia servers are located in the US, they are governed by US law; so legally they only have to worry about whether or not they are conforming to US copyright law. Commons also has a policy of only accepting images if they are in the public domain in their home country. It follows that the "PD in US" tag is far more important than the "PD in NZ" tag: the former says "we're obeying the law", whereas the latter only says "we're upholding our own policy". For reasons that are too painful to explain, but which you can find at Uruguay Round Agreements Act if you're really interested, the key question is "was this image in the public domain in New Zealand on January 1 1996?". If the answer is yes, then tag it with Commons:Template:PD-1996. If the answer is no, then you have a problem. My guess is NZ uses life+50, in which case you have a problem.

As for the John Hill image, the proof is here.

Hesperian 12:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always, for taking the time to explain. A particular thanks also for fixing the John Hill picture - in hindsight the solution seems obvious but I was at a total loss for some reason. If I can't find the evidence required for the Bayldon picture I'll hunt down another image instead (or simply use the John Hill one, which is a nice photo). Euryalus (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, and as before let me know if you'd like me to bother someone else instead, or if you'd prefer I asked these questions at commons instead of here. Is this better tagged as PD-Art, PD-old-100 or PD-scan? It's a scan of an artwork the original creator of which has been dead 210 years. Euryalus (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to try to answer your questions, though questions like this are much harder to answer than they are to ask.

The artwork itself is unquestionably in the public domain. But someone has made a digital copy of it, and the question arises as to how much creativity was involved in making that copy; and more importantly, whether the act of making that copy was sufficiently creative to attract copyright protection.

If someone simply whacked the artwork on a photocopier and hit the COPY button, then very little creativity was involved. Such copies are recognised all over the world as mindless non-creative rote copies that do not attract copyright protection. Disregard the photocopy, and tag the underlying artwork as {{PD-old}}. Or, if there have been a few trivial touchups to the photocopy, such as a nice tight crop, and you want to explicitly assert that these touchups are trivial and non-creative and therefore don't attract copyright, then use {{PD-scan}}.

However, if someone has taken a photograph of the artwork, then they would have had to think about lens focal distance, lighting, aperture, shutter speed, film speed, filters, and so on. Taking a photograph is therefore a somewhat more creative act than taking a photocopy. Under US copyright law, this is still considered a rote copy, and it still doesn't attract copyright. Use {{PD-art}}.

However, you still need to consider the country of origin. If the photo was taken in the UK, where such photos do attract copyright protection, this image would not be in the public domain in the UK. As I said above, legally all we need to worry about is US copyright law, but Commons has a policy of not hosting images that are under copyright (and unlicensed) in their country of origin.

In this case, it appears to be a photograph, but it also appears to be US Library of Congress material, so it is safe to declare it a US photograph. I conclude that the correct tag is {{PD-art}}.

Hesperian 13:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I feel sorry for anyone working on a twentieth century subject area. Euryalus (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't too complex if you just go by rules of thumb. For example, for Australian photos, pre-1946="{{PD-Australia}}{{PD-1996}}"; post-1946=unacceptable. Hesperian 23:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia prionotes redux

Yeah, well, I got sidetracked a bit - also thought you had a grip on what you were doing and where you wanted to put new stuff in that is still on talk page, so I thought I'd wait until you added the material. Once you transfer material over I guess we can look how it all sits...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate; these days I seem to lack the stamina/enthusiasm/focus necessary to push an article all the way to FA. You should stop feeling obliged to bring me on board.

Having said that, that for the poke. I'll have another look.

Hesperian 11:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Remember you have a standing offer from a copyeditor (Eusebeus) on North Island (Houtman Abrolhos) when yer absolutely finished with refs etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. Eusebeus already ran a copyedit. Hesperian 11:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to read the talk page comments vs the editing times. My bad (I think?) Anyway, how do you feel about the island one? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bother - thought I had (Cowling Lamont Enright 1990) but I don't. The intervals are mentioned in some later papers but if that was the main one that is a good one to read...have you got these yet? If you do in electronic form I'd love 'em, if not, then we can hunt around. I need to sleep now. zzzzzzCasliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; I was looking through it last night, trying to figure out how to work the interval stuff in. It will take me 24 hours to get my copy and a scanner in the same room.

If there are any other papers you want that you think I might have, shout out and I'll do them all at once.

Hesperian 23:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl - look forward to it. The only other article that springs to mind is actually the 88 menziesii re pollinators which Borughton co-authored and I haven't got (sorry, off topic, but if you have it'd be great). Nothing leaps out else. I think with those three, and having alook again at what goes best where, we can then copyedit and send to the snake pit :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Borughton"? Do you mean Ramsay and Vaughton (1991) "Self-Incompatibility, Protandry, Pollen Production and Pollen Longevity in Banksia menziesii"? The only 1988 publication I'm aware of is Ramsay (1988) "Differences in pollinator effectiveness of birds and insects visiting Banksia menziesii (Proteaceae)". Hesperian 00:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there's still one more big thing to add. Search the talk page for "Looking forward", and you'll find it. Hesperian 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gah! I meant the Ramsay paper - (1988) "Differences in pollinator effectiveness of birds and insects visiting Banksia menziesii (Proteaceae)". Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have that one in electronic form, so you needn't wait until tomorrow for it. Check your email. Hesperian 01:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. (sound of ruffling wiki-pages back and forth) "Looking forward" on which talk page? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic; just trying to save typing. Here you go:[3]. (Seeya; I'm going offline for a while.) Hesperian 01:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penright

Reply to Hesperian regarding discussion on his wanting to have Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) deleted from userspace

[archived. Hesperian 00:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Penright (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted offending material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I still think it should be deleted. Our rules say that we can only write about stuff that has already been published in a book. Your situation hasn't been, so it doesn't belong here. Hesperian 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsorts on species

G'day Rich,

Please don't capitalise species names in defaultsorts like this. It violates real-world laws of biological nomenclature, and it looks ridiculous. What you are doing here was recommended practice at Wikipedia:Categorization#Using sort keys a while back, but for no good reason, and has since been removed.

Cheers, Hesperian 00:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we need a special sort for taxonomy categories, as per the discussions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Capitalising_every_word_in_the_defaultsort and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Scientific_names_in_genus_categories, this can be done, I am going to do Category:Abies as a pilot. With respect though how the default sort looks to a trained biologist is irrelevant since it is not written that way in either the article or the category. It is however likely that a number of binomial article are going to pick up these DEFAULTSORT values without corresponding genus specific sort orders, which is another problem I am trying to avoid - and I have brought up elsewhere - when part of a group is in each style (title case vs. sentence case) the sort order will be broken. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Of course it goes without saying that I welcome feedback for the biologists, which is why I am going very slowly at the moment. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. Category:Abies done, comments invited. Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I just wanted to finish the alliums - have 5 to do manually. It's 6am, I'll drop you a proper reply in the morning. Rich Farmbrough, 04:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Roger that. Hesperian 04:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

Is this a separator? Here's an illustration of Banksia bits 'n pieces for reference. [4] Melburnian (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It crossed my mind, because of the reflexed wings. But other than those reflexed wings it is shaped exactly like a winged seed; it even has the seed bulge at the acute point. I've never seen a picture of a separator, and the one and only time I burnt an infructescence and extracted the seed, what I thought was the separator looked nothing like that. This is the problem with book learnin'. I need to get out more. Cas? Hesperian 10:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't read to the end of your comment. That illustration would seem to confirm it, I think. Hesperian 11:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - the thing which looks like a pair of lips is the curled ends of the separator. The two flat blackish membranes containing seeds lie on each 'face' of the separator (and are still on this one). Yes, you need to get out more :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The seeds are still on this one - I should go and burn a cone and do a 'before' and 'after' shot... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paler end ot the left is where the seed is. you can lift it off and tehre will be a seed shaped depression. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... this is a seed separator with both winged seeds still cohering to it, right? Hesperian 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't see the one underneath, but I can clearly see the blackish matte colour of the membrane which is attached to the seed on top. If you lifted the seed off, the top would be a bit lighter, the same colour as the 'lip' looking things, and there'd be a seed-shaped depression at the left point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense of it, thanks Cas. --Melburnian (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.