User talk:Hesperian/Archive 49

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.

WP:D - review of changes

I'm leaving this note on the talk pages of three editors whose work, particularly in the area of policy/guidelines, I particularly respect as being thoughtful and clear, though we don't always agree: User:Hesperian, User:Kotniski, and User:Philip Baird Shearer.

Hi, if you have some time I would appreciate a critical review of a series of edits I've made to WP:D as summarized in this diff. Of course, it's easier to follow by comparing the original version, to the current version. My goal was to bring clarity in meaning to the page, not to change the intended (or only reasonable) meaning of any of it. I know that clarity in meaning is an area in which you excel, so if you could make sure I didn't screw up, I would appreciate it. There has been some concern expressed at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Too_much_emphasis_on_.22search_term.22.2C_to_little_emphasis_on_.22refer_to.22 that my edits have amounted to significant change in meaning, and I've done my best to address those concerns. If you agree to do this review, you might want to read that first to get some perspective. Anyway, thank you very much for considering. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that diff is throwing the weirdest database corruption error for me. It is showing me the difference between a version of George Simpson (administrator) and a version of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Freaky. Hesperian 01:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fixed. Thanks OIC.[1] Hesperian 01:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I accidentally deleted the last digit of the older id. Thanks for finding it (H) and fixing it (OIC). I've fixed it on the talk pages of the other guys. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh

I suppose my answering "for him" gives him yet another excuse to not answer. Okay, I'll shut up now. I'll try anyway. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's my impression. Hesperian 00:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adenanthos obovatus

...is being reviewed at Talk:Adenanthos obovatus/GA1 - all pretty straightforward apart from where sterility links too...any ideas? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...aaand is now through. Now cuneatus for GA and obovatus for FAC - be nice if there were some more material to add...I'll see what I can find in the next week or so. I wonder where Wrigley got the 1824 date for both in the UK - there might be a bit of something to add there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been too busy to take full advantage of Nelson's PhD thesis. I'll certainly be flipping through looking for any reference to either species.... Hesperian 04:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - while you have the thesis, anything in it to add to Adenanthos cuneatus as that'd be nice to get to GA and FA too. I am trying to get some WA plants featured...and then was going to alert folks in the Wildflower Society when they are mainpaged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, "while you have the thesis". The reason I'm doing so little with it is because I'm spending hours at the photocopier scanning the key chapters. So I'm hoping "while you have the thesis" = forever. Yep, I'm happy to turn my attention to cuneatus now. Hesperian 10:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cool :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this "Stems tend to curve outwards and upwards, giving the plant a basket-like shape, which may explain some common names" come from the thesis? I don't recall seeing an explanaton elsewhere...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I read it somewhere. I assume it was me who added it? I couldn't find it in the thesis. Hesperian 03:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrigley and Fagg have meanings of names...but I don't think this one was in there...??? I can check later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added it with this diff back on 27 March, many months before I had the thesis to hand. Citation is to the taxonomic review. I'd say it's in there somewhere.... Hesperian 04:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. I'll have a look around at home, but best take it out for now I think. Hesperian 04:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: While I am thinking about it, anything you wanna glean from the thesis for A. cuneatus? Then we can chuck that one up at GA too...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding Wrigley's 1824 date, William Baxter introduced numerous Proteaceae into cultivation that year. If you're on speaking terms with Tony Cavanagh then he'd be the dude to ask. Hesperian 04:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

It was an edit conflict; I thought I had handled it correctly, but I guess I did something wrong. I've had edit conflicts before, this is the first time that's happened to me. Sorry about that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manar Group

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manar_Group&action=history for comments by Gadfium, do you have a reference you would like to add to the article to keep me from taking it to WP:AfD? Jeepday (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate. My position is pretty simple really. PDH was one of the finest editors we have ever had. At one point she was a top-20 editor by edit count, and that was with solid content contributions, not mindless cleanup. She has numerous excellent articles to her name, including several FAs, and she was involved all over the place in maintenance, policy formulation and dispute resolution. I never saw her write a crap article or make a bad decision. She was my hero. ;-) If the community wants to delete this article, that's fine with me, but I won't let it be deleted by PROD simply because she is no longer around to defend it. Hesperian 03:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smile - I still have to take it to AFD, because I simply can not find references and WP:V requires that someone be able to find them. Hopefully AFD will find someone who has a book on their shelf that supports the article. Jeepday (talk)

Nomination of Manar Group for deletion

The article Manar Group is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manar Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jeepday (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Millington

Hi! I notice that you track Western Australian related matters. Could I flag that by chance (random page) I discovered that a number of Western Australian articles linked to Harry Millington an English rugby league player, rather than to the Australian Labor politician of the early C20. There is no article on the politician, so I've modified all such links to "Harry Millington (politician)|Harry Millington".

VinculumMan (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I may make a stub later. Hesperian 23:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thoughts/advise?

Hi. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the discussions at WP:NCGN, but they're not going anywhere in terms of finding consensus. Those in favor of the status quo are understandably uninterested in entering mediation. As I look through the various options at WP:Dispute resolution, I don't see any choices left... besides the last resort. I've never done that, though in retrospect it makes sense since I know the similar TV episode naming disagreement was decided by arbitration a few years ago. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Last_resort:_Arbitration. Any thoughts/advise? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and now for something completely different....

The other article I was buffing was Xerochrysum bracteatum - I was getting a selection of WA flowers to ping the Wildflower Society when one was mainpaged. I've worked on this a bit but ran out of a bit of puff. Feel free to review, add etc. whatever. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria (state)

I replied to your comment at Talk:Victoria (Australia)#Requested move - Victoria (state). The combination of the words Victoria+state can only refer to one thing, while Victoria+Australia can refer to other things. E.g. usage of the name Victoria in Australia. Identifying the location is for states often less helpful than identifying an object as a state in the first place. States named after rivers, towns, related regions are mostly located in the same country, so stating the country still keeps one with ambiguity.

English language does the same, types are added frequently: XXX County, New York City, Mississippi River, XXX School District, Shire of XXX. Cities and towns are differently handled in WP, since there are simply too much, adding "(city)" for most locations does not help. TopoChecker (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyright...

I know we discussed this before - it has come up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adenanthos cuneatus/archive1..but I need to get some sleep now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Where did the translation of Leschenault's French passage come from? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate. :-) That's why the citation is on the original and the translation is uncited. This is acceptable per Wikipedia:No original research#Translations. Hesperian 03:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, okay. Cool. Which plant or plants do you feel like working on now? More Adenanthos, a Persoonia or...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a bit of a flat spot again, so reluctant to say anything here that might induce you to work on an article that I won't end up working on myself. When I come back I /might/ tackle Adenanthos sericeus, as it would be nice to have FAs for all three protologue species. Hesperian 03:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Species are much more doable when one is in a flat spot, okay, that one would be good to buff up, and I was thinking of Persoonia longifolia too. If you have energy, anything historical or early taxonomic on Xerochrysum bracteatum would be good... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim's proposal

Please have a look at Template talk:Taxobox#proposal, as you're one of the people who it will affect the most. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plant taxonomic CFD

Hi, a CFD for Category:Juglans sect. Rhysocaryon is mired in an argument about intent for cfd. It's smelling like WP:OWN on the part of User:Jay L09 who seems to be the principal defender/commenter for the article. Could you have a look and either chip in or let me know who's best to involve? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did ya ...

notice that today's date is a palindrome? cygnis insignis 06:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't! Hesperian 06:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity to comment on Batavia

There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:

editors who are blocked
anonymous IP editors
editors who, despite ranking in the top three of edits to an article, have only a single edit to said article

This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.

How many geebungs....

can I stuff into a DYK....see T:tdyk#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_March_3. Five so far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your screen

Hello, you reverted my edit with the comment "that looks terrible on my screen". Could you please tell me what kind of screen (size) you're using? --bender235 (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I was wrong. Your version is better, seeing as we need to accommodate a wide range of screen and font sizes. Hesperian 02:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I intended to suggest that we just change the width of the columns, if 45em looks awkward on your screen. We could also use 30em. --bender235 (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Heritage places of Western Australia

Category:Heritage places of Western Australia, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map request

I put a map request on your Commons talk page (so I won't repeat the details here), and wondered if you'd seen it yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry Petey, I saw it at WT:PLANTS and then at commons. Really busy at the moment, I'll have to decline that one. :-( Hesperian 03:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article puzzle

What would you name an article on a new species which hasn't been formally named yet? I know that wouldn't normally be proper, but it's already notable and doesn't even have a common name. It would make an interesting main page DYK, before it is formally named. Rather than explain more, you can see the beginning of the article in my sandbox. Feel free to edit or change if you're inclined, or say "this just isn't done" (I'm also asking User:Rkitko). First Light (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it have a provisional name? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)#Hybrids, cultivars and provisional names says to use it if it exists. If not, I would use the label on the type specimen. After all, until the taxon is published, there is no taxon; there is only a specimen that putatively belongs to an unpublished taxon. On the other hand, it is possible that I am the world's biggest nerd and this is a ridiculous suggestion. Hesperian 06:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and yes, this is done. The more common case is where a new species is discovered and is placed on endangered lists as a matter of urgency, whereas naming follows at a more leisurely pace. In such cases it is listed under a provisional name, and the fact of its listing renders it notable and worthy of an article. Hesperian 06:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through your sources, and it seems neither of my suggestions are even remotely helpful. Sorry. Hesperian 06:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do have articles on undescribed species, listed in Category:Undescribed species. The trick is to find a provisional name used in a reference as Hesperian mentions, but I haven't been able to find one myself for this species. I'm wondering if the term iris here = Iridaceae, as I am unaware that any species of Iris occur in this region, whereas other genera such as Moraea are prevalent. Melburnian (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR write up the sting get input from others then get it put into the next rotation once its named. Alternative is to have it run in "in the news section" instead ie a new variety of Iris know as the winning name was announce today follow an auction of naming rights in Capetown prepare a wikinews article as well detailing the auction and the result then move it all to mainspace at same time. Gnan garra 10:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, for the feedback. I see that since we hardly know anything about the plant itself, this is more of a news item about an auction for now. Even having a name post-auction might not give us much more, and I'll be away during that time anyways. So I'll sit on this for now, and wait for more reliable and detailed info. First Light (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for an official name before creating the article, but it's interesting to see that the right to name the plant was auctioned for 550,000 Rand (over $80,000 US, approx. $77,000 Australian). [2] First Light (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

two monotypic genera within our primary scope

I can't be bothered stuffing around with the alternative paths to resolving this: Echiopsis (Bardick) is currently [still] regarded as "monotypic", due to the separation of another pop. to Paroplocephalus (Lake Cronin Snake). The former has a revision history, the latter I am moving [now]. The second is underpinned by the given refs, and I'll address the first when you hit my watchlist. I ask because I nearly stepped on one, then another*

I /have/ seen this. Hoping to find time to address it eventually. Really busy IRL at the moment. :-( Hesperian 23:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you were asking me, but I have expanded the taxonomic history of Paroplocephalus, and can confirm that this is a currently accepted monotypic genus. Echiopsis I haven't touched other than to remove E. atriceps; the name is currently accepted but I couldn't tell you if it is monotypic or not. Hesperian 13:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. Bush, B., et al, Reptiles ... 2007, says Echiopsis is monotypic, and I couldn't find anything to contradict that. I was trying to say that Echiopsis curta should be at Echiopsis, per en.wp naming conventions, which requires a page history merge. I suppose another approach is to have genus article account for the earlier inclusion of the Paroplocephalus species, I could adapt what exists to a sort of disambiguation page and you don't need to do anything. cygnis insignis 01:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A page history merge isn't appropriate here. Both histories span 2007–2010. A history merge would interleave versions of the two pages, resulting in diffs that give the false impression that there was an edit war over the topic of the article. All you can do in situations like this is expand Echiopsis and redirect Echiopsis curta to it. Hesperian 03:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia marginata/archive1 Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I've been seeing it on my watchlist. Hesperian 10:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Knowles

In case you hadn't noticed, nom'd for deletion. You weren't notified for some reason. Moondyne (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Hesperian 04:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Theory...again

Hi Hesperian. Thanks for your sensible comments on the Theory of Portuguese discovery talk page.Nickm57 (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Keep up the good work. :-) Hesperian 02:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Banksia canei

On 7 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia canei, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the seed of the Australian plant Banksia canei (pictured) requires stratification (keeping at 5 °C for 60 days) before germination? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Least concern plants

Category:Least concern plants, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Banksia candolleana

On 10 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia candolleana, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Banksia candolleana shrubs have been estimated at 1000 years old? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 12:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Banksia paludosa

On 12 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia paludosa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the heathland shrub Banksia paludosa (pictured) is pollinated by sugar gliders and brown antechinus? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of plant articles

I asked some questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Guidelines_on_categorization on how to categorize articles on biological taxa, but without much detailed enlightenment. I'm asking you for information because I notice that you created a lot of the Category:taxon subtaxa categories for plants (e.g. Category:Asparagales genera). I've been traversing the taxonomic tree for relevant Asparagales articles, updating to APG III as agreed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#How_to_handle_families_not_in_APG_III:_a_proposal. Obviously the categorization should be updated to match. However, at present it seems a mess.

My preference is to categorize species and genus articles under the genus name and family articles under the family name. Then the category for the order has families as subcategories and the category for the family has genera as subcategories. In the special case of the families submerged by APG III for which subfamilies are provided there would also be a subfamily level.
Can you explain the advantages of instead having categories for "Order families", "Family genera" and even "Order genera"? At present, I can't see the point of these, and what actually happens is that for genera, say, editors randomly use "Category:family" and "Category:family genera".

Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(butting in) I think oftentimes there is an order category (eg. category:santalales) as no-one has subcategorised any further, and often there are not many articles currently within it. Many many plant species and genera lack articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not instead of. Category:Iridaceae should be split by genus e.g. Category:Iris, but it is also useful and entirely natural to group all the genus articles together in Category:Iridaceae genera. Hesperian 12:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that an article on a genus in Iridaceae, Iris say, should be categorized as both Category:Iridaceae and Category:Iridaceae genera? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iris belongs in Category:Iris and Category:Iridaceae genera. Hesperian 23:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so now I'm clear that you do think there should be effectively parallel categorizations. It would be really helpful if you could either (a) point to some previous discussion/consensus which agreed this style of categorizing, or (b) explain at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Guidelines_on_categorization (where there is reference to your categorization approach and the discussion here) why this is a good way of categorizing. There is some consensus in the discussion there but it seems to be against the approach you are advocating.

The direct relevance is that I don't like leaving articles whose taxonomies have been changed (e.g. from Hyacinthaceae to Scilloideae) in the old and now wrong categories. On the other hand, I don't like just changing the names of the categories (e.g. Category:Hyacinthaceae → Category:Scilloideae) because this will leave mixed/muddled categorizations following neither the system I currently prefer nor the system you set up but which editors have not consistently followed. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice needed

Hi Hesperian. I noticed JCRB's recent edit on The Theory of Portuguese... I also know my own tendancy to bite off people's heads too quickly. What do you think? I need another persepctive and can't devote a lot of time to WP at moment, so have held off responding for now.Nickm57 (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of Australia Online links

You are welcome, but honestly I am not adding the modified articles to my watchlist because it is already too big and, in addition, I can't see why anyone would revert those changes.--Canyq (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Ok ;) --Canyq (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very belated reply

There's a reply to a question you asked in 2007 at Template_talk:Clade#2007. I wasn't around Wikipedia then! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2011 (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.