User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 5

Hello EncycloPetey! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question has had references for nearly a year now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Algae was started as a meeting space on Wikipedia for improving the taxonomic representations of the groups of organisms called algae. Please join other editors at the talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae) to discuss a higher level taxonomy for algae to be used on Wikipedia.

Thanks for all the work on the templates and editing the project page to create the table and other details. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed some of your concerns on the WikiProject Algae talk page. I believe that I addressed many of your concerns in my initial proposal. However, I realize I tend to be verbose and sometimes lose details. I think we can select a taxonomy from a single well-accepted source and adapt parts of that as necessary, using other secondary and tertiary sources as references, to reflect mostly the issue that the algae are not anywhere near a clade. I believe we can still change genera and lower level taxa as information arises in the literature on a case-by-case basis, without having to specifically allude to this in the proposal.

You should know that I developed my proposal from a few years of reading and watching Wikipedia talk pages and other websites and discussions with colleagues where discussions are taking place about similar problems with using certain taxonomies when placing the organisms is highly dynamic. I think that using a taxonomy from a textbook deals with many of these problems and avoids the issue of trying to create a taxonomy.

I did answer in a way that blocks your signature on your comments, though--apologies. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resigning your name in all of the interior blocks, as this makes it easier for others to follow, but I was unwilling to post your signature to something (even something you had written). --68.127.232.132 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Metzgeriales, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cryptothallus mirabilis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk · contribs) 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Just thought we'd best sort out the difference between the plant and the animal anatomy issue. I noticed when I made the disambiguation page that what I thought would be one article on the plant, I found five on one genus plus an article on mare's tail and also a group of lumbar nerve endings. While you claim that a redirect cannot go to a disambiguation, that actually is not so, it happens all the time. More to the point, we have a lot of folks who (probably thanks to internet URLs) who make everything one word, so I honestly don't care if the disambig is "horsetail" or "horse tail" but the bottom line is that there are five articles just on the plant, let alone my little piece on the part of the equine anatomy. So, opening discussion on reaching a consensus. Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those plant articles are a bit misleading in claiming that the group is called "horsetail". Most of those are not, as only some of the members can be described that way. The redirect for "Horsetail" should point to Equisetum, as that is what is meant more than 99% of the time, and is what is meant in all of the Wikipedia links. To require users to have a second step to get to their desired target page is silly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like a disambig somewhere between the two. I'l leave it to you to clear up what is or isn't called "horsetail" within the articles. (And FYI I have PLENTY of it on my property, how DO you kill the darn stuff, anyway??? It happens to be somewhat toxic to horses, ironically, I spray it, mow it, pull it, burn it, and it just seems to come back stronger...) Here's my concern: If someone here on wiki is wanting to link the article Tail (horse), it is pretty common to write "horse tail" and it isn't real obvious to search for a parenthetical title (which we are doing at WPEQ to distinguish most of the horse articles from other things of the same name... we have Mane (horse), Gait (horse), etc...) . So even if you insist on a one stop jump to "horsetail," then I guess the main thing I am after is the "otheruses" disambig. Montanabw^(talk)

Under what conceivable circumstances would a person want to look up an article about the tail of a horse and type it as the single word "horsetail"? I can understand about horse tail, but not horsetail.

Um, 10 year old girls, for starters (who all love horses and seem to also love to edit the horse articles...in ALL CAPS WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!). Also, some non-American writers -- in horse land, there is a minor but ongoing edit debate over things being one word or two (notably "showjumpers" and "show jumpers" but other terms as well). Some of this is apparently a British English/American English thing, but some is just carelessness. Likewise, I can see some people looking for the plant and typing "horse tail." People spell things in many interesting ways -- You don't read Craigslist much, do you? (example: "For sale: Well bread girl colt with good confirmation, red with black main and tale." LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 01:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry, I can't recommend a simple solution for getting rid of the plant. Firstly because I've always been fond of it, and so have never sought a "fix" for it. Secondly, it grows rampant in many places, and is considered a weed even in the botanical gardens where I've seen it deliberately planted. About the only way I can guess to get rid of it would be to dig up all the underground stems. It has deep horizontal rhizomes that, like the stems above ground, are fragile enough to break into segments. So, trying to pull it up won't work; it would have to be dug out.

That is what I was afraid of. It's lovely in a way when fully mature, but my god it can spread like wildfire! Sort of like Poppies, plant one and in about three years they have take over everything. (And don't get me started on Hollyhocks...!) Montanabw^(talk) 01:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In re to your query: "name one species of Equisetopsida that is NOT "horsetail" this or that", how about any member of the Ibykales, Pseudoborniales, or Sphenophyllales. No members of those orders are called horsetails. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but help me understand, the articles themselves say: "Equisetopsida, or Sphenopsida, is a class of plants with a fossil record going back to the Devonian. Living species are commonly known as horsetails[2]"  ; "Equisetum is a "living fossil," as it is the only known genus of the entire class Equisetopsida", and "The Equisetales is an order of pteridophytes with only one living genus Equisetum (horsetails). The fossil record includes additional extinct species." So is there some nuance I am missing? Am I right that we have Class: Equisetopsida Order: Equisetales Family: Equisetaceae. genus Equisetum, species: (all of the various plants we call "horsetail") So if the article intro is wrong, sounds like there may be a need to do a review of article content? Montanabw^(talk) 01:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you've stated from the articles that looks incorrect to me, but your understanding seems to be flawed somewhere. Only members of the genus Equisetum are called horsetails. The order Equisetales is sometimes considered to be the horsetails, but that's bending the definitiion a bit, since Calamites and other recently discovered genera aren't called "horsetails". The other orders in Equisetopsida are not horsetails, so the class that contains all the orders is not "horsetails". The horsetails are only a part of that class in the same way that the birds are a part of the Dinosauria. You wouldn't call Dinosauria "birds", would you, simply because the birds are the only living members of that group? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd call them birds, but that's a different issue. I think it's appropriate that Horse tail is a dab, Horsetail redirects to Equisetum, and that the latter has the hatnote that it has here. So in my estimation, it's all good.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger discussion in progress is whether Horse tail should list the class and the order and the family and the genus and every species. I'd argue for just the genus, and possibly the order as well, but not the family (since it'd have to be piped which contracts the MOS for disambiguation), not the class (since it includes other things), and not the species (per WP:DISAMBIG). --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that, but a few examples help, and maybe people want to tweak those sections of the other articles that DO imply they are ALL called "horsetails" --a bit of need to emphasize the nuance, perhaps. What got me going on this was finding so very many articles that said something along the lines of "...these are called horsetails." Particularly the article that says that the ONLY living member of the family, or class or whichever it was is genus Equisetum...I mean, I built the disambig on what was in the various articles, all found on a word search of "horsetail" (which is also how I found the human anatomy one, too) it's what wiki says, so it must be true, eh? LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue here is the tendency to provide "common names" to higher taxa based on the common name of a member. Is the Solanaceae the nightshade family, potato family, or tomato family? If the Brassicaceae is the mustard family, is cabbage then mustard? What makes it worse in this case is that every last member of the Equisetopsida that is not an Equisetum is extinct, and Equisetum (and only Equisetum) is called "horsetail".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought the taxonomy discussion over in the horse articles got complicated! LOL!!! I'm OK with what seems to have settled out here. It sort of makes sense. At least, I'm content. Montanabw^(talk) 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Just noticed this discussion. I'm puzzled as to why anyone thinks that only Equisetum are called 'horsetails' as a common name. In my experience of talking to pteridologists (and other botanists), the wider use is commonplace. I've just picked up at random two popular accounts of evolution off my bookshelf and they both use the term to refer to all the sphenopsids, equisetophytes, whatever. I expect I'd find many more if I looked. It's true that you don't find the term in many technical books and papers, but then they don't use common names at all usually. Affinis (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EncycloPetey.
You deleted the page Anolis occultus. I have two questions:

1. Why did you delete it?
2. Can I recreate it (I plan to redirect it to Dwarf Anole)?

Please send me an email or leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with the recreation you've made. The reason for previous deletion was that the prior version was a redirect to Anole, which thereby created a self-redirect from the Anolis occultus links on the Anole page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started several palaeobotany stubs on Alethopteris, Neuropteris, and Annularia, mainly because I have great pictures of them from the State Museum of Pennsylvania. You seem like the type that could contribute effectively to them, or know someon that would want to. I hope you can contribute. Jim Stuby (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Buxbaumia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Royalbroil 12:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EncycloPetey:

Jesus CHRIST, you are FAST! I just did that like 10 minutes ago! KUDOS TO YOU!

Re your question, the short answer is my dissertation is not published (yet), and I have a manuscript on it that is nearly suitable for submission, but it hasn't been (yet).

So ... NO, I do not have published sources. :-(

Since I'm new at this, and am not sure how to phrase this in "Wiki-ese", I'll just say I fully consent to you deleting it, and encourage you to do so at your earliest convenience, if its not suitable for Wiki-whatever.

I don't know how to do it correctly, I don't think. With apologies for your trouble, and thanks in advance for getting rid of it, I remain

Your Wiki-friend: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy and informative reply. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember plant developmental biology being one of your favored topics, so you might appreciate and this and be better armed than me at spotted any problem. I tried to see about copyediting it (with an eye for DYK), but it' too technical for me. Circéus (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly is certainly too technical, and that might cause DYK problems. Copyediting long articles is something I haven't had the time to do lately. Had this come up last week, I might have had time to help with a major rewrite, but my vacation is ending. I may help with the lead paragraph, but am not sure I'll have time to do much else. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You contributed to the {{ifd}} community review of this image. The result was no consensus. The administrator who closed this review gave your comments an honourable mention here. The policy being applied to non-free images is WP:NFCC. This is based on the premise that an image can be adequately described using a handful or two of words. I believe that this premise is false (and I suspect you would agree). However, it is the policy being applied. In my opinion, points #1 and #8 of the policy seem particularly harsh.

Predictably, User:TreasuryTag has not only appealed the decision, but is seeking to change the WP:DPR#FFD policy to boot. The new Deletion Review is here, should you wish to contribute to the discussion. (If you wish to respond to my comments here, please do so here.) HairyWombat (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later. I have being trying to add arguments put forward during the original community review and the Deletion Review into the rationale for the image. I think your arguiments were excellent, as did the closing administrator of the community review, but I found it difficult to compress them sufficiently for inclusion in a rationale. Would you like to have a try? The various policies are WP:NFCC, WP:WHO/MOS#Images, and WP:FUG. Also, as the file can be relisted for deletion, I have made sure it is on my watchlist. (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, I'm sorry. It was a mistake... Flakinho (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the figures at Flowering Plant Diversity composites outnumber orchids. I expect that it is possible to find citations for either being the largest family. Lavateraguy (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Scapaniaceae is brand new. This recent paper separate some stuff from it to make Anastrophyllaceae. I figured you might want to have a look. Circéus (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Liverwort taxonomy right now is in the kind of flux that angiosperm phyloeny was circa 1995. The difference is that no one is waiting for sufficient molecular and morphological evidence to accumulate before plowing ahead with a new classification system. Some of it is no-doubt driven by "publish or perish", but it means that there are multiple incompatible systems out there, most of which treat either just a few taxa in the absence of the larger picture, or else sweep across the whole division and are at odds with everyone else (and sometimes with the phylogenies). Worst of all, there is no cooperative collaboration planned, as with the APG. Hepaticologists tend to be isolated and territorial.

So, I've chosen one classification in particular to use for family and generic placement for now. Despite its shortcomings, it's at least comprehensive, consistent, and not hugely at odds with the recent phylogenetic studies. It does solve some long-standing difficulties with the Metzgeriales. I fully expect another paper by the same authors to come out within a few years, revising it all again, but at least it's a starting point.

I'll keep the Scapaniaceae paper in mind if I should expand the Scapaniaceae article soon. Right now I'm just getting the family pages and authorities for the leafy liverworts (both here and on Wikispecies), since we have fewer than half of all the families covered with any page at all. The new genera they propose will certainly have to be included. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was just pointing it your way. I've added some of the species over at Wikispecies (I've been working on Senecioneae, but decided to add the stuff from Phytotaxa open-access papers on the side), but been slowed by the difficulty of locating synonymies and IPNI being down. I intend to finish them tomorrow. Circéus (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On May 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ptilidium, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Hope the end of year frenzy is dying down - and also hope you haven't given up on the Talk:muscle page. Sorry if my response seemed somewhat sharp/critical. I've taken the liberty of editing some of the comments in an effort to keep the pages as easy to follow as possible. As you see, we're getting some discussion going, but it would always help to have other input. As a teacher, you probably have a good perspective on one major audience for the page(s) we are discussing, so your suggestions and thoughts will be appreciated. We're not in any great hurry. It's a large topic with plenty to think about, so please keep your other priorities going until you feel (possibly)inspired to take another look at where the discussions are going. Thanks! QuietJohn (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got one more week of the school year, and a few little projects to tidy up. Then, if the university library doesn't immediately shut down for the summer, I should be able to assist somewhat. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most will agree that article is currently in unreasonably bad shape. Impossible to improve article if you use undo blindly and block all (even small) changes. Remember, editing by other users is not an act of offense.Rickproser (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of using "undo blindly" is an act of offense. I did not make any blind changes, but undid erroneous information and changes that did not improve the article. Adding jargon or misusing technical terms is not an improvement to an article which, as you note, is already in bad shape.

On my edits, it is important to clarify (in the intro) what a plant is and what is not. For example, it should be made clear that all plants are eukaryotes while not all plants are multicellular. Can we agree on that? Rickproser (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is not necessary to mention the domain name in the intro. Saying that they "have a nucleus in their cells" is a much clearer explanation. Nor should the domain name be misspelled as "Eykarya". Nor should an illegal homonym (Eukarya) under the ICBN be used for the domain name. The domain name must be spelled Eukaryota in any botanical articles, since Eukarya is a homonym of Eucarya Mitch., which is a genus of plants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file which you previously commented on has been nominated for deletion [1] – ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 08:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add a definition to ristit that included my website, not knowing this was not allowed. Now my address is blocked from making edits. Is there a way that I can add a definition w/out adding my website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.233.234 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was not just the link but the content itself. You added spam, which was reverted with a note that the content was spam. Then you switched accounts and added the spam back again. Wiktionary does not carry advertisements. Please read WT:CFI, especially the section about brand names. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EncycloPetey. Now that the "flagged revisions" trial is starting, I looked through the "pending changes" queue. I see that you semi-protected "Vascular plant" two years ago. I don't see any recent problems with vandalism. Would you consider un-protecting the article, please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale is circular. There is no recent problem with vandalism because it's semi-protected. That's what semi-protection does. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From "Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection":-

"Determining the duration for semi-protection ... The only way to determine if ongoing semi-protection is still necessary is to remove the protection and see if the vandalism resumes at previous levels. For this reason, all pages that are indefinitely semi-protected can have their protection removed from time to time."

It has been two years! Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The length of time is irrelevant, as your argument would suggest that no pages should ever be given indefinite protection. That view is at odds with policy. The rough guide is not pertinent, as policy plainly states: "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism". This article had continued, heavy vandalism, and virtually all anon edits were vandalism, so this article meets that criterion. There is no reason to release protection, but clear guidance in policy to protect it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a formal request. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the offending editor will engage in discussion on the Talk page (as he himself suggested), this may be resolvable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Unfortunately Twinkle went mad and instead of reverting to your edit after you put the ogg file on the page, it reverted to before your edit (and also didnt give me a chance to put an edit summary)

Would you mind reinserting as I would not like to take credit for your work :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thx - I sent Twinkle to bed without any tea...it was a different little helper this morning - helpful and behaved :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Petey, as you've probably seen, the pt-wiki article on the subject is very poor and unreferenced, making it difficult to discuss those matters. The en-wiki version is better, but somewhat unsourced as well. Actually, my university formation is precisely on those matters (Botany), though it has been many years since the classes on (general) Plant Biology. I'll review my materials, research info at my University, and improve the Portuguese version, and then I'm sure this subject will be clarified. For now both articles are not worth of a dispute on their content, thus I'll believe your judgement, at least until I can review and improve our stub. Best regards, --Darwinius (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was ages ago Herbarium UME Updated Index Herbatorum. I have been working in the herbaria so I can update Index Herbatorum first and then Wikipedia but... It difficult to make good aproximations of how many specimens we realy have, when the work with the specimen database havent come so far, and we grossly overestimated the number of fungi. Why delete the link to the webpage to? An estimation of the number of specimens i wouldent call any sort of research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossnisse (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By Wikipedia standards, including unsourced information is original research. This is wikipedia policy WP:NOR, which you can read yourself and its interpretations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make a Tirana.ogg file, to hear english pronontation of it? --Vinie007 (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you are the first and main contributor to the page List of herbaria. I need select a list of the 20-30 most important herbaria in the world for my academic thesis, which must be relyable. Could you please tell me where you got this list or how you produced it? It would be extremely helpful, thank you very much in advance Aelwyn (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the information is cited in the article. The herbaria codes and holding sizes came from the Index Herbarorium, which is a standard reference work available at major university libraries. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find your post, but you suggested in January 2010 that WikiProject Algae be covered by the SignPost. The project will be covered in the next issue. If you go to the project talk page you will find link to the interview. I was hoping some other editors would add comments about the project. I'm smashed at work and with an upcoming show, and I've not even been working on the project pages much lately. It would be nice to have a couple of active editors looking at the pages, and, right now, getting the higher level taxonomies in order is a high priority? --Kleopatra (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I am at my busiest this week and the early part of next week, since grades will be dure at the end of term. If this can wait for a week or two, I would be able to devote some time to replying coherently. As it is, I don't have much on-line time right now. The higher taxonmy for "algae" is tough because it's a broad assemblage of organisms that aren't all related, but happen to all be photosynthetic, so there are many competing systems published for the high-level classification. To sort out the highest levels of algae would involve sorting out the highest levels of eukaryotic life. Even within each major group of algae, there has been so much groundbreaking work in the last 10 years that it's hard for people to keep track of the results and synthesize it for an encyclopedia. I've managed to at least set up the brown algae down to the level of all orders, but that still leaves a lot to do. And browns have nowhere near the number of species that red algae, green algae, and diatoms have (there are more than 100,000 species of living diatoms, with many more known only as fossils). The highest-level classifications of all algal groups is still undergoing active revision, so cleaning up the high-level taxonomy is difficult to tackle right now, and probably not a good investment of time given the high probability that additional major changes will happen over the next 10 years. A better focus would be (1) genus and species pages of large and important groups, and (2) artciles about general biology of the algae. These are more stable as topics and therefore a better choice for investment of effort. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow your logic in the restructuring of the page Christian Damgaard (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major improvment over the previous hierarchy. For example, herbivory is an interaction between plants and other organisms, and is now listed in such a section that also allows for inclusion of other kinds of biological interactions (such as multualistic relations with fungi in mycorrhizae or with pollinators). Previously, herbivory was listed as a "structure" or "function" of plants, even though it is neither. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can. I'm on vacation, without my library right now, though. It would be a good article to clean up.

You made a general comment at Algae that I don't understand what you are talking about, meaning you refer to something else, not that I need a word-by-word explanation, just a link to what you are talking about by your introduction?

I believe you are mistaken in what you say above, about how dynamic the algae are means we cannot write articles without them changing too quickly. Yes, the algae are in great flux particularly as molecular data reveal changes in higher level relationships. But I think that wikipedia editors are mistaken in keeping taxonomy up-to-the-minute; taxonomies require broad consensus among scientists to be working taxonomies, and encyclopedias are not the holders of up-to-the-minute taxonomies, the primary literature is. All we need at en.wikipedia are taxonomies from a few textbooks, and there are some broad agreements among textbook authors in the algae, and a few disagreements. It makes it hard to write about more specific taxa when the higher level taxa are inconsistent on wikipedia. It is also difficult when old higher level taxonomies, now discredited by their primary authors, are used. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no consensus about the very highest levels within or between certain groups of algae. In particular, (1) the number of classes in the Heterokontophyta, (2) whether to recognize the Heterokontophyta (and at what rank), (3) the rank, name, and existence of the Charophyceae / Charophyta / Streptophycophyta / etc., (4) the highest ranks in the diatoms.

I am not advocating that the highest rank pages be ignored (some have a stable classification), but there has to be a lot of caution exercised when putting a lot of effort into articles about groups that could soon face dissolution, merger, or renaming. Consider that, if we had written a full page on each of Cronquist's flowering plant subclasses, we'd have to have abandoned all of them in the light of work that has transpired over the past twenty years. None of Cronquist's angiosperm subclasses is used in current scientific consensus as a natural taxon, despite the fact that his classification was the gold standard before molecular analysis. In the bryophytes, similar upheavals have occurred, especially in the liverworts. Look at the classification and phylogeny section of the page I wrote on the Metzgeriales. There have been nearly a dozen proposed classification systems for liverworts put forward over the past thirty years, and none of them comes close to the current picture we have of their relationships. The Metzgeriales, because it is diphyletic, faces imminent breakup and the page on the group will have to be completely reworked, in part because the type belongs to the minority clade. I see the same thing happening in the groups of algae that I've followed (greens and browns), where traditional classifications have come completely apart in the light of modern analysis, and no comprehensive replacement classification has been proposed. A key exception is the Alariaceae, Lessoniaceae, Laminariaceae group of kelps, where a comprehensive restructuring has already been published. This publication overturns all previous classifications of this group of families, and renders previous family descriptions invalid, since the genera were shuffled into groupings not previously suspected from examination of morphology alone. The reds are in perhaps the most terrible shape, with three differing and incompatible classifications recently published, and in which even the number of classes varies wildly (one, five, or seven).

Does that mean we should give up on dealing with the writing of articles on unstable groups? No. But I also don't see that investing heavily in unsupported taxa would be the most effective use of the limited effort being put into the algae on Wikipedia. When you consider how little effort has been put into them over the past five years, and extrapolate that into the future, I see a better investment to be had in dealing with more stable taxa first, such as some of the major genera. There are standard textbook genera that have no article at all on Wikipedia (Gigartina, Padina, Ectocarpus, Klebsormidium) while others are mere stubs (e.g. Staurastrum, Halimeda). I'd rather see those articles worked on, since their scope will not be likely to change and their content will be of immediate value.

Some articles for taxa with debated internal classification can sensibly be written, as long as heavy investment isn't made on the classification. The red algae are a case in point, since they are an obviously natural group and supported as such universally. It is only the internal systematics that is unstable, so we can just not invest as heavily in writing anything definitive there--just point out the diversity of opinion. My position is thus more complex than I portrayed above. Those earlier comments you read were written in haste for a non-biologist and so make sweeping generalizations without details or caveats.

So, please know that I agree with you about the futility of trying to keep taxonomy up-to-the-minute, but I also see futility in putting a lot of work into maintaining obsolete systems when there is likely to be a major revision soon. There is a spectrum for which these are the two extreme possibilities, and each taxon will fall independently into place somewhere along that spectrum. Neither extreme will always be true for all taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The higher level articles need a lot of work. They are the most read algae articles on wikipedia, and their taxonomies are inexcusable. Nonetheless, you are determined to work on genera, and your reasons for doing so are sound, and you have excellent article writings skills, so, if you provide a list of genera, and I will add to it, then I will start focusing on those rather than debate any longer about where to put our efforts. I agree that if we focus our efforts we can accomplish a lot.

There is a bot that created a bunch of articles that were deleted, and I think I have seen you working with some of the bot's creations. A number of important missing genera already have taxoboxes created by this bot, and an administrator (Smith609) has moved some articles into project space. It would be helpful for me, if, while creating the list, you could move any that are bot creations, with existing taxoboxes and links to algaebase, from the great abyss of deleted space to project space.

I would like to work in blocks in one area at a time, say Charophyte greens/red/browns/diatoms, whatever, but it's easier working on groups of similar organisms because of the morphology terms. But putting together a list of major genera would be a great start. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds ike a good plan. Making the list of "key" genera in the WP:ALGAE project seems like a good place for it. There is already a starter list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Taxon notes#High importance algae genera; it would just need to be sorted by major grouping and have additional taxa added. I'll try to make a start on that today, and should also make a start rewriting the brown algae section on morphology (in addition to doing laundry). I'm partial to starting with "Charophyte" taxa, such as desmids and stoneworts (because I'm personally more familiar with them), but I've been working with browns mainly so far and I think the reds are in most dire need of some work. Which groups would you suggest as starters? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now set up a starter list of genera at User:EncycloPetey/Algae. Whic group(s) would you prefer to start with; I'm open to suggestions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering their evolutionary importance, I would like to start on the Charophytes, then probably non-Charophyte green algae, then the large browns, then the Rhodophyta? The browns because I think we could get an FA out of one the kelps, then the reds because I have to do a study on some of them soon. --Kleopatra (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charophytes it is, then, for starters. I'm still going to finish up the work I've started on the Brown algae article itself before I do much on the charophytes, and my participation will slow again next week when I resume teaching. But, since pages on genera (and similarly restricted groups) tend to be easier to do piecemeal than larger groups, I should be able to continue helping steadily, even if it's at a rate slower than I'd like. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good starting point would be to make sure they're all in the same kingdom. I notice that the Spirogyra taxobox lists the kingdom as "Protoctista" (ech!) rather than Plantae like most of the others. We should probably have a simple, consistent, published, high-level classification in place as well, so I'll see what I can find in recent papers. Last I checked, the number of classes of "charophytes" was variable. I'm off-line now for a while now, but will resume later today. I think I may be ready today to draft the brown algal morphology section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm going to categorize them as Charophytes for starters. Yes, there are some interesting kingdoms among the algae.... --Kleopatra (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you read the discussion. --Sainsf<^> (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mistake on my part; thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template loops shown on that page are somewhat annoying, I agree. It's a minor back-end cosmetic issue and a false alarm. I've mentioned it to Martin but he's been busy getting the Taxobot in ship-shape and hasn't gotten a chance to look at that issue. It isn't detrimental to anything, so don't let it slow you down. Thanks for the bug report, though! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I sure thought it was supposed to work! You've got a good debugger's eye! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sure appreciate an IDE that would handle subst'ing in WikiMarkup and WikiSyntax (I'm told Eclipse can highlight the syntax but haven't succeeded with that)! I'm on round two (after a considerable break) looking for a line needing changed to get the ichnobox to italicize taxa. The first time I spent a good hour or so subst'ing and ended up making a mistake in my subst'ing, and went to bed-- I was tired and had a headache anyway. I think I'm nearly to the bug now, so hopefully the ichnobox will be fully functional here shortly. :) Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should post the updates at WikiProject Algae, but I keep forgetting to do it. User:The Earwig puts WikiProject Algae banners on the algae articles after I check the categories, and I just asked him to do the Charophyta and Cyanobacteria. I debated the latter, but not too much, as who else will own them? I requested that the class and importance be inherited from Plant banners for the Charophyta as they seemed to have been evaluated and tagged well, but generally I check afterward. I am in the middle of something that gives me time to do mindless work on wikipedia, but the tagging for importance requires some thought. I will try to update the project page, too. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I was ill the past two days and didn't get much done. I should have more work done tomorrow, though. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, The Earwig is very willing to help and has a bot that adds the tags, then goes through and inherits the class and importance as possible. With the algae we can't ask him to do them all, but must think them through. An editor with some experience in the green algae individually set the importance for project plants, and finding that information means we can give a specific request to The Earwig.

Oh, BTW: I've found copies of Bold & Wynne's textbook as well as the second volume of Fritsch for cheap. I expect to receive them in the mail in the next couple of weeks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll enjoy reading the Bold & Wynne, and, if you've never taken a phycology course it will give you an excellent overall feel for the various groups called algae. Even if you've taken one, its a great resource, imo. I would recommend reading it front to back. How cheap on the Fritsch? I want my own copies of both volumes, but I'm always so broke lately! --Kleopatra (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I taught myself plant morphology from Bold, Alexopoulos and Delevaoryas (although I later took official coursework), and I already own several other algal textbooks (Prescott, van den Hoek, etc.), but never owned a copy of Bold & Wynne. I always seemed to have easy access to an herbarium or personal library that contained it, and so never purchased one until now. The volume of Fritsch I found was a bit under $40, which is much cheaper than some pricing I've seen for the same book. The copy I ordered is an ex-library copy, and hence the reduction in price. There are a number of natural history booksellers (both on- and off-line) that specialize in botany and/or natural history books. I've sometimes found incredible deals on volumes I needed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you don't have as much time for Wikipedia work now, but if you can find time to look at the material at User:Peter_coxhead/Sandbox1 I would be grateful. This is intended as the core of a very heavily revised article, which would focus first of all on alternation of generations in plants (clade-based definition), and then treat other groups afterwards. Do you think that what I have sketched so far is the right way to go for the main part of the article? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general concept looks good. There should also be a considerable sections explaining what the gametophyte and sporophyte are. The various might be tied to those as subsections (or maybe not, depending on how it shapes up). The only major point I saw missing as anisogamy, where the gametes are dissimilar, but both are flagellated. Ulva (sea lettuce) is the textbook example of an anisogamous plant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; have added this category. I think that it may be better to concentrate the article fairly tightly on alternation of generations as such, and then have "main article" links to topics like Sporophyte and Gametophyte (both of which need some expansion). Many of the concepts are already explained in other articles, but not always consistently/correctly. I personally think that there's too much repetition/redundancy in the set of 'theory of biology' articles -- there wouldn't be too much for the *reader* if the material and explanations were always good and consistent, but this isn't the case; there's too much redundancy for the limited number of competent and active editors to sort all the articles and keep them in step with each other. I'm in favour of much more use of brief explanations and then crosslinks. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now uploaded a thoroughly revised and expanded article at Alternation of generation. Thanks for the encouragement, but of course I take full responsibility for my rewrite! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs copyediting, especially to convert the bulleted lists into the Wikipedia-preferred paragraph style, but it's still a huge improvement over previously existing text. Nice job. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried converting the bulleted lists offline. The top level of the bulleted lists is easy to convert to subsections/subheadings and I do intend to do this if no-one else does. However, below that I found it a problem: if you convert everything to paragraphs, then I think you just get lost as to where you are in the hierarchy of 'variations'. I am of course aware of the WP preference for paragraphs, but there are, I think, some cases where the intrinsic hierarchy of a topic really benefits from bullets for clarity. Another job to be done is consistent wiki-linking; some things aren't linked at all when they should be and some are linked too often. I don't really have any time for the next week or so. Thanks for your continued encouragement! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]