Cas, I see that {{u|SchroCat}} initiated the nom, [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Moors_murders/archive1&oldid=910766813], which is good. Can the coords take over the notifications (relevant Wikiprojects per the talk page banners, Eric, PoD, top 10 contributors, etc)? Or Schro, or EEng, since he's challenging the text? I'm not capable of editing today, so can't help. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 14:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Cas, I see that {{u|SchroCat}} initiated the nom, [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Moors_murders/archive1&oldid=910766813], which is good. Can the coords take over the notifications (relevant Wikiprojects per the talk page banners, Eric, PoD, top 10 contributors, etc)? Or Schro, or EEng, since he's challenging the text? I'm not capable of editing today, so can't help. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 14:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks for the ping {{u|Victoriaearle|Victoria}}. I think Eric is probably aware of it, and I’ve had emails from one or two others about it too. I didn’t want it to go down this route, and was trying to sort one section on the talk page without the section being tag-bombed and near-unreadable for anyone wanting to read it. That didn’t seem to please EEng, who’s reverted it out and carried on tag bombing the rest. I’m not sure this is the best approach to improving what was there, but it’s clear my efforts weren’t wanted, so I’m stepping away from it. Cheers - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels – Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th–19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork – an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment – he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[1]
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."
I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.
I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?
(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Thanks for reminding me on this one – I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...then what are these brown and white furry things?
I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....
What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?
You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.
If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Banksia menziesii with persistent florets
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid – how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata – I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles – you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73–75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Hesperian08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1–2 weeks to get here.
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study – any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).
One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber – thanks for your note. Yes there's quite a bit more out there which Duane Hamacher and I are slowly trying to get written up. You can find some more stuff on www.emudreaming.com and you may find some papers you havent come across on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/papers.htm
Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I would like to open for discussion the format of the entry for 'Orange-bellied Parrot'. As news occurs in the recovery program for this species, the limitations of the current format of the Wikipedia entry become more obvious.
The heading, 'Conservation Status' should, I believe, be reserved for the actual conservation status in Australia, and in the three states, SA, Tasmania and Victoria. What follows after that, but still under that heading, at present, is a running commentary of events since about 2010.
This is not acceptable.
I propose another heading be inserted, 'Recovery Program' or similar. In it, a short history of the OBP recovery program could be given – since 1980 or so – and then, new events could be smoothly inserted as they happen.
What do others think? The Wikipedia entry is an important first port of call for many people interested in this bird. We owe it to them, and to history, to provide a better entry.[reply]
It's easier than stars as there is less hardcore physics involved, but trickier as you have to make the material not "listy", which it sort of is by very nature. Smaller constellations are easier as there is less material to list generally. Star guide books, alot of which are on google, are good for general overview, how to find things, what's next to what etc. but alot of their factual info (distance/luminosity) is outdated. I have even suspected this in newer reprints/editions where new material is coming out. SIMBAD is a godsend and makes finding other material easy. I was using it as a ref itself but probably better to use the refs it cites. Overall I find astronomy articles more challenging than biology ones – trickeir to make engaging. We can collaborate on CrB if you like as I did plan on taking it All the Way at some point and then having it as a double mainpage with CrA. Collaborating is good as it makes for less work in some ways – each of us can copyeidt the other etc. 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Just popping in during some of the rare free time I have at the moment to say that the hardest part of the constellation articles is figuring out exactly what objects to write about, since there is generally quite a bit of discretion in whether or not something should be in the article. I generally try to write about all stars brighter than magnitude 5.0, and the most-studied astronomical objects within the constellation, as well as a few other things such as extremes (e.g. R136a1) and unusual objects. One tip to find notable stars, I've found, is this SIMBAD query, which lists all Bayer, Flamsteed, and variable stars in each constellation by number of refs. Of course further research is necessary for other stars without said designations, but it's a good start. I would help, but I don't anticipate having much free time at all until at least December. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup the small size was part of the reason I chose CrB (it's not the only reason though :-P). I'm cool with a collaboration. ST11's suggestions, as always, make a lot of sense. Going to read through some constellation FAs to get an idea of what to write – not least CrA... Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Double sharp, I have started buffing with this one. Just arting with the brighter stars – SIMBAD is best place to start and then chasing refs. Not sure how much you know about them (figuring distance from parallax etc...) so just ask away..or start on deep sky objects and I'll continue with stars (??) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carcinoma in situ
The carcinoma in situ page has been updated and it explains the different views that sometimes carcinoma in situ is seen as a cancer and sometimes it is not. You will probably remember earlier this year that you supported changing my use of the term "invasive cancer" to "cancer". The expression "invasive cancer" is used frequently in books particularly when talking about cancer of the cervix and in my opinion using the term "invasive cancer" can improve clarity. What do you think of the explanations in the carcinoma in situ article? Snowman (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I have phrased it badly above, but you seem to have understood me. I should have said that you did not support my use of "invasive cancer" and you preferred the use of "cancer" instead. Actually, to me, it is not as simple as just inserting the word "invasive". Back then, I saw a better phrase in a reference and I thought about using it, because I thought that it would be accurate, readable, and I hoped keep everyone happy; however, the situation become unnecessarily tense and I felt like I was walking on eggs (and you know what that means). I did not get around to developing the article any further nor mentioning the "magical" phrase. I will see if I can find the phrase again. I recall that the solution was to use a short phrase in the place of cancer or invasive cancer in the introduction. I am talking in riddles at the present time, because I want to make sure that I can find that phrase again, and that will mean thinking about the introduction again. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend the amendment belew, because the demarcation between non-cancer and cancer varies according to the literature, as we have seen, and this is made more difficult by a simplified language and vocabulary used to communicate the complex situation to patients. A definition of cancer that includes in-situ cancer is well established, but perhaps the world of the cytologist or histopathologist is a small world, where to say "invasive cancer" is not unusual. This is the current line in the introduction; "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of cervical cancer and enable early successful treatment.". I think that it would be more accurate if it said something like; "The main aim of cervical cytology screening is to detect precursors of cancer and early cervical cancer to enable early successful treatment.". In this new line a full spectrum from viral changes to dysplasia to carcinoma-in-situ to early invasive cancer is included, so the controversy over where to put the non-cancer/cancer line disappears, and the meaning is clear no matter where the reader puts the line in his or her own mind-map. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about making a joint nomination with me to take the cervix article to FA review sometime? I would not be planning to edit much of the "History" and "Other animals" sections, because I do not know much about those topics. I am not usually on the nominator's side of the fence, but I would be willing to step into that role here, partly to test the water. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good idea – the prerequisites for being a nominator are being reasonably familar with the article and having the ability to address issues raised at FAC. Do you see anything else that needs fixing before listing it at FAC? 02:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh good. I would like to have a long look at the article before FA nomination, and I expect that I will not feel happy with the article as a potential FA nomination for several weeks. There is some content and page organization in the article (as it is now) that I would like to reflect on. The peer review is also worth re-visiting to see what was not achieved there. I will probably attempt to start a few discussions on the article talk page where relevant. Do you have any time frame in mind or any particular schedule of your own to work around? Of course, I would ask you to constructively criticize my work whenever you think that anything can be improved, and I will try to focus on the issue and answer honestly and objectively trying not to be fractious nor stubborn, with a view to learning from my errors. It think that it will work better like that, than keeping quite or not speaking up when you do not agree with your co-nominator. I am saying that because I guessed that you have not felt easy about not supporting your co-nominator in FA reviews previously. Also, as before, please be alert to my writing style, which can sometimes need re-phrasing owing to clumsy grammar, although the content is often unambiguous (to me at least). Apart from that, it could be challenging writing for general readers and even more challenging writing for specialist readers that are unfamiliar with the small world of histopathology. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snowmanradio I have no time scale on this so it sorta takes as long as it takes. The refs need fixing for page numbers. The material is pretty good – only thing from PR left is double checking lymphatic drainage really I thought. Anyway. Posting things step by step on talk page is good. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have though that the "Function" heading would be about normal function. Surly, putting a barrier in front of the cx is not a normal function of the cervix. Also, oc pills are more about pharmacology and modified functioning of the cervix. Should the "Contraception" heading have its own level-2 heading? This has been discussed before, but it is worth starting another discussion on the talk page about this? Snowman (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first one or something like it – will take a look now. I wonder if the fact it is roughly cylindrical makes saying it's round in cross-section redundant. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re Vaginal portion of cervix. Have you got any ideas on what to do with this article on the portio (or ectocervix)? I do not know why WP Anatomy has so many articles on sub-parts. If relevant, I expect that a formal discussion would be needed to consider a merge. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is off to a good start over there. I think that there is nothing on the unreferenced portio page that can be copied over to the cervix page. We could start planing how to present the portio (and its various names) on the cervix page. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In have found what to me looks like a 2003 copyrighted version of File:Cervix dilation sequence.svg, so I have started a deletion discussion on Commons. Commons administrators will now have a look at it. Initially, I left an message with the uploader on Commons to ask a technical question about the image, and I noticed that he is currently blocked for three months, so I did a search for other copies of the cervix dilation image. The image should show the babies head moving down the birth canal as the cervix dilates, but the head looks stuck. The image is on about a dozen or more Wikis, so they might all be removed by a bot in due course. I am not sure if the image needs removing from the Cervix page at this juncture or not, so I wonder what you think about removal from the en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recently found a photograph of a rare parrot with the wrong copyright and it was deleted from Commons one week after I started the deletion discussion. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Cervical cancer article has had a lot of work on it since about June, and it is well worth looking at. I expect that we could shorten (or otherwise amend) the section on cervical cancer in the "cervix" article, because the "cervical cancer" article offers a good readable account. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re HPV vaccines. Sometimes, I like to tidy up the linked pages. This article was moved from the singular to the pleural in March 2014. I am aware that there is more than one HPV vaccine, but I would expect this to be on the singular name, unless there something controversial about it that I have missed. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Anatomical abnormalities" section looks like a mixture of acquired and congenital diseases. Could this be organized differently? I nearly did a reorganization, but a little re-organization does not change much, and I suspect that it would be easier to do a bit of a re-write. Also, it may be possible to expand the section with a little about the developmental abnormalities of the female genital tract seen in Cryptophthalmos syndrome, Johanson-Blizzard syndrome, Rokitansky Anomalod, and as less commonly seen in Roberts syndrome and Trisomy 18 syndrome. These diseases are not at the front of my mind, however these are in the index of my rather old second-hand book on human malformation. This is not a small change, so I welcome your opinion. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have become unexpectedly busy in real life, so I have not had much time for editing the Wiki. I hope that I will be able to contribute with more editing and work on the cervix article again after about two or three months . Snowman (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from manual editing, I was hoping to write a few scripts for fun to do scanning and mass editing tasks on the Wiki this Autumn and Winter, but can not participate in a meaningful way at the present time. I plan to return when I can and I will look to see what you and User FunkMonk are doing then. Incidentally, have you any thoughts on why discussions about anatomy topics tend to be rather brittle? I might ask that question on the WP Anatomy talk page. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good one. I am feeling a bit unenthusiastic about anything much at the moment. I need to get a spark of interest. I'll take a look and see how I go. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Australian spelling question
An anonymous IP, 2600:1700:7E31:5710:2C89:9DBC:EE9F:2AC2, has been editing articles about Australian spiders, most of which are marked as in Australian English. Most changes are ok (although some are pointless, such as capitalizing the first letter in a piped wikilink, and some are against the MOS (like putting "#" before the issue number in a citation). However, they also change spellings in "-our" to "-or", e.g. "colour" to "color". I'm aware that this is perhaps not clear in Australian English, but as a Brit, I've relied on this for example. What's your view? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a view - Australian english utilises our not or, simple as that. That's why we have engvar au - but there as some taggers who claim it is a problem - but finding Australian items changed from our to or - is wrong. period. It is very clear in usage. JarrahTree09:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling of Labor is a political curiosity, the new party wanted to appeal to the working class yet distance themselves from the British movement (or was it more complicated, don't remember). cygnis insignis13:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've noticed your username in the list of FAC mentors. I'm currently writing an article draft about Indonesian homegardens, and I'm aiming a featured-article criteria for it. However, I'm afraid that the writing might be inadequate in its flow or readability, and I'm also afraid that I might accidentally came into indications of original research. If you have time, any revision or any form of constructive criticism will be appreciated. Thank you in advance! Dhio-27059915:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cas, I'm just dropping by to ask if you'd be willing to evaluate the two pending WP:FOUR article candidates, which have been there for seven days. (One is nominated by myself; the other is by another user). Thanks! Ergo Sum01:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: I try to give it as big a shove towards FAC as possible. If you want to proceed that way, I'll take another look and see what else needs buffing. Alternatively try and do a few more biology GAs first (or whatever) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Weebill
On 11 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Weebill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the weebill(pictured), measuring 8 to 9 cm (3.1 to 3.5 in) long, is Australia's smallest bird? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Weebill. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Weebill), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hey Cas. I think running an RfC was a good idea, but my sense is that things have gone beyond an RfC and without a lot of people willing to do some heavy lifting, checking diffs and sources within a structured review setting, the bickering will continue. So I've been bold and suggested it be taken to FAR. I realize Eric was blocked, and had been blocked when the rewrite began, but he should be able to participate when his block expires. As you know, stewardship is poorly understood and it's hard - especially for editors whose activity levels have decreased. My concern is setting precedent for rewriting without going through the process, which was set up specifically for these types of situations if I'm correct? Anyway, sorry, brevity isn't my forte, but wanted to let you know what I was thinking. Best, Victoria (tk) 02:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm wimp and don't want to get too involved in that talk page discussion. Can you, as coordinator submit to FAR, or tell EEng to? I'm willing to try to trawl through diffs once it gets there, but my time is limited and I don't want to commit to something I can't see through. Victoria (tk) 03:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I thought. Big sigh. It's late here and I'm about to turn in. I'll nominate it if I can get to it tomorrow, but whether I can be around is always a big if these days. Regardless, I'll keep an eye on it. Victoria (tk) 03:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Um, for the record, EC was not blocked when I started; he was blocked the next day, and I didn't know about it until someone mentioned it ten days later. Can someone enlighten me about this mysterious "FAR" and why its name is always invoked in such hushed tones? The article is clearly no longer an FA (and never was, now that all the sourcing problems are apparent) -- it will take a lot of work to get it even to GA level. So shouldn't the star just come off now talk of FA again be way down the road? EEng09:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me Cas, but I find I am not able to post on EEng's talk (page size and scripts). @EEng:, the object of FAR might be seen as retaining the star, you and several others have identified areas for improvement (I agree the sociological and media reactions might be included, for example), so outline that at the review. I am sort of across the bones of the discussion, and see suggestions that FAR is the path forward, is it more complicated than that? ~ cygnis insignis09:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am absolutely, positively going to make an effort to cut that page down. I can't have people feeling they can't post. Give me a day or two. EEng14:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: - WP:FAR is the process by which a Featured Article is reviewed. They don't automatically lose their status but are reviewed, like GAs are etc. Cas Liber (talk·contribs)
Cas, I see that SchroCat initiated the nom, [3], which is good. Can the coords take over the notifications (relevant Wikiprojects per the talk page banners, Eric, PoD, top 10 contributors, etc)? Or Schro, or EEng, since he's challenging the text? I'm not capable of editing today, so can't help. Victoria (tk) 14:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Victoria. I think Eric is probably aware of it, and I’ve had emails from one or two others about it too. I didn’t want it to go down this route, and was trying to sort one section on the talk page without the section being tag-bombed and near-unreadable for anyone wanting to read it. That didn’t seem to please EEng, who’s reverted it out and carried on tag bombing the rest. I’m not sure this is the best approach to improving what was there, but it’s clear my efforts weren’t wanted, so I’m stepping away from it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
