Talk:Aquilegia chrysantha

Did you know nomination

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

)

Aquilegia chrysantha

... that Aquilegia chaplinei is generally considered a distinct species, except in Texas, where it is considered a variety of the species Aquilegia chrysantha (pictured)?

Source: Nold, Robert (2003). Columbines: Aquilegia, Paraquilegia, and Semiaquilegia. Portland, OR: Timber Press. ISBN 0881925888.

ALT1: ... that the Chapline columbine is generally considered a distinct species, except in Texas, where it is considered a variety of the golden columbine (pictured)?

Source: Nold, Robert (2003). Columbines: Aquilegia, Paraquilegia, and Semiaquilegia. Portland, OR: Timber Press. ISBN 0881925888.

Reviewed: 1.) Template:Did you know nominations/Yanou Collart, 2.) Template:Did you know nominations/Elin Falk, 3.) Template:Did you know nominations/2018 Batman by-election, 4.) Template:Did you know nominations/George K. Teulon

5x expanded by Pbritti (talk). Number of QPQs required: 4. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 54 past nominations.

Pbritti (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Reviewing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either hook is grammatical. I think separate needs to be followed by the word from.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TonyTheTiger: "Separate" replaced with "distinct", which is a more scientific and precise word. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am interpreting this change to mean a species without varieties.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, @TonyTheTiger: can you rephrase your comment? I think I misunderstand how you're reading that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is "distinct" a taxonomy term that means it is a species without varieties. Otherwise, in terms of regular grammar a from is still needed. I.e., unless it is a special scientific use of the word, something needs to be distinct or separate from something else unless it is implied by the usage/context to be separate/distinct from everything or a previous referent.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK check tool says Aquilegia chaplinei created from redirect on December 2. It is new enough and long enough. However, the tool says that Aquilegia chrysantha meets the 5x requirement based on November 8 at 8886 characters. Further investigation shows that the article was 1785 characters on December 1 and you need to achieve 8925 characters for 5x. Right now only 4.978x.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image is PD and in use in one of the articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The required 4 QPQs have been completed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio detector shows no issues for either article (both under 10%).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TonyTheTiger: The page-size tool that I'm using (WP:Prosesize) is giving me 8951 characters at present. How are you calculating this? The 8886 was my target 5x. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does your tool say the December 1 size was? The standard tool here is the DYK Check tool. You can install it. I forgot how, but ask at WT:DYK if you need to. Otherwise just add 40 characters.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - N.B. The DYK check tool is in the toolbox here on this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are well-sourced. They seem to have an encyclopedic and neutral tone.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - (edit conflict) @TonyTheTiger: Might have to download the DYK prose tool, thanks for advising me. I'm getting 1779 characters in 277 words on 1 December, but I think I've made the matter moot with an addition from a book I'd cited earlier this year on Aquilegia sibirica. Thats's getting us to 9166 characters on Prosesize, so that difference is presumably enough to nudge us over the line on DYK's tool. Regarding distinct, that means species A is indeed a species, rather than itself a variety or subspecies of species B. In this case, A. chaplinei is almost universally recognized as a distinct species, but some Texan botanical authorities disagree and claim it's only a variety of the species A. chrysantha. If you need anything else, please ping! Your patience has been dearly appreciated. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The revised version is 9100 by DYK Check and passes 5x based on a December 2 date, which is sufficient for this December 8 nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Regarding the hook, I don't know what it is saying on many levels because I am not really sure how regional taxonomy works. Does this mean

Examples of this plant found in Texas are classified differently than examples of it found elsewhere?
Texas law gives this plant different status for in terms of habitat protections, conservation and endangered species considerations than laws elsewhere?
Texas taxonomic societies have come to a unique determination regarding this plant wherever it is found?
Some important Texans disagree with non-Texans regarding classification in a manner that bears weight?
Something else?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Effectively 3 and 4. Texan authorities like the Lady Bird Johnson Center are authoritative and disagree with recognizing A. chaplinei as its own species. Nold 2003 says that the designation A. chrysantha var. chaplinei "has not found general acceptance, except, it seems, in Texas". ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the hook is fully cited, but i must partially WP:AGF. The hook is interesting enough.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]