Talk:Utricularia

Carnivorous plants: Plants High‑importance

	Utricularia is within the scope of WikiProject Carnivorous plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to carnivorous plants. For more information, visit the project page.Carnivorous plantsWikipedia:WikiProject Carnivorous plantsTemplate:WikiProject Carnivorous plantscarnivorous plant
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Plants (assessed as Low-importance).

Utricularia received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Reserved for editing

Hi everyone. I hope no one minds me reserving this article for 3 days to give me time to make a major expansion. I've started with the existing article but I can't complete enough of the new material in a single sitting for it to be presentable on the main article page; and I don't want to overwrite anyone else's edits when I transfer the new version.

The dummy version I've begun work on is here

Thanks all ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 21:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the claim of 10 mm bladders is Slack, A. (1986). Insect eating plants and how to grow them. Alpha Books. Sherborne, UK. p 126. It's probably better to just say that the bladders can 'exceed 5 mm', as 10 mm might be a bit of an exaggeration (not mine, I think that was there before I edited the page!).

polypompholyx 09:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers I have done!! ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 02:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another 3 days to my reserve marker. My draft article is still available at the above link (by way of evidence that I am doing something with it !!! :-) ). I'll be away for a couple of days so I'm sorry I didn't get it finished tonight. In the meantime, I'll happily negotiate if anyone does want to edit. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 02:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new article is fantastic! Thanks for all your hard work.

polypompholyx 08:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

At the begening of the entry there is a statement made about the size of bladders being in excess of 5mm. The way this is worded it sounds like 5mm is the maximum. Yet later in the entry there is talk of a species that has bladders up to 10mm. I would correct this but I am currently coming up on dxm and I do not believe of have the writting skill to correct it to begin with.

Long list

You asked about what to do with the long list: making a separate long-list page is one idea, though maybe another is to use a two- or three-column table, which would significantly condense the whole section... not something that has a lot of visible formatting, just something like: "Post-punk bands (2000s era)" or the band list for post-hardcore. That way you wouldn't have to split up the article, and it would probably still be very presentable. I made a quick example list for Ultricularia: User:Tarnas/listexample... though again this may not be what you're looking for, just a suggestion. —Tarnas 23:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I love the look of your new list! But I am concerned that tables are deprecated as methods of presenting lists because they make formatting harder for future editors (as well as the prob you pointed out with non-standard browsers). That said, you've have done better with the idea than I thought would be possible, and with little formatting. I've already made a separate page List of Utricularia species after the consensus om Helpdesk went that way. I'll keep your example tagged tho as I see it's a reasonable way to keep all the info in the one article. Thanks for the help! :-) ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 02:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm glad you like the idea. :) In this case though your List of Utricularia species is probably best, it's much easier to retain the images that way. —Tarnas 02:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing issues

At the moment this article has 2 different types of inline citations, a large number of footnotes and 3 following the more conventional method - it would be good to have all of them in the same format. Thoughts? I'm happy to make the changes once a solution is agreed upon. Cheers, Kotare 21:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, footnotes were rarely used in the early days of Wikipedia, so many older articles simply list references. However, that reference information is still useful and will of course need to stay. The footnotes should all be converted over to the newer footnote style using the <ref name=Author1982>FullReference</ref> tags. Thanks for offering to do that! --NoahElhardt 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution map

The exclusion of West Africa is not justified. See e.g. records in local floras Lisowski, 2009, Flore de la Republique de Guinee, Akoegninou et al., 2006, Flore Analytique du Bénin, Lebrun et al., 1991, Catalogue des plantes vasculaires du Burkina Faso, or in GBIF http://data.gbif.org/species/3172398/ Parts of North America should also be added to the genus'distribution. --Marco Schmidt (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The distribution map still isn’t up to date. Utricularia extends much further west in the US than it does on the map — they exist in all of the lower 48 states, I believe. I know they extend much more into TX than is shown on the map, for instance, Travis County, TX has one species, yet is excluded from the map. I’ve personally observed them further west in TX than that, too. While it’s not perfect, the USDA has records from every state for the genus. 23.112.36.21 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]