User talk:Hesperian/Archive 38

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

APG in taxoboxes

Hey Hesperian, a couple questions for you, if you don't mind. I know you're making the rounds and updating certain taxoboxes with APG II clades. I was wondering if you had gotten to any of the asterids. How have you been dealing with this? I know you include "unranked_divisio = Angiosperms", but what would you put for unranked_classis? Since asterids are nested under eudicots and core eudicots, would we want to show that in the taxobox? I ask because I've been trying to figure out how to deal with that in a few articles, e.g. Tetrameristaceae. I settled on just showing asterids in the unranked_classis position, but I'm not wholly satisfied with that. Further, has there ever really been a discussion on the best possible way to display this classification? I assume everyone's on board with the changes, but "unranked" in the taxobox doesn't seem right. Might it be possible to add parameters to use in place of unranked_divisio et cetera such as "APG_clade1 = " ... "APG_clade5 = ", since the deepest clade nesting with APG II would be angiosperms > eudicots > core eudicots > asterids > euasterids I >... And then the taxobox display would say "clade" instead of unranked. Let me know if I missed some reason not to do this. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've done all of the euasterids I, and a few small groups of the euasterids II. Details are at User:Hesperian/Notes/Taxobox cleanup. For asterids I've been using

|regnum = Plantae
|unranked_divisio = Angiosperms
|unranked_classis = Eudicots
|unranked_ordo = Asterids

As far as I'm aware I have been making this up as I go along. I struggled through all these questions that you are asking me now, came to my own answers, and decided to do something, because anything is better than Magnoliopsida etc. Needless to say, I'm happy to participate in any discussion on this, and conform to whatever consensus we might come to... and fix whatever you guys agree I screwed up.

I agree that "clade" is better than "(unranked)". I am just working with what the taxobox has to offer, because when it came to adapting the taxobox, inspiration failed me. In response to your "APG_clade1" suggestions, the question immediately springs to mind: is the need to support clades broader than just angiosperms? The advantage of restricting ourselves to APG is we know all our clades fit between unranked_divisio and ordo. A more general approach would have to offer clades between each rank, and that would really suck.

Hesperian 04:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Heywood not use formal taxa above Order?--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative, Curtis. They ranked everything mostly according to APG II with some exceptions (I'm almost finished with Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Families - I'll probably get to the rest of it tonight).

Thanks for the reply and link to your subpage, Hesperian. I agree that something was better than nothing and really appreciate you taking all the time you have to fix the taxoboxes. You're right on the need to support more clades than just APG, so my suggestion for "APG_clade1" should, I suppose, just be "clade1" with 1 being at the rank of divisio/phylum. You are much more intimately familiar with the taxobox template coding than I am, so if inspiration failed you I suppose there's little hope for me! Offering clades between each rank seems like the best possible option to fill in missing pieces - is it really going to be terribly difficult beyond reason? And a related question to your asterid taxobox code above: When you use "unranked_ordo", does that place above the "ordo = " field? What if you wanted to include "euasterids I" underneath "asterids" and also display a ranked ordo? Or is that a bit like displaying subclassis on a species article and frowned upon as too much detail? Sorry for the barrage of questions! --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last question first: we're making this up as we go along, so we decide what is frowned upon. Yes, "unranked_XXXX" always appears above "XXXX". In the current taxobox implementation, if you want to include more unranked taxa, you can use "unranked_XXXX" where the XXXXs include minor rankings like "superordo". If the unranked parameters don't exist for any of these I am happy to add them.

The big problem with adding clades is that you can't just associate a clade with a rank, because you don't know how many clades are needed between each ranking. For APG, we need about 5 clades between divisio and ordo. But for some other system we might need 3 clades between divisio and phylum, or 5 clades between phylum and class. The only way to give people the control to specify both the number of clades they want and where they appear amongst the ranks, is to insert a set of clades between each ranking; e.g. clade1_ordo, clade2_ordo, clade3_ordo, etc. If you want N clades between each of M orders, you add N*M parameters. Hesperian 00:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, I see the problem there. Ideally, the template would anticipate future needs as you suggest with multiple clades between ranks. I just don't know how intuitive it is for new editors to use "unranked_divisio" or multiple clades at different ranks, especially if they know anything about APG II (unlikely) or construct a taxobox without copy/paste from other articles (also unlikely). I suppose that would be one strength of "APG_clade1" since we know how many clades there are and at what relative levels. There are drawbacks of each - which are we willing to live with and which has more validity? If there's no other solution in sight, would that benefit from a larger discussion? I'd be interested what other projects have to say - how many would see using the unranked clades in the future? --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bare minimum solution would be to add parameters like "clade_classis", meaning exactly the same as "unranked_classis" except that the rank column would say "clade" instead of "(unranked)". This would serve us just fine for now, but the general problem will have to be solved in future.

Hesperian 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

Bit disturbed by the cat about to tag and held back - Category:Garden plants of Australia - ugh just how does such a cat exist - gawd by what criteria? any ideas? Satu Suro 04:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I use it because it is there, but I'd just as soon it was gone. It's not as bad as Category:Fruits of the desert. :-( Hesperian 10:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes thats horrible. Is it a sign of impending doom or disaster perhaps? Tommorrows expected high temperature (thinks Cat:Desert Fruits, Cat:Heat of the Desert, its endless - is that 50 in the shade?) back to the pool I say and another beer :( Satu Suro 11:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You oughta live down here on the sand. A quick dip in the ocean first thing in the morning, and we're right as rain 'til the Freo Doctor comes in. ;-) Hesperian

"Just how does such a cat exist" - starting to sound almost metaphysical there!! Orderinchaos 12:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the edit history it was created by some guy named Schrödinger. Hesperian 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandflat existence - hmmm. Cat metaphysics is something I will probably try one day to create in the long neglected wiki humour pages - can just see it now 101 things to do with an untagged cat, disambiguating cats in the face of ambiguous titles, capitalisation and punctuation on(in?) cats - would leave feline enthusiasts in sheer terror i suspect Satu Suro 12:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If heisenberg had lived in the time of ikie edie cats (wikipedia cats) - I am sure he would have totally re thought the the whole notion of uncertainty in the physical dimensions of existence :( Satu Suro 12:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok are there a whole lot that shouldnt be tagged then? supertopic - any clue as to what one is when one is faced by one on a dark hot night ? or better to jump back in pool? Satu Suro 13:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Nah I'll stay away from em - it looks like a bot job anyways :( Satu Suro 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged and microchipped. Orderinchaos 02:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heheheh

edit summaries sure are revealing - I do hope you are either hotter, cooler, drier or wetter whichever way the complaint might be remedied :)
Now I realise I was the culprit at the swan coastal plain - direct your curses at me - I had uncovered the refs but hadnt tied them in the art Satu Suro 09:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll whip it into shape sooner or later, but right now I have plenty of (i.e. way too many) other things to do. I just thought I'd add the drainage stuff now because it is kinda cool. Hesperian 12:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of the late Frank Zappa I can relate to that (as in things to do) Satu Suro 12:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta - its a bloody long thing should have cropped it before i uploaded - it has a certain ethereal quality when moved across the screen - wish i was there and not here :) Satu Suro 13:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finished yet. Check this out.... Hesperian 13:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - if any bugger is as nosey to check my user page - they can damned well travel across the vista - thanks - cheers! Satu Suro 13:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hope the trailing tagging is of no offence - had done a batch of ocean cats the other week Satu Suro 13:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate. What is bothering me at the moment is the fact that Wildflower Society of Western Australia is a redlink. Goodnight. Hesperian 14:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member it is my bounden duty...nah tommorrow - too late - cheers till another day Satu Suro 14:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridged Hill shelf

Ohk File:Ellis brook gnangarra pan.jpg according to this map appears to be in the right area, also [1] may be of further interest given the subject. Do you have something that can help in ensuring I get the right rocks(areas) was actuallly wondering if SatuSuro statham quarry images are actually also part of the ridge since it appears to also be on the map. Anyway hoping for more guidance before jumping in a jalopy Gnan garra 10:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heaps of unloaded hills photos of thing that might or not be relevant - have jumped already - also http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/eastern-shrublands/index.html suggests midland cemetery and the 'caught in a corner of ever decreasing buffer land' at bushmead

Satu Suro 11:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the challenge to have what isnt avaiable else where is just too tempting a mile of wylunga's western boundary you say hmmmmm Gnan garra 13:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well looking using gmaps and satalite images I'v got a likely area so maybe I'll dust off the 4wd and go exploring in the bext couple of days see what I can dig up, either way it'll be interesting to have a look see in these areas anyway Gnan garra 13:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to say ...

Patagonian lighthouse, something between the rocks and a hard place.

I've heard it said, "If you've never been to Tierra del Fuego, you've never been between a rock and a hard place." Just a reminder that you do excellent work on Wikipedia about beautiful and interesting plants. Thanks.

--KP Botany (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC) PS I've never been, but I'd love to go.[reply]

Thanks mate. I think it is about time I re-dedicated myself to that work. I keep telling myself that those guys have already lost and I'm only enabling them by continuing to respond; but every time I encounter some fresh new stupidity, I forget myself and feed them some more. Hopefully your well-timed compliment will help me refocus and show a bit of discipline. Hesperian 11:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective Hesperian 11:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I needed that. I need to study. --KP Botany (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for user page revert

The report of my semi-retirement [[is an exaggeration. Graham87 05:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate; what a bizarre form of vandalism. Hesperian 06:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favour

Hi Snotty,

Would you please do me the favour of deleting the page User:Doobi18 and it's associated talk page entirely?

Happy A-Day

Cheers, X 121.209.235.20 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crappy stubs :)

Hi Hesperian - if you're making any more "crappy stubs", you could save yourself (and me!) a little work if you just add {{WesternAustralia-geo-stub}} rather than {{WesternAustralia-stub}} and {{Australia-geo-stub}} :) Grutness...wha? 20:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hahahahah - the kiwi stub policeman meets the tagless stub creator heheheh Satu Suro 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Grutness; I forgot about that one. Hesperian 03:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalized genera

Oops, the common names listed in Born2cycle's reliable sources all list "aloe vera," which isn't a scientific name at all, because it's not a proper binomial. There has got to be one, though, and I'm sure he or PBS will find it. Then we can write a rule that requires that specific name usage policy for one plant and exceptions to cover the other quarter of a million plants. --KP Botany (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deadwater

I note that you have moved Deadwater to (film). I have no objection to that, but you have lost the link to Deadwater, the village. Can I suggest you move Deadwater to Deadwater (geology), and then make Deadwater a {disambig} page. There are four usages that I know of: film, geology, + 2 villages. My interest is in Deadwater (Northumberland). Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I've sorted it out. I think the common name is the primary usage, so I've created a disambigation page at Deadwater (disambiguation) and added the Northumberland village there. Hesperian 09:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you have managed to make a mess of it all. You have moved the original article but left all the links - these are mostly film/horror articles now pointing to a geology article. Can I ask you to: move Deadwater to D (geology); then move D (film) back to Deadwater. I will then look at D (disambiguation) and fix all the hatnotes. p.s. the article itself is fine, I understand the process but it applies to any river not just estuaries. It is probably sufficiently covered at sandbar (redirects to shoal). Also I have never heard of that term used - did you mean Dead_water, similar to slack_water. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Make a mess if it all?! It's been known to happen. ;-)

I really think the film is an inappropriate primary usage. As a compromise I have moved the estuary material to deadwater and moved the disambiguation page to deadwater. And fixed the links. How does that grab ya? Hesperian 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with that, I just think that you created a lot of work for yourself. I tend to be lazy and leave things as they are. My view is that the village should have had priority over the film, and probably over the technical geology term. I am busy today but will add the other disambig terms tomorrow. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

Congrats on another one on the Main Page. --Step hen 23:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers but I didn't do much of that one. Hesperian 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need to get back to you

My understanding was that the historical Midland Railway private company went Midland to walkaway/greenough - the line between Geraldton Donara is a relative newbie i think - and i really do need to find a copy of Quinlan, Howard & Newland, John R. (2000) Australian Railway Routes 1854-2000 ISBN 0-909650-49-7 for myself for the wa ones - I think i brought a copy for myself in Jan last year - but i think its in the paper pit. give me a day or two - cheers Satu Suro 07:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for West Wallabi Island

On January 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article West Wallabi Island, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for East Wallabi Island

On January 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article East Wallabi Island, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia

Hey Hesperian, Banksia articles are great. Perfect gemstones, we are pretty much envy of them on pt-wiki. On the other hand, a great problem we have on pt-wiki is that many tranlators just translate all these English common names and adopt them as common names to use on pt-wiki. Of course there is no Banksias common names in Portuguese (maybe some obscure name on an island colony of Portugal?). This is another problem we often have to deal with here, translation of other languages vernacular names as if they were all very noted and mostly used anywhere. The standatisation of sci names on all wikis would be very good for readers that check multiple languages articles. I hope you there on en-wiki follow es-wiki and adopt sci names to articles, that's all. This discussions are on all wikis and they last for years! People who know plants are all in accordance so, at the end, sci names will prevail, it is just sad that the proccess has to be so painful. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dalton. Thanks for your comments here and on that other page. It is interesting to get a perspective from another Wikipedia. Hesperian 06:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NC(flora) primer

I just looked at your 'biased primer' and I noticed that you missed one point - the NC starts by saying to use common names "except where otherwise specified" (more or less). So I've got to disagree with your point #1. Guettarda (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good to see you around the place again.

It is a strange situation to be in. Our position seems to be: "we are using the most common name; and no we don't have to". It is easy to mount an argument from one clause or the other, but when you try to argue from both simultaneously, which ought to be the strongest position, the argument somehow seems less persuasive. Go figure. I've argued from the former clause, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with the latter.

Hesperian 07:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Island

Wow! great article! I just fixed with the little layout problem that happens on wide screens with boxes and pics.Amandajm (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm thinking of taking it to FAC some time soonish. Hesperian 11:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

Does anyone know why Shell House Cliffs is a redirect that doesn't redirect? Hesperian 12:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... that's strange Melburnian (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least now I know you're not sitting in the dark. I hope the heat and the power outages aren't affecting you too much. Hesperian 12:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to escape the blackouts, if not the heat. I've discovered that 45° fries a lot of plants. Melburnian (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some plants on the darling scarp that fried at less than that in the shade Satu Suro 13:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But in turn commisserations to any eastern seaboarder who might read this and who has suffered of recent - it sounds nightmarish - even west oz cannot go that bad Satu Suro 13:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW your Shell House is much more appealing than ours. [2] Melburnian (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We did get 46.2 in 1992 sometime, and I remember my first summer in Australia (84-85) wasn't terribly pleasant. I should go to the Battye sometime and retrieve the temperature records for that season, actually... Orderinchaos 04:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perth recorded 46.2 on 23 February 1991[3] Melburnian (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Category-Class Banksia articles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Category-Class Banksia articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Category-Class Banksia articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Category-Class Banksia articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very droll. Hesperian 03:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ain't that the ultimate in hostility?

Anyway, I think we should leave PBS and B2c alone. They seem to be capable of engaging each other 100%, and, at this point, all they are doing is disrupting plant editing. They need to stop. --KP Botany (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's funny because I'm a conscientious objector to pointless project tagging. I guess I probably created that category some time in the dark ages, before I saw the light. These days I wouldn't lift a finger to save it. Hesperian 04:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually categorize things, so this little category blew me. All I could think was, wtf is Hesparian doing?

I created one myself a while ago, category: Lagerstatten. solely for my article on Smoky Hill Chalk, so no one would even try an AfD until I got it up and running--not that I've had any articles AfDed or even nominated, but it seems useful to cat to forestall the mad tagging brigade. (It wasn't so difficult to make a credible stub on the topic, after all.) --KP Botany (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing unusual about it. WikiProjects have long had tracking categories for Stub-class articles, Start-class articles, B-Class articles, etcetera. Then they realised they needed extra tracking categories for lists and featured lists. Then it all got a bit out of hand and they started tracking their templates and categories too. The category you see above is at the standard title for WikiProject Banksia's tracking category for categories—I would have been following WikiProject Best Practice when I created it. But since then I have realised that its all a whacked out conspiracy to stop me from contributing to articles. ;-) Hesperian 04:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah Hesp - you should never take it that way - what a great hot day to see the truth being outed - mad tagging brigade and other things (I'll drink to that) - etc etc - yeehah! I can happily jump into the pool again for this discussion. If some misguided soul - wants to speedily delete a category they should go jump and find something better to do - but not into my swimming pool though Satu Suro 08:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll never forget the time I saw you tag the talk page of a category tracking category into that category tracking category. Good for Wikipedia, that was. :-D

Horrid isn't it. Feels like Brisbane. Apparently the next two days will be hotter and just as humid. Ugh.

Hesperian 10:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok at least we know what you like and dont like and that we both make mistakes - were human - thats a start

actually we in the hills got a big and heavy drench earlier this pm

a very good dropSatu Suro 13:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck to you. We just got the humidity. I note the next two days also promise humidity for us sandgropers, and an afternoon thunderstorm for youze hillbillies. Yer getting your own back for my Freo Doctor jibes last week. :-)

Any t'othersiders eavesdropping on this discussion must think we're a mob of whingers, given the weather they've had this week. Hesperian 13:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most educated speakers of English know better to think they can actually speak Aussie if they don't. --KP Botany (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the above was unintelligible to you, it was probably because of the lack of context rather than the thickness of my strine. Here's the context you were missing: Perth is mostly spread out on a coastal sandplain between the Indian Ocean and the Darling Scarp, but its eastern suburbs climb the scarp and extend onto the plateau. On most hot days, those of us who live on the sandplain reasonably near the ocean are relieved by a cooling afternoon sea breeze colloquially known as the Fremantle Doctor. Those like SatuSuro who live atop the scarp miss out—either they don't get the sea breeze, or they get it weak and late. On a previous very hot day, I had teased SatuSuro over this. The last few days have been unusually humid as well as hot—more like Brisbane weather than Perth weather. There is no relief on the sandplain, but the plateau is receiving evening thunderstorms; thus he is avenged. But we shouldn't complain; those who live on the other side of the country ("t'othersiders") have just sweltered through a once-in-a-century heatwave. Hesperian 04:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this I can understand, as, when I lived in the East Bay, I was a flat-lander. We got nice cool breezes and had gentle maritime whether, even when it got hot in the hills, although usually on the other side of the hills, sometimes it was also hotter on the cis-hills. I don't think I have any colloquial slang going for me that outsiders would not understand. Or at least none in English that I could use in polite company. I hear the othersiders are miserable. --KP Botany (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking?

hmmmm he he. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was so hot, and SatuSuro kept talking about jumping in his pool, so I thought maybe I could cool down if I created Pencell Pool. I was going to put it in Category:Pools, but that turned out to have been freshly voted for renaming to Category:Natural pools, but no-one had done anything about it, so I had to do it myself. I ended up with more pool time than I had bargained for. An interesting coincidence; I hope you didn't pee in it before I got in. Hesperian 13:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well if my cat has any sense about it as a guide we find a dark corner to lie down in and sleep for two days Satu Suro 13:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need one on Mettams Pool. :P Orderinchaos 14:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but not Mussel Pool, cause its a lake rather then a natural pool. Gnan garra 15:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mettams isn't natural either. I remember reading in the West Australian's "Northern Suburbs Supplement" from the early 60s that a fair amount of dynamite was involved. Orderinchaos 20:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia naming conventions for organisms - spammed by KP

Hi, Hesperian, just in case you want to continue wasting time debating policy instead of writing excellent articles about gorgeous plants:

I suggest that Wikipedia should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion should be discussed fully at Wikipedia naming conventions. --KP Botany (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor gave me a link to your similar proposal and included it on the page I linked above, so that it's discussion can be included. I will look over yours thoroughly. --KP Botany (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment

Do you want me to remove my comment or move it up? I will defer to your best judgment. Hardyplants (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; do what you want with it. I just wanted to let people know that I had already made a proposal along the lines of what you had said. Recent development (i.e. immediately below) are VERY exciting. I see a light at the end of the tunnel. Hesperian 04:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family friend

Had given a paper in Canada about 20 years ago that dated the stromolatites in sequence at North Pole (sic) out of Marble Bar that put life on earth back a few million - cannot remember if he actually published - he was quite bitter as others took the issue further and got more credos etc :( Satu Suro 11:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC) North Pole sequence has the stroms at a point in the sequence that basically said to the geols - we were here a few more millions earlier than others thought - have you any stuff on it? Satu Suro 11:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Heheheh - the provenance heheheh[reply]

Douglas, Kim.

Title Oldest forms of life on Earth found in WA rocks.

Published 1980.

Descript'n ill.

Summary Formerly PR10850.

Subject Geology -- Western Australia.

North Pole Gold Mine (W.A.)

Found In Australian women's weekly, 5 Nov. 1980, p.36-37

Satu Suro 11:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC) The next time we have a pizza (sic) i can give the low down on two of the names there in the biblio :) Satu Suro 12:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orchidaceae

Hesperian, what is the taxonomy you are following here for Orchidaceae species lists? Is it the Kew database? I ask because we are facing a week of vandalism on pt-wiki from an IP that insists in copying outdated species lists from Es-wiki and EN-wiki to our mostly updated lists in Pt-wiki. So I might update these lists when I get one wrong, on the other hand I do not want to spoil somebody's else work provided this person follow any other taxonomy. Pt-wiki follows Kew for most of the lists, but the ones of Pleurothallidinae, which are based on Luer Icones Pleurothallidinarum, Maxillarinae and Oncidinae are based on Florida University publ. and Dendrobiinae and Cladeniinae on Clements and Jones works. Well, other thing is I have no clue what the English most common name is of any species of orchids as orchid collectors do not use them, popular American Orchid magazines don't use them, American Orchid Society does not use them, nor does any of my American taxonomist friends, so if I add anything, this names will be missing. More and more I see the popular names are been abandoned. Orchid AOS judges travel all over the world, American magazines (and I suppose other English speaking countries magazines too) are sold anywhere and nobody else use these local names. I just asked do a number of my American judge friends, no one has ever heard of Green-winged Orchid (all laughed), it is a pretty common plant. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I don't know much about Orchidaceae. You are probably asking me because you noticed my name in the edit history of many articles. I did a lot of categorisation and taxobox cleanup there a little while ago. I followed APweb, but I am not knowledgeable enough to advise you to do the same. (And APweb doesn't list species anyway.)Hesperian 04:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most informed edit I've seen in ages

[4] --KP Botany (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amborella

Thanks. I hated to leave it as was, as it is probably more visited than other plants without common names that are not noteworthy. --KP Botany (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably check over what I did, as I didn't take much care: my edit to Amborellaceae took about 30 seconds. Hesperian 03:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I was thinking you did, I don't have to look it over. Will put it on my to do list. --KP Botany (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; my main focus is fixing up the taxoboxen and taxonomy categories. Working on Apiales at the moment. Hesperian 05:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about template

Hi; as creator of the template I thought maybe you could answer my inquiry: Template_talk:Category_ambiguous. I'm not a template whiz—I thought adding another set of parameters would do the trick, but it didn't work for me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. You weren't closing your #if templates. Hesperian 04:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I got my ]]s and my }}s crossed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.