Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:16, 14 October 2006

Welcome!

Hello, KP Botany, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Rkitko 00:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants

Greetings! Just letting you know that I moved your comments from the main project page to the talk page so that discussion could occur on what you said. We've discussed these points many times before but haven't gotten very far. I encourage you to keep pushing us to act this time. And welcome to Misplaced Pages! --Rkitko 00:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rkitko. I have been looking at these pages that you posted, but do thank you for just posting them here. Sometimes it can be difficult to locate things on Misplaced Pages. My biggest problem tends to be finding the little technical details about how to do things. KP Botany 18:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I have your talk page on my watchlist, so if you have any specific questions about how to do something, just post here or on my talk page and I'll be happy to help out or direct you to the right place. Glad you're here! --Rkitko 05:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you asked for it. How does one do a revert? One who is not deep into Misplaced Pages code words? Then how does one report vandalism? Flagrant vandalism should simply be blocked right off. Is that the policy? PS! I'll only whine about common names for a bit more, then I'll just do what I came to do. Thanks. KP Botany 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A Welcome from me as well! To do a revert (Taken from Help:Reverting):

To revert a page to an earlier version:

• Go to the page you wish to revert, click on the History tab at the top of the page, then click on the time and date of the earlier version you want to revert to. It will not work if you click on 'cur', 'last', or "Compare selected versions".
• When the page displays, text similar to this: (Revision as of 23:19 Jul 15, 2003), will display. It appears below the page's title, in place of the From {project name}, usually seen.
• Verify that you've selected the correct version, then click edit this page tab on the top of the page.
• You'll get a warning, above the edit box, about editing an out-of-date revision.
• Ignore the warning and save the page. Be sure to add the word "revert" (or "rv") to the edit summary, along with a short explanation if it is not obvious.

Vandalism is usually just reverted, since most vandals only vandalize once or twice. However, there is a list of warnings on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism which can be posted on the vandal's user page. This starts a process which, if the vandal persists, can result in blocking. Hope that helps! --NoahElhardt 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the time and date tag! I didn't revert anything, but was able to follow your instructions better than the Wiki help page (which got me no where good). Thanks. KP Botany 22:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Apomorphy

I'm a bit confused about Redirects. "Apomorphy" redirects to "Cladistics," and, although apomorphy is eventually described, as cladistics is, it is not clear at all why it is redirected. I thought redirects were for synonyms? misspellings? sub-topics? Why exactly would this redirect be there? It seems a bit like redirecting "Hammer" to "Carpenter." It makes no sense to me. Should I post tis on the Cladistics page? Or is there something about Misplaced Pages Style Redirects that I am missing? KP Botany 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, nobody has defined apomorphy in enough depth to merit giving it its own page. Since it is a term related to Cladistics, someone just defined it on the cladistics page, and redirected to there. I you would like to expand the definition of apomorphy into its own article, feel free to split it and remove the redirect. You may still want to leave the basic definition on the cladistics page (which is a featured article by the way) but link it to the new page. --NoahElhardt 01:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. Apomorphy is a useful but rather technical term, would it be appropriate to have a Misplaced Pages page on something so technical? I suspect that it will be used more in the future than it is now, but I don't know the Misplaced Pages audience very well. I know APG II botanists seem fond of the word, and I suspect their research will prove robust in the long run in certain areas--this is, imo, why they seem to be having so many difficulties with family placements: more to do with botany or real difficulties in the evolutionary history of angiosperms and the complexity of evolution in the plant kingdom than with lack of agreement among scientists. Any feel for the usefulness of a page on apomorphy with examples versus just a Wiktionary entry? I saw the featured article note on the Cladistics page. I'll have to read the article, its opening is a bit awkward, but I think content can be foremost, and style can be picked and perfected. Thanks for the feedback, I will think about the article, the Cladistics one and adding one on Apomorphy when I've spent some time on my pet to-do list. KP Botany 03:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. As you have probably noticed, the life sciences (especially non-animalian pages) are severely underdeveloped here at Misplaced Pages. The audience, however, is probably similar (or larger) to that of other subject matters. Life sciences are probably researched as much or more than other subjects in schools, and it would be good to meet that need for accessible and accurate information. No subject is too technical for Misplaced Pages, granted it is explained in language a lay-person could understand, and assuming the subject area it rests on already has a decent foundation of articles. To be honest, I wasn't familiar with the term "apomorphy" until I was working on a cladogram for the Drosera article and came across the word while reading the cladistics page to further my understanding of the subject. :) I'm glad it currently is defined, but would be delighted to be able to further deepen my understanding of the subject. To paraphrase an old Misplaced Pages rule: If you have the time and energy to write up some particularly obscure subject that most people have never even heard of, go for it! ;) --NoahElhardt 05:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Flower

(copied from User_talk:NoahElhardt "There is some good material in this article that can be re-used, but a lot of stuff needs clearing out and a lot of material is badly missing. This is probably one of the most imporant articles in biology, and should be quality. Is anyone with me on this? --NoahElhardt 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)"

I'm interested.

Yes, there is a lot of missing material, a lot of material that does not stand without other information, and some incorrect or possibly just misleading information--the article appears to say that pollination is fertilization, for example, and the evolution section implies a serious loss of ancestry.

I agree that it is one of the most important articles in biology, science even. What are your plans, in particular? Have you an outline of to-do's or anything?

I love your picture of a Sarracenia flower as a diagram, well laid out, clear, large enough to actually see parts, and I love the umbrella stigmas of pitcher plant flower, in general, however, is it necessarily the best picture for such a diagram in a general article on the Flower? Wouldn't a less derived flower, for instance, be more appropriate in such a general botany article? I have down-loaded and used the diagram a couple of times, though, because of its clarity and visual appeal. Still.... KP Botany 04:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay! I'm glad I won't have to do this alone... I was putting it off because its kind of a momentous task, but it really really needs to be done.

I completely agree on the flower diagram. I created that image specifically for the Sarracenia article because Sarracenia are so atypical that a diagram was necessary. Someone else then stuck the picture on the flower page. However, using a more typical/less derived flower there would be much more appropriate and less confusing imo. I can try to put together such an image this week.

As far as article structure goes, I had nothing outlined yet, just general ideas. Really, we need to start from scratch, although of course we can recycle some of the better material. I'll throw something preliminary together and post it on Talk:Flower to get us started, and we'll work from there. NoahElhardt 05:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm studying basal angiosperms and the genetics of flower evolution right now, so this exercise would really help me to study--there's nothing that shows quite so well what you don't know as trying to explain it clearly to someone else. Also, hopefully, your posting on the Talk:Flower page will get people asking questions that you or I won't think of--I often fail to see my own lack of understanding in really basic areas because I obsess with the details of the parts, rather than the whole picture. This can be a real killer when the whole, the flower, is really my goal.

For structure there is a location on Misplaced Pages that outlines the general structure behind a good science article. I can't find it again. Maybe that would be a good place to start? I agree, in general, with your idea to start from scratch, but use anything existing that already works. I appreciate your willingness to do the preliminary, also, to get started. The life sciences on Misplaced Pages do need a lot of work.

Probably the Sarracenia picture was kidnapped because it is clearer and better than most I've seen, and better than the diagrams off the web. Elsewhere on Widipedia there's a labeled picture supposing to show something similar that is not high enough resolution to see anything but a small blur where the ovary attests (sorry!) to being. It would be very useful, imo, to K-12 educators if you developed something better than the standard pink posy-tulip cartoon most use now, and made the image searchable for download from the Misplaced Pages article on Flower. Thanks, KP Botany 20:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice

Nice meeting you: . --Bhadani 15:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Systematics

I wrote up the Systematics article. Interested folk should go check it out and make corrections as needed. I'm still new to and unfamiliar with most style techniques. Please also post useful guidelines to corrections in here. I didn't remove the stub tag because I think it needs a bit more. Like a cladogram, lists of systematists, and a bit about its history. I also wrote the kitchen police duty article, and it needs redirects from kp duty and kitchen police, but I don't know how to do them, either. Thanks. KP Botany 02:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Using Wikimedia Images

How do I use a Wikimedia Image on a page I have created? I have seen lots of articles that have images that are from Wikimedia, so I thought I should upload the image there--where it's also easy to find out how to do it. Then when I get back here I cannot find ANYTHING that tells me how to use an image from Wikimedia, just a zillion things about uploading to Misplaced Pages, and a tag to put on my page after I upload to Misplaced Pages. So, what, Wikimedia is the enemy and now that I uploaded there I've doomed my future here? Wikimedia is pointless and I shouldn't have bothered? All those other people who did it that way are old-timers? Help!

You can use image from Wikimedia commons exactly as if you had uploaded them to Misplaced Pages, the software finds its way. Just ] will do the trick. Equendil Talk 00:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that "Wikimedia" normally refers to the entire project (Misplaced Pages, Wikibooks, Wiktionary etc), "Commons" is the wikimedia project where you uploaded your pictures (Well, I hope :) ).

Well, I tried that and it didn't work, the preview just shows me a page that says File:Blahblahblah.jp. I tried it with the jpg name from wiki commons, with the name in the properties, using the html tag, without the html tag, every variation of what it seems you are trying to tell me and nope, I don't get a picture on the page. Or, do I have to just try it without previewing it? Sometimes the technical level at Misplaced Pages can be way beyond the average person who isn't connected at birth to their computer. KP Botany 01:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Previews show the pictures exactly the same as when the pages are saved. Can you give me the full address of one image on Commons that you uploaded ? Equendil Talk 01:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:DOD_Mess_Duty_Aircraft_Carrier.jpg and

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:DOD_Mess_Duty_Field.jpg

And, while we're at it, I want to put them on the page a specific size and with captions, so it's a nice little article about kp duty. Although I was willing to settle with first just uploading one of the suckers. But, no the previews don't show the pictures, just the text. Is there some thing you're forgetting to tell my, like plug in the computer first? Thanks. KP Botany 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it's working fine, so either you got the image name wrong, or you're trying to add the picture in a template that automatically adds ] or ] in which case you might want to point me to the article where you tried to add the picture. Equendil Talk 01:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and plug the computer first :D Equendil Talk 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Code used here : ] Equendil Talk 01:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, frankly, your code looks exactly like the code I used, except I didn't use the thumb and caption, because I don't want those. I just want a big picture, actually two, but I'll settle for one tonight on the article on KP duty. While you're here, how do I make a redirect so kp duty lower case, kitchen police, and kitchen police duty all go to KP duty, instead of kp duty being a nonexistant article. KP Botany 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I need to quit. I'm at headbanging frustration stage. Thanks for the help, though.

Alright, I'll answer that last question : To make redirects you merely need to create the pages with alternative spelling and add '''#REDIRECT ]'''. As for the picture, try to add them and save the page when you're back, if it doesn't work, reach me on my user page, I'll find out why it doesn't. Equendil Talk 02:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad your picture links worked today, cheers. Equendil Talk 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi KP! I've moved your picture addition to the KP duty article (nice work!). In general, its best to work pictures in with the text rather than having them tacked onto the end of the article. This way, they can be connected easily to the text by the reader while not breaking up the flow of the article. I also integrated the caption and resized it slightly so that it would fit better. Hope you don't mind! --NoahElhardt 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:216.73.64.6

Thanks for letting me know about User:216.73.64.6. I've blocked this account for 1 week. In general we do not indefinitely block IP addresses, since they can be reassigned to a new user at any time. However extended blocks for continued vandalism can be appropriate. I will continue to monitor that IP's contributions. Thanks, Gwernol 09:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Little boxes that say things

On other people's user pages I sometimes see little boxes that say things about their areas of interest. How do I use these and where do I find out what is available? And how do I alter them? The language ones are often genderfied. KP Botany 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Babel for language boxes and Misplaced Pages:Userboxes for others. Hope that helps! --NoahElhardt 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

To change an article's page title, the article must be moved to the new article title. In other words, the article which now resides at California Walnut must be moved to Juglans californica. This process is easier than it sounds: at the top of each article, there is a "Move" tab which is straightforward to use. Moving the article this way will also move the entire page history and talk page. Just remember to turn California Walnut into a redirect when you are done. --NoahElhardt 02:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Toxicodendron

Hi KP - it was an old ref (one I added before wiki was asking for reference citation, or I'd have said where!), so may well be superseeded. Unfortunately I've mislaid where I got it from and couldn't find it again just now. If it doesn't match modern research, please do delete it. An awful lot of books do still keep it merged in Rhus though (particularly the Asian species like R./T. verniciflua), so I think the Toxicodendron species should also be linked from the Rhus page as a lot of people might look for them there. - MPF 00:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I presume this is the abstract you're referring to (tho' it isn't by Quinn). Given that they only accept 35 species in Rhus s.str., I'd suspect that many of the species listed in the wiki Rhus species list have been split out among the various other genera they list. Annoyingly it's one of those journals where you have to hand over a month's income to get the paper, so I'll not be reading it.

The Quinn paper I presume is Wannan, B. S. & Quinn, C. J. (1990). Pericarp structure and generic affinities in the Anacardiaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 102: 225–252. I can't find the abstract, but from other citations (e.g. here), they accept Rhus s.l. with 200-250 species, including Rhus toxicodendron. I can't say for sure until I find the ref I had before, but I'd not be surprised if it derives from this. - MPF 09:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, maybe it's not the Quinn paper, rather the first one, plus a later one by Yi, Miller and Wen using ITS and cpDNA, confirming the monophyly of Rhus with Lobadium nested within it. I'm willing to go with just the abstract on this, because the paper is not primarly about Toxicodendron, the species of concern to us in this. Be sure to just ask doctor miller for a reprint, though, if you really want to read it. I wonder about some of these journals. I often pay $3 for inexepensive reprints, but I would never pay $30 for a reprint. I have to assume that thousands of folks would fork over $3 that would not fork over $30. It's absurd restricting access to science to the rich, particularly a science as currently dynamic as botany. The scientists are saying, "We want to change your world, but you're not welcome along for the ride unless you're funded in academia or wealthy enough for a driver." BS if there ever was any and not fertile stuff for growing crops, either. My suggestion is that the article stand as is for now. KP Botany 16:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd think it is fairly safe to remove the statement "As genetic studies show that Rhus without Toxicodendron is paraphyletic, this is the better treatment to follow botanically", maybe change it to something more general like "Some botanists include Toxicodendron in a wider circumscription of Rhus. Agree on the ridiculous charges for access to literature! It is even worse here, as to get a USD3 reprint, I have to add on GBP40 (~USD70) in bank currency transaction charges. Criminal money-grabbing banks.

But doesn't it make your money feel loved? KP Botany 00:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Annamocarya

Hi KP - have you got a reference for this being merged with something else? It is accepted by the Flora of China - MPF 00:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I too would tend to trust the Chinese botanists on this one, after all, they've got hands-on field experience of the species. The WP:NOR isn't a problem for accepting it; we have the Flora of China as a cited reference, and that satisfies the wiki verifiability criteria. It might though be a good idea to mention its disputed status a bit more. - MPF 09:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion here about it being a good idea to mention its disputed status a bit more in regards to the Chinese question only, without reading the evidence of the Chinese botanists and comparing it to morphological studies done by outside scientists, namely because I suspect it of being based purely on morphological evidence from the late 50s, without current DNA evidence to confirm the hypothesis, and the morphological research done at a time when there were serious regional politics behind it. The KEW and the IPNI evidence has been more recently updated than the Flora of China in regards to genera, and may have some genetic evidence supporting the choice of genera. I would prefer it stay as is, until someone can come up with a credible source for confirming the genera in the family. If it were a family less in flux, I would say go for it, but I don't think with something as ambiguous as this, muddying the waters with obscure and quite possibly (P > 1/2 at least) out-of-date theories is appropriate at an encyclopediac level. I think another source on intrafamilial relationships is probably available--I will certainly look at Simpson and Soltis and Soltis et. al on the family. A secondary source on the question of the number of genera would be appropriate, IMO. Please respond. KP Botany 16:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Know what you mean about regional politics influencing taxonomy, it isn't just the 1950s Chinese responsible for it. I'd say it is more likely the 1970s than the 1950s, though, as that's when the first edition of Fl. Reip. Pop. Sin. came out. I don't have any real objection to merging it back into Carya if most other refs keep it merged, though it'll need quite a bit more editing than just removing the Annamocarya link from the Juglandaceae page (the Carya page will need editing too, and the Annamocarya page moving to Carya sinensis). The other option is to wait until someone comes up with some DNA evidence that gives results either way; I'd be surprised if the Kew and IPNI merging is based on genetic evidence rather than just more conservative morphological studies. - MPF 23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they probably should be edited, too, for now, to be consistent. No, the 1970s botanical treatments are based on Chinese research that arose due to political situations in China that influenced the botanical sciences from the time of Metasequoia excitement in the 40s, but started to be felt more largely in the 1950s. The 1970s botanical treatments are not necessarily original research, but are highly biased towards research by Chinese scientists--generally the proper bias for something of that nature. Yeah, I supect the Armenian and the other living serious plant taxonomists who largely base their phylogenies on their own personal morphological studies of plants will turn out to have a lot to contribute to the molecular DNA phylogenies, even thought they seem to be being ignored. KP Botany 00:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Measures

Hi KP - the problem with putting conversions in brackets is it makes it very difficult to read either measure, as the constant interruptions of the one by the other makes the text much more difficult to follow. Particularly so when there's a whole series of measurements close together as there were there. I've never liked books that try to give both like that. It would be nice if some sort of system like the refs cits could be developed, so it could run in parallel with it on pages with inline refs. Maybe metres <conv>feet</conv> .... <conversions />, with the conversions all on one line rather than one per line as with the refs. - MPF 23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Then just use metric, as that is what is used in most English-speaking countries. Still, there's no reason for people to discuss the necessity of educating Americans while trying to decide what units to use--Americans are not collectively idiots. KP Botany 00:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi KP - I've only had a chance to briefly look over the Angiosperm article. One thing that struck me right away is that the second section begins with a list. In general, it is best to avoid lists if the information could be converted to prose instead. When lists are necessary (and in this case, one may be), at least introduce them with some prose. The last sentence of the current intro might suffice, although I would go farther and explain what a "derived characteristic" is.

Numbered inline citations (footnotes) are easy to implement. After the punctuation mark ending the phrase or section in question, insert

<ref>Reference info or footnote</ref>

In the Notes or References section at the end of the article, add the line:

<references />

So the following:

Coevolution is indicated by anthocyanin-free bract growth.<ref>Botany, KP; ''Evolution of Sexual Dimorphism in Angiosperms''; Budapest, 2008: pg. 23</ref>
 ==Notes==
 <references />

Will yield:

Coevolution is indicated by anthocyanin-free bract growth.

Notes

1. ^ Botany, KP; Evolution of Sexual Dimorphism in Angiosperms; Budapest, 2008: pg. 23

Hope that helps! --NoahElhardt 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your comment on my talk page

Hi, with respect to your comment on my talk page, the IP in question is a shared IP address for some agency in Pennysylvania. Which means many users use that IP. The vandalism in September may have been done by someone else. So assuming good faith, I would suggest you warn the IP address using the standard templates atleast 4 times. If he persists with the vandalism (in a short span of time), then he can be blocked by an admin if reported at admin noticeboard. I hope I am making sense. If not, feel free to ask me to explain further -- Lost 20:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Chloranthaceae

You have changed the Chloranthaceae article to state that the APG II system places this family in order Chloranthales; this is incorrect. In fact the APG II system explicitly declines to place this family in an order (only noting that the name Chloranthales is available at that rank, should it be needed). The situation is the same with Amborellaceae/Amborellales and Nymphaeaceae/Nymphaeales. There is a link to the original article at APG II.MrDarwin 20:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Angiosperm Phylogeny website is not published by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, although it closely follows the APG classification. The APG II classification is outlined in a specific published paper, which has not yet been updated in print. There is a link in the APG II article. MrDarwin 21:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the "APG II system" refers to a specific classification, outlined by a specific group of authors in a specific publication, published on a specific date. Angiosperm classification is "stopped" only in the sense that reference to the APG II system refers to this one publication and the classification summarized within it. All classifications are opinions; classifications (in a more abstract sense) vary from author to author, and over time. Particularly with plant classification in such rapid flux (and the APG II system is already out of date, one reason why I have opposed its being officially adopted as the classification scheme for Misplaced Pages) it is important to always cite a particular reference when using a particular classification or circumscription.

Web publications can be very useful, but they are also slippery when used as references as there is often no set date of publication and no one final version. MrDarwin 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to state this any more clearly. "APG" stands for "Angiosperm Phylogeny Group", shorthand for a group of botanists whose number was too great to list as a ridiculously long list of co-authors. "APG I" and "APG II" are shorthand for two distinct and different classification systems that that group has published in two specific papers. "APG I" and "APG II" can only refer to those two classifications, respectively; both are tied to the specific papers in which they were published, and to the specific dates in which they were published. There is no "APG II" after 2003, and there is no "APG II" system that includes the orders Chloranthales, Nymphaeales, or Amborellales. MrDarwin 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I see where the confusion arises; the Angiosperm Phylogeny website is not a "APG companion website" as the article earlier stated. I've reverted the article and also removed this erroneous information, with a note on the talk page explaining my edits. MrDarwin 02:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'll just edit them to site my textbook, a verifiable tertiary source, as a reference for all the orders, and someone else can put in the APG II system, if they're so enamored of it. But don't REVERT them, please, because it takes a long time to debryde them.

However, I would like to point out that even APG I is more robust and less dynamic than APG II, so it's beyond me why Misplaced Pages use a system as primary that was never designed to be anything more than a single report in an ongoing work--the authors themselves are not welded to the report Misplaced Pages has set sale upon, they're using the newer orders as listed on MOBOT's AP Website, as are other authors working in plant systematics. Takhtajan is also more robust than APG II, and Wikipedians have "Reveal system" listed with a question mark, apparently it's not known who Professor Reveal is and what his 'system' is. Watson and Dallwitz only refer to APG I, and Watson and Dallwitz are used extensively on Misplaced Pages as a reference.

Please don't be so condescending and jump all over me about something--it's rampant on Misplaced Pages and meaningless. The botany pages here are an absolute worthless mess of useless, out of date, improper, and just plain wrong information. Jumping on everyone who tries to do anything to correct them, especially in good faith, and within the constraints already set by the botany community on Misplaced Pages is not particularly helpful. This useless, wrong and out-of-date information on Misplaced Pages is then copied and spread all over the Internet like a virus. Making botanical information current is the least of things people should be attacked for on Misplaced Pages. Our conversation, for example, would not be happening had the Brya issue been dealt with long ago. KP Botany 02:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be condescending and I'm sorry if I came across that way. I was simply trying to alert you to an error--you are quite correct that there are already many errors in Misplaced Pages, and I don't like to see new ones being introduced. The only article I reverted was the one on APG II, as I could easily verify the errors and it was simple to correct without losing information (and also because it included a rather egregious error that had been introduced much earlier, one of those bits of wrong information that you rightly complain about). I will leave the others to you, to handle as you see fit. Regarding your other comments, for the most part I agree with you. You will not find me defending APG II; other editors have tried to make it the "official" Misplaced Pages classification, which I think is a huge mistake (first, because it is a POV; second, because many specialists disagree with one or another details of it; and third, because it is already out-of-date). MrDarwin 03:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"APG III"

I quite agree that speculative references to a non-existent "APG III" should be removed and I'm glad to see you doing it. Like many editors, my time is limited and there are just thousands of articles that need work--unfortunately this means that many articles bear a heavy stamp by a relatively small number of editors who do apparently have unlimited time. I'm quite happy to see you attending to some of them.

BTW I share your frustration and discouragement but Misplaced Pages is an ever-changing (and still relatively new) community of people with varying levels of skill and expertise, and with varying degrees of command of the English language, who have very different ideas about how articles should be written, and what information they should contain (leaving aside entirely the rampant vandalism of articles). Just when it seems there is consensus on something, somebody else will ignore it entirely. You've heard the expression "herding cats"? MrDarwin 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Plant articles

I haven't had any other responses to my organization suggestion - of the few people interested in plants, most tend to work on lower-level taxa of interest to them, leaving almost nobody to take on families. I imagine most families have at least one monograph whose overview section would be good WP fodder, perhaps a good first step is simply to mention them in family articles. I have Anderson's cactus book for instance, it's been very helpful. Stan 19:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Botany

Ah, I see you have engaged on a campaign of:

• Jumping on everyone who tries to enter correct information on botany, especially in good faith, and within the constraints set by Misplaced Pages
• Adding useless, wrong and out-of-date information on Misplaced Pages which is then copied and spread all over the Internet like a virus.
• Attacking people for providing current botanical information.

Pity. We had enough people already who wrote propaganda, published original research taxonomies and standardised things out of recognition. Why is it that nobody want to fill in redlinks, starting new pages and showing the extent of their knowledge and writing abilities, but everybody tries to put in misinformation into existing pages? Brya 16:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)