Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:38, 26 April 2006

Dear Noah,

thank you, thank you, thank you for the marvellous pictures of Darlingtonias and their habitats you uploaded to the commons. While I wrote the article for the de-Misplaced Pages I always regretted, that all available pictures were of a medium quality (in the best case) and almost none showed a natural stand. The recent addition of a few pictures from the Darlingtonia Botanical Wayside helped a bit, but your pictures made my day, really.

Furthermore I saw that you intend to translate the Pinguicula-article of the de to the en. I feel honored. Whenever you need some help in the translation, just ask, I'd be glad to help.

Best regards, Denisoliver

Dear Denisoliver - You are very welcome! I'm glad you were able to use some of the photos. I will try to implement some of them into the english version soon as well. Let me know if there are any other carnivorous plant photos you could use for other Misplaced Pages pages, and I will see what I can find.

Thank you for your offer to help with the translation effort for the Pinguicula page! I started translating today, and will continue as time permits. I left one translation question in the text already (italicized in parentheses, under Roots) and will leave more as they come up. If you do see any mistranslations please feel free to correct them or let me know (note that there is some new material within the translated sections that is not in the German version). Thank you for the source material and your help in translating it! NoahElhardt 07:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you've done on the Pinguicula page. It's much appreciated. polypompholyx 18:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Noah, sorry for responding so late, but I have been rather busy in and out of WP currently. At first let me tell you, that I am rather impressed by your translation, it is not only perfectly translated (I haven't found any errors), but furthermore you have added some very valuable material, which I have already integrated in the German article. Just two points I'd like to discuss:

• You wrote: "Although these groupings are not cladistically supported by genetic studies, these groupings are nonetheless convenient for horticultural purposes."

Nobody ever meant this grouping to be used for evolutionary or taxonomic purposes. It only reflects the spectre of adaptability means this genus offers (I hope this is understandable?) and its types of growthhabit. If I would say "The colors of lily-flowers are either whitish or reddish.", this does not mean, that all whitish lilies are related. It is just a descriptive fact, which is not only interesting for horticulture.

• In Uses you wrote: "Butterworts also produce a strong bactericide which prevents insects from rotting while they are being digested. This property has long been known by northern Europeans, who applied butterwort leaves to the sores of cattle to promote healing. Additionally, butterwort leaves were used to curdle goat's milk and form a yogurt-like cheese."

Though this is often cited, all this reports base on Linné only. I have always been sceptical concerning this, as it never has been proven or checked. Due to this I decided, not to integrate this in the de-version. Your view on this may differ, I just wanted to point this out.

Furthermore, there has recently somebody been quite active in the en-WP concerning Carnivorous Plants, named Veledan. He made some very useful additions and an excellent start in the Bladderworts. Though the German article concerning them is not perfect, it might be useful to integrate them (I have already planned to do this in the de-WP soon) and maybe you consider to contact him, he stopped, as he felt disappointed by parts of the CP-community in his plans to do good articles about this here. If you would like to translate some other CP-articles from de too, you can check there state here de:Benutzer:Denisoliver/FF, almost all genera and a few species are featured articles now. I'd be glad to continue the productive work, all the best, Denisoliver 10:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Denisoliver, thank you for responding! I have added a note to the Uses section regarding the source of the information you mentioned. This information seems to have gained wide enough acceptance to have appeared on the Filmjölk page as well, so I'll leave it up for now. I understand your point about the classification, but I'm not sure how best to word it. I'll try to come up with something.

I would really like to see the section on carnivorous plants here at Misplaced Pages turn into something useful. I saw the work that Veledan has done on Utricularia, and a user by the name of Mgiganteus has done a fabulous job on the Nepenthes rajah article. For the most part, however, the English articles are still short or nonexistent. I will do what I can whenever I get the chance, but school usually keeps me busy. I think my next project will be revamping the Drosera page, and adding some more species. I will definetally integrate material from the German pages - there are few of us so we need to work together! (I upload all of my pictures into the commons, so feel free to use any you see). It is too bad that the CP community has had such a negative view of Misplaced Pages. I will encourage Veledan to recontinue working on this project. Cheers! NoahElhardt 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Carnivorous plants?

Wow! That's a nice header pic to the German article  :-)

It was largely a burned out feeling that stopped me completing the Bladderwort article. I had it halfway through a peer review when I stopped editing it, and I still have a pile of notes next to my computer which would make for a few new paragraphs with some rather more quirky or lively insights. Some interesting quotes from Darwin too.

Yes, it's true the attitude of the community didn't help a lot. I asked for photos to help the article on what was my favourite cp forum, but all I got was wiki-hostility. I asked people to come and have a look at the article before making up their minds but no one did. I haven't been back to the forum either.

If you would like to create or be part of ] (and why not?) I'll certainly work on it (or create it if you don't want to). Sharing the work, discussing notes and findings, and having an audience for one another's work is much more motivating and I'm sure we and the other people who watch the existing articles are capable of making a CP section worthy of envy.

I suggest asking User:Polypompholyx too. He's the one who asked me to tackle Bladderwort in the first place — I knew nothing about them until then!

Thanks for asking ~ Veledan • Talk 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Veledan. I'm glad you're still interested! I've started a Carnivorous plant WikiProject like you suggested. Please feel free to edit the basic format or anything else as you see fit! I'm looking forward to working with you! :) --NoahElhardt 01:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Drosera pedicellaris

Hi Noah,

I have finished the translation of Drosera pedicellaris and would like to ask you, if you might check it as you did before, doing some grammar/style fixes. Thanks a lot and best regards, Denisoliver 21:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Noah, thanks for fixing D. pedicellaris. Concerning the commons-pictures: you placed the pictures itself in the Category:Droseraceae, thus they stayed there. I took the cat out of the pictures-page already, now it only shows up on the species page (and need to tell you, that I am full of envy of you having a derbyensis ;) ). Again I am impressed by your fabulous translation work, which adds again some valuable points, which I will have to integrate in the de-article. There are some points to discuss too, but I will check therefore later in one, after you finished the translation. Regards, Denisoliver 11:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Diels-Zitate

Hallo Noah, die Zitate sind in altmodischem Deutsch geschrieben, es heißt soviel wie: Ludwig Diels called this an "arrant misjudging of this genus' very special distributional circumstances", though the sundew species' "occupy a significant part of the Earth's surface". Ich hoffe, das hilft, Denisoliver 09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Drosera anglica refs

You might to have a look at the article. There were refs without associated footnotes. Circeus 00:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed it myself. Circeus 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I thought that all the refs work. is {{ref|refname}} a bad format? --NoahElhardt 00:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Recently, a MediaWiki extension that specifically implements footnotes without templates has been activated. You might want to have a lookt at WP:FOOTNOTE bout it. 01:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Droser anglica

Mostly I stay away from anything with a green taxobox, no matter how bad the mistakes I see. Sometimes the state of things is so truely terrible that I cannot help myself and correct anyway. It is bad enough that some misguided soul thinks that Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica could be different plants, and goes into print saying so. No need to repeat that! Brya 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brya! Thanks for taking a look at the D. anglica article. I have reverted most of your edits, as they took away important factual information. You comment about D. anglica v. D. x anglica on my talk page, while well meant, only displays your lack of knowledge in this field. D. x anglica is the sterile natural hybrid between D. linearis and D. rotundifolia, whereas D. anglica is a fertile SPECIES which originated from D. x anglica. I hope that makes sense. Comments and questions are of course welcome. --NoahElhardt 17:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I would like to point out that on the whole it is a good thing to check facts before reacting. If someone points out that you have written down something completely silly it is natural to go into the defensive and 'retaliate'. However, although this is natural this is not a good reaction. First check the facts then act.

In this case, it does not matter what you may assume, because Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica are the same. This is by definition. They cannot be separate plants. Under the ICBN they are one and the same name (e.g. Art 50.1). There is merely a limited difference in status.

I should also point out that D. x anglica is a way of writing that is to be deplored: the professional way to write this is D. ×anglica.

Your response makes sense, psychologically. Factually it is nonsense. :-) 19:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)