Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:09, 2 February 2006

Dicot taxoboxes

Saw your comment at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr. You might want to chip in at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Dicot flowering plant taxoboxes - MPF 11:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a try. Brya 14:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Tomato

Kindly explain yourself - why "extreme POV", and what urban legend? And why do you have to be so confoundedly rude to other editors in your edit summaries? - MPF 22:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, as for extreme, my dictionary explains it quite clearly. As to being rude, I am just mirroring your comments in your ruthless reversals but then being quite a bit more exact and polite. If a more exact and polite version of your comments is "confoundedly rude" what does that say about your comments? Brya 13:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I do know what extreme means, and I don't see why it applies in this case. And I know what an urban legend is too, and don't see why that applies to what I wrote - MPF 14:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem, you don't see what you are doing, but insist on doing it anyway. Brya 11:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Headings

Hello, I suggest using the standard headings for the "See also" and "External links" sections, as explained in Misplaced Pages:Section, that is:

== Section ==
=== Subsection ===
==== Sub-subsection ====

. Also explained in Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Markup. Cheers. --Edcolins 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically I am fine with standard headings, and they are very helpful in the layout of large articles. However I am a great believer in doing things in proportion. There is a point where a entry is so short that it would become mostly headings and lines: this looks quite unattractive to me, and (not unimportant) almost unreadable.

Until the point is reached where wikipedia prescribes a standard length for articles (it may happen, petty bureaucratic minds are everywhere) I'd prefer to use good judgement, from case to case. So far I am not sure about layout, and I am going by the assumption that if an entry looks like hell to me, it will look like that to at least some others too. I do realize that people are using a range of monitor sizes (at various settings) and that, thus, 100% agreement won't ever be reached. Brya 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Italicised × and + signs do exist!

Hi Brya. As you have noticed, I have been fixing a few pages where I've noticed that hybrid or graft-chimaera names have italic × and + signs. This happens when the whole name has been enclosed in pairs of apostrophes, instead of each element being treated individually. I see from your Edit summaries that you find it hard to believe this happens. Please look closely at this screenshot and you will see that the problem does exist. Admittedly it's a minor annoyance, but it's worth bearing in mind.

Please could you also tell me what your usage of "théir" in the example illustrated indicates? I corrected it; you reverted it. I have not encountered it before (and it occurs nowhere else in Misplaced Pages). If it's so important (and as it is so uncommon), this arcane usage ought to be explained in the article.

I admire your academic rigour, but Misplaced Pages should be accessible to the general reader. Hence the extra wikilinks I introduced into the Hybrid name article, and the +Laburnocytisus adamii info which I put into Graft-chimaera: it's a far better-known example than +Crataegomespilus, and one in which the results of the process at work are obvious to the untrained eye, whereas the Crataegomespilus only looks unusual if and when the occasional branch reverts to either "parent". (That reminds me, what is the significance of using single quotation marks for 'parents' and double ones for "graft-hybrid"?)

Please also note that the intergeneric cross you quote is actually Heucherella ×tiarelloides (not "tirelloides"). Again, I corrected this and you reverted it (I see you have copied the mistake made on the "Language of Horticulture" page which you had linked to). BTW, I apologise for my own careless slip when I inadvertently called the species name the epithet.

Finally, while I agree with your comment (above) that the accepted hierarchy of headings within Misplaced Pages can look unnecessarily heavy-handed, I believe this is another thing that will vary from browser to browser. If you really hate the way they look on yours, I think you can fine-tune their appearance via the my preferences window. SiGarb 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I found it hard to believe that there are browsers that would italicize "+" and "×" but I suppose there are no real absolutes when it comes to software. Admittedly it does not hurt to take such browsers into account.

It looks to me that "théir" is common usage. How else to add the required emphasis?

The Laburnocytisus example is indeed the better known example but it already occurs elsewhere and I included a link to that location. Examples should be examples and not the single case that is pushed at all costs. Also the insertion was very poorly placed, breaking up the text and affecting readability, examples should be kept in their place. There is such a thing as overwikifying.

I am afraid I did not take any conscious acton regarding Heucherella ×tiarelloides, I just went with what was there and I did not notice the missing "a". My mistake. Yes, calling a specific epithet a name or a generic name an epithet are ugly.

As to single and double quotes, I use double quotes (") when I am citing (a quotation), and single quotes (') when I am setting a word apart as not to be taken literally. This may not be a universally accepted convention, but it is not idiosyncratic and it works well. In this case, graft-hybrid might have either, as it is not too be taken literally, but I guess I went with double quotes here as the phrase is so common and only has this single meaning.

Yes, the outlook of the layout will differ from browser to browser, from monitor to monitor (depending on size and setting). However, this will have its bounds. An entry that needs to set off solely a "external link" is something else entirely from a lengthy text with many subportions. There is such a thing as common sense, and the moment that format becomes more important than content (and is enforced regardless) then wikipedia will stop being a worthwhile source of content. Everything in good measure, and in proportion. Brya 12:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Brya. Thanks for your reply. I'm intrigued. Could you possibly give me some published examples of the everyday use of an acute accent to indicate stress? I think it would be considered bizarre in publishing in Britain, especially nowadays. The only examples I can think of are in the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–1889), who was, of course, rather unusal in many other respects as well! Here it would be more normal to italicise or underline the word (although of course botany has used both of these conventions to indicate a "Latin" name) or to embolden it.

(Even when scanning poetry into iambic pentameters etc I think it's normal to use a macron rather than an acute symbol to indicate the stressed syllable, thus: ˘ ¯ | ˘ ¯ | ˘ ¯ | ˘ ¯ | ˘ ¯ — though, if you were writing quickly, one could morph into the other quite easily.)

As you suspect, your use of single and double quotes is somewhat idiosyncratic, but each to his own! I think in an article which includes Latin names I would reserve single quotes for cultivar names and use double ones for citation and "setting apart"; the other use would be for a quotation within a quotation. I think the distinction is so subtle as to elude most readers, and would be more likely to confuse than enlighten. Of course, various editors and publishers have their own preferences about these matters, but I think your apparent "mistakes" are likely to be "corrected" many times in the future. (Though probably not by me — I'm not looking for a fight!)

And, whoops! That should, of course, have been ×Heucherella tiarelloides (sorry, it was long after midnight and it had been a long day. But, hey! that's the beauty of wikipedia: no mistakes need be permanent!). SiGarb 21:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The state of my memory is such that I could not easily give examples of anything, although for a great many things I would know where to find examples. Not so for the use of an accent to give stress. I regard this as so normal as not to register at all, so I would not remember any case. I will keep a look out, but within the English language there are many different areas of usage, so an inventory of where this occurs may take time.

I don't doubt that your choice of use of quotes would be more popular than mine, but still I feel that mine is not particularly idiosynchratic. We will see what happens. Graft-chimaeras is not likely to be a much visited area.

Again, I did not notice the error against "×Heucherella tiarelloides". I guess I too am rushing too much to be as accurate as I should be. Besides, this is a Talk page, not a wikipedia entry, so standards are different. Brya 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Typification above the family level

Please read the Tokyo Code section 16.1 which outlines the typification of taxa above the rank of family. Your edits to Marchantiophyta were contrary to the Tokyo Code (1994), and your snobbery on other pages is unbecoming. It is laughable for someone prone to basic mistakes to criticize the mistakes of others. --Unapologetically, EncycloPetey 10:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, let me point out that

1. the 1994 Tokyo Code does not apply here, as it has been superseded by the 2000 St Louis Code
2. Your statement is counter to the Tokyo Code as well.

Brya 11:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. The Tokyo Code says: "Names of taxa above the rank of family are automatically typified if they are based on generic names." The text you altered pointed out that Marchantiophyta was based on the genus Marchantia. What part of this is changed by the St. Louis Code or is contrary to the Tokyo Code. I am frustrated by your superciliousness in areas where you do not seem to know what you are talking about. --EncycloPetey 12:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am being quite specific. Both the Tokyo Code and St Louis Code are online. It would take you all of two minutes to look it up yourself?

Art 16 of the latter says "Such names may be either (a) automatically typified names, formed by replacing the termination -aceae in a legitimate name of an included family ..." etc.

The text I replaced claimed the name was based on the name of the type species Marchantia polymorpha. Look it up. This would be true under none of the Codes that ever existed.

Typification is a different topic, and has no bearing here. The type of the division is not fixed. The name of the division could be based on any of the families included in the division, and typification would follow this choice. For typification see Art 10 (note Art 10.7). Also a type is "either a single specimen ... or an illustration" (Art 8.1.). Brya 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, your statement was very, very vague. The printed copy of the St. Louis Code (excluding Appendices) runs to 104 pages; the Tokyo Code is of comparable length. All you had said was Your statement is counter to the Tokyo Code as well, which says nothing about what is counter to the Code, why you think it is counter to the Code, or where in 100-plus pages of the Code you think the information is located. It is expected of every writer making a claim that cited information should be clearly expressed and the specifics of the source identified so that someone can verify that information. You chose instead to hide behind vague hand-waving and a statement to the effect that "It's in there somewhere," which can hardly be called a verifiable claim. Telling someone to look it up is a pointless exercise when you don't bother to tell them what to look up.

Typification does have bearing here, since "the application of names of taxa of the rank of family or below is determined by means of nomenclatural types." Whether you are talking about the name of the species, the genus, or the family giving rise to the divisional name, there is a type the determines that usage. Since Marchantiophyta was an automatically typified name, just as the examples given below Article 16 of the St. Louis Code (Magnoliophyta, e.g.). Article 10.7 clearly states that: The principle of typification does not apply to names of taxa above the rank of family, except for names that are automatically typified by being based on generic names (see Art. 16). The type of such a name is the same as that of the generic name on which it is based. Since Marchantiophyta is an automatically typified taxon above the rank of family, its type is the same as that of the generic name on which it is based. The type of Marchantiophyta is thus material of Marchantia polymorpha L., and the name of the division is based on the generic name Marchantia. This is contrary to your edits to the page, which removed mention of the genus Marchantia altogether.

To discuss the details further, I will have to pick up my copy of the book in which the divisional name Marchantiophyta was published by B. Crandall-Stotler and R. E. Stotler; my copy of the book is currently at home. It may now have a published type. --EncycloPetey 03:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You are beginning to repeat yourself. If I was wrong to assume you can look up a specific item, of a basic nature, in a highly organised book that is available on-line, explained within wikipedia and is linked to from wikipedia, then I apologize. I had not realized that you were making definitive statements without even basic familiarity with the topic. Personally I am only entering items in wikipedia I am quite sure of and if anybody made an addition to something I contributed that looked strange to me I would verify this before entering into an edit war.

Obviously, Marchantiophyta are typified, and this means that this name may not be used for a group excluding this type: it could not be substituted for Magnoliophyta unless the latter did include Marchantia (not very likely to happen). However, a taxonomist selecting a name for these Hepaticae has as many choices as there are families within this group. Typification would follow from this choice. For the topic discussed, typification is irrelevant. Indeed I will agree that typification is a topic that requires understanding and is not for everybody. However I did not bring it up, you did. Brya 08:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As anyone reading this discussion can tell, further discussion is pointless. You contnue to deny that you are even capable of making the smallest mistakes, and resort to insults and attacks to cover your shortcomings. It isn't worth my time to talk to someone who doesn't care to hear what others have to say. --EncycloPetey 08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Engler

Thank you very much for your nice edition of the article Adolf Engler. Berton 13:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Glad to hear you appreciate it! Brya 19:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is a very fine article. Despite our nomenclatural disagreement, I commend you for your work on this important biography. --EncycloPetey 06:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very gracious of you. Adolf Engler is a very important figure, and much has been published on him. In fact all I did was try and make the biography read more smoothly. I hope you succeed in reading up on nomenclature. I am afraid I could not understand why you were so upset on what was a quite dry and factual change. Brya 07:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Because apparently we are reading the same text differently. I can't understand why you hold your position either, and am not sure how to get you to articulate your position to me so that I can understand why the difference of opinion exists. Please don't continue to insult my education. Perhaps the air of superiority in your writing is unintentional (I had a colleague once whose correspondence style was insufferably smug, but who was the most congenial personality face to face).

In any case, I don't need to "read up on nomenclature". John Strother taught a very fine graduate-level class here at Berkeley that I attended and contributed to -- There was a major mis-application of the law of residues by R. M. Schuster that has led to the mis-application of the generic names Anthoceros and Aspiromitus in much of the bryological literature. My hope is that when the bryophyte volume of the FNA comes out, it will provide a standard to help correct the damage.

I did pull out the Stotlers' publication of the name Marchantiophyta and found that Ray Stotler says the name is "based on the genus Marchantia" or words to that effect. I haven't brought the book in yet to quote from directly, but given what he says, I think we were both wrong about the name's basis in this case. --EncycloPetey 08:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement " the name is "based on the genus Marchantia" or words to that effect." was correct under the Tokyo Code, and might be argued to still be correct under the St Louis Code. I assume the book by Stotler was pre-2000. The St Louis Code literally says (as I quoted above)

Art 16 "Such names may be either (a) automatically typified names, formed by replacing the termination -aceae in a legitimate name of an included family ..." etc.

which is pretty much exactly what I entered into the entry on Marchantiophyta.

As to my tone, well, I have long since accepted that no matter what tone I use there is likely to be somebody, somewhere who will take exception. As everything on the internet will forever be on the public record I try to stay as close to the facts as possible. Brya 12:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Italicization of suprageneric botanical names

Italicization of names of ranks above the level of genus is not in any articles or recommendations of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature; it's in the preface to the Code. According to the preface of the Tokyo Code:

The method by which some or all scientific names are set off in printed text varies substantially between different countries and language traditions. Perhaps as a result, there has been an unevenness in this regard in different editions of the Code. In an attempt to achieve uniformity, the Sydney Code and the Berlin Code italicized all scientific names at the rank of family and below, i.e. those for which priority is mandatory. The present Editorial Committee recognized that this policy was rather illogical, and, in the Tokyo Code, all scientific names falling under the provisions of the Code are italicized, whereas informal designations appear in Roman type. For example, in Art. 13.1 (d) the ordinal names Uredinales, Ustilaginales, etc. are italicized, whereas the informal group name "fungi" is not. The Editorial Committee considers this to be the most appropriate form of presentation in a code of nomenclature but does not aim to impose this as a standard to be followed in other publications, which may have different editorial traditions, often of long standing.

and the current St. Louis Code:

As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is being followed in an increasing number of botanical and mycological journals.

In other words, it's not even at the level of "recommendation" in the current Code. Because Misplaced Pages deals with both zoological and botanical names, and because italicization of botanical names is clearly optional, in the name of consistency (insofar as it's possible for the zoological and botanical codes to be consistent with respect to each other!) I would recommend that if zoological names are not italicized, then botanical names not be italized either. MrDarwin 15:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

These both quotes set out the case clearly. Italicization is not explicitly part of the ICBN (not at any rank), and all that the ICBN does is to lead by example. The ICBN italicizes scientific names, botanical and zoological, at all ranks. There is a strong current in Misplaced Pages to treat botanical names as if they are names of animals, i.e. applying the ICZN to plants, as most Users are not aware of plants. I have been trying to raise awareness among Users that there is such a thing as plant and plant nomenclature. I will see how far I get. Two final points:

• wikipedia does italicize zoological and botanical names
• wikipedia definitely prescribes allowing Users a degree of freedom in the layout and adopted spelling of their contributions. Brya 16:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles consisting solely of a link to Wiktionary

Hi. It seems that you've been creating a number of articles whose only content is a link to the word at Wiktionary. It is easy for me to understand why you would think it is a useful thing to be doing, these articles are actually speedy deletion candidates. To accomplish the goal I believe you are aiming for, it may be worth bringing up the idea of adding a link to Wiktionary when Misplaced Pages's search function returns nothing. This could be discussed at the Village Pump perhaps. In any case, please for the moment stop creating articles that only consist of a link to a different project. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 00:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)