Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: ] should have <nowiki>{{cite doi | 10.1016/S0305-1978(96)00049-X }}</nowiki> invoked, but you protected-it-forever. See {{diff|Steller's Sea Eagle|431133791|429590221|this}} and {{diff|Egyptian Vulture|431135245|429425261|this}} for several ways to do it, depending on just where you want the cite to appear down south.It's now <span class="plainlinks"></span> by nine articles ] (]) 06:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
: ] should have <nowiki>{{cite doi | 10.1016/S0305-1978(96)00049-X }}</nowiki> invoked, but you protected-it-forever. See {{diff|Steller's Sea Eagle|431133791|429590221|this}} and {{diff|Egyptian Vulture|431135245|429425261|this}} for several ways to do it, depending on just where you want the cite to appear down south.It's now <span class="plainlinks"></span> by nine articles ] (]) 06:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
* ]<br />"new cite doi thingies" removed, dozens of them now orphaned. ] (]) 05:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks for helping with the american white ibis article. do you wanna talk/discuss about it on the white ibis discussion page or do you prefer here? I noted you shifted the diet to behavior. shouldnt it be on a category on its own since it isnt technically a behavior? that's what my professor told me. just wanna hear your opinion on it. do you think it is ready for nomination for GA status? benongyx (talk·contribs) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Benongx here. I expanded the lead paragraph and did some minor changes. the citation area has also been corrected. do you wanna take a look to see if it able to be nominated for GA status? cheers, ben. (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
hi. i am benongyx. thanks for all your advice. it is really helpful. im still in the process of editing and correcting what i wrote. could you give me some time to adjust the article? i'm not really sure what you have been changing and I think it is better you let me adjust the article first. cheers!
Hi, I'm a newbie, and I thought a photo of what I was told to be Pleurotus nidiformis would be good to put into creative commons. (1) I have since discovered the page Omphalotus_nidiformis which reclassifies (?) Pleurotus to Omphalotus and (2) looking at the existing photo of Omphalotus nidiformis, it appears that my friend's S.E.Qld fungus is (a) not South Australian and (b) has a darker centre. Now I'm afraid of adding anything AT ALL since it may be struck down. What should I do, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacis alfredo (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.
There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
LOTS of "per" in citation here. See
On Agaricus
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικόν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though.
Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries.
Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary , and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary , and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
XD - cool! We were all always arguing about the distinctness of northern ashbyii, and Alex told me about the incana. sphaerocarpa makes my eyes goggle, I knew about latifolia but had no knowledge of pumilio. Wow, must go and read it now. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an interesting paper: "Between 5% and 25% of species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080." I can send you a PDF if you're interested. Hesperian23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Karena ini, Anda harus menulis itu.
Saya akan pergi ke Kupang 25 Juli.
Mungkin Anda ikut?
Ta'at cuma kalo ada yang liat. ;)
Tapi di Wiki selalu ada yang liat. :(
I have da book with a section on this; I don't have it with me at the moment. Thanks for the tweaks. I tweaked some of the images on Common. People should learn to hold their cameras level. The Pura Besakih particle really should be of the scale of Borobudur. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alastair, welcome back. Please note that my bahasa Indonesia is the pits; and that's four years along. It does take being tough to be here ;) Let me know if I can help. Been there, done that. Cheers, Jack Merridew10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page. The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.)
It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go.
As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.)
As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction."
has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc.
As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato)
Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today)
Arianewiki118:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."
I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.
I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?
(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Misplaced Pages. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Thanks for reminding me on this one - I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...then what are these brown and white furry things?
I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....
What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?
You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.
If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
"Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Special edition triple crown question
Hi- I'm assuming that you have a hand in the Durova's Triple crown, based on the edit history of the page. Anyhow, I was wondering if you also had a hand in the special edition crowns because Durova looks to have her hands full with numerous other things.
The tricky issue is finding free images or navigating fair use policy - eg screenshots etc. I am not great on policy and will ask someone more clued in. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I should have read it before posting here, in which case I wouldn't have bothered posting here at all: it is as boring as bat shit. Hesperian11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Parrot stuff
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.021 is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).
But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid - how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Paper
An interesting abstract: . A new species, plus implications, I assume, for historical biogeography. I can't access the PDF myself; I've asked Rkitko if he can. Hesperian23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
G'day. More empty reassurances that I'll get to B. sessilis as soon as I have time. I printed out several useful papers today, but have been too busy to read them let alone work them in. The caesia paper Rkitko provided at WT:PLANTS looks red hot. Hesperian14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Me, I've got no brains left tonight. I'm over at Wikisource mindlessly transcribing pages of Sachs' History of Botany. Hesperian14:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it isn't the best reference, but you could use Leaf & Branch (see the prionotes article for the full citation.) Page 92: "As its thickets suggest, parrotbush regenerates readily. A prolific flowerer, it produces many seeds. In the Darling Range it is a good colonizer of gravel-pits." Hesperian14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Lamont et al. (1998), pp 381–382: "Prolific flowering in D. sessilis does lead to massive seed output, accounting for its exceptional colonising ability after and between fires." Hesperian13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added a mention myself, in discussing high fecundity as fire adaptation. I have a handful of solid pathology papers here, so I'll make a start on a disease subsection next. G'night. Hesperian14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I know this conversation is stale now, but I found a great reference for this. The first sentence of
Rockel, B. A.; McGann, L. R.; Murray, D. I. L. (1982). "Phytophthora cinnamomi causing death of Dryandra sessilis on old dieback sites in the jarrah forest". Australasian Plant Pathology. 11 (4): 49–50.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
is
"The proteaceous species Dryandra sessilis (Knight) Domin is an aggressive coloniser of disturbed or open forest in south west Western Australia."
No indeed - this ref is much better, as the other only mentioned its colonising of disturbed areas being observed in the Darling Scarp.Can you add as I am wrestling with microsoft word in another tab? Back later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see this last night. Done now. I have a couple of papers on root physiology that I want to read to see if it is worth adding a paragraph, and then I'll be all done. Hesperian02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra)110 (2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Hesperian08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check. This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unkown but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you have Betelgeuse "on the radar". I’d be interested in taking the article to "FA status" with you. In reviewing it briefly, I notice that nomenclature is an issue. In fact, pursuant to your feedback on Talk:Pleione (star), I realized that nomenclature is an issue in the design of all star articles. So I decided to invest the time to fully research it. If you have a moment, I’d be interested in your reaction to the ideas put forth. And let me know when you’re ready to start with Betelgeuse. I’m ready when you are.
Sadalsuud (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty psyched to work with you on this. So I already decided to do some cleanup. The Starbox really needed some work. So that's now all up to date with refs included. Also I created a personal sandbox and imported the latest version to completely redesign the article's structure. There is not one single word changed in the article itself — just moved a few blocks of text, added headings and sub-headings, and repositioned some pics. I think it works better. If you have a chance, take a look at the redesign and let me know if you think it works. You can find it at User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox.
Looks cool. I have the Richard Hinkley Allen book and the Kuntzisch book to get the etymology right - I also have a longer oxford dictionary (with magnifying glass). Will pull out books and go from there in the next 24-48 hours. Feel free to tweak and/or add any bits of text you can. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Great! I'll update a few things, copy it over and post a short note on the talk page. I'm not sure about the sub-headings for Observational History, but that section was so big, it needed some structure to it. We can modify the sub-headings as we go along. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I had a few minutes spare now so was doing a bit of copyediting to make the lead a bit more snappy. I will look at all the etymology stuff tonight. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds great! I'm going to call it a night. Tomorrow, I'll look at expanding the Visibility section. I just cut and pasted the last two paragraphs from the former "Characteristics" section. It needs to be massaged a bit. Sadalsuud (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I've copied the existing "Visibility" and "Properties" sections to User:Sadalsuud/Sandbox and will focus on just that for the next 48 hours with the idea of transporting a coherent block of text back Betelgeuse in the next few days. Right now I'm doing a lot of reading. There's a lot of information on this star. So I'd like to give myself a couple of days to pull all the elements together. That way, I hope to have both these sections flow properly. Before I do this "block transport", I'll let you know, so you can offer any suggestions.Sadalsuud (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I've managed to come up with two new sections that are ready for transport to the main article. You can review them here: at the "New Visibility Section". I put them in context, so you can see what the article looks like. As I indicated a few days ago, I won't make the transfer until you've had a chance to review first. Let me know what you think.
My main concern is the ESA copyrighted information at the bottom of the Visibility section. Let me know if that is handled appropriately. There is still much more work to do. I have quite a few more sections planned, but decided to at least get these two ready for prime time. If you think they work, I can copy them over later today. I await your thoughts.Sadalsuud (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks great - I was just thinking something along these lines about how to find it and our theories on how far it is have evolved over the years. Stick it in and we can continue copyeidting from there. I am not sure which bit is copyrighted - can you highlight? Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the very last paragraph in the The enigma sub-section — right under the VLA satellite dish picture. I introduce the copyrighted info with these words: "According to the information provided on ESA's website...." Just click HERE! and you'll see it there in bold as well. What follows is almost verbatim (with a few tweeks), then as you'll notice there's the ref #36 which, if you click on it, takes you to the Reference section where you can click on the web-link called "Gaia overview", which of course takes you directly to the ESA source material.
I thought about simply paraphrasing the essence of the ESA information, that way avoiding any copyright infringement. But frankly, it was so well written and informative that I thought it would be a more honorable gesture to copy it verbatim and provide the reference.
What do you think? Should I rewrite this section "in my own words"?
Just so you have a little context, what I love about this sub-section "The enigma" is I noticed with every single article I read on the internet all these conflicting quotes on Betelgeuse. My first reaction was "That's bizarre! Everybody's got a different story to tell" It was at that point that I really saw an opportunity to do a great job and explain why all the information on Betelgeuse is so conflicted. The essence is that we still haven't quite figured out how far Betelgeuse is. So this section from ESA is a perfect conclusion to the section. The Enigma section starts with the distance estimate of 56 parsecs in 1920, does a fair job of explaining what has happened in the interim and then concludes with "What's next". So that's why I definitely want the ESA information in there. It pulls all the pieces together for the reader.
In any event, I'm glad you liked it. I'm pretty happy with it myself, although it would be great if we can get an astronomer like RJHall to make sure everything works. As I see it, I'm a pretty good "guinea pig" for this sort of thing, as I try to understand the subject form the layman's perspective. Having an astronomer looking over my shoulder wouldn't hurt.
One last thing. I got your note... All systems go... I'll be cutting and pasting into the main article shortly. As each new section matures, I'll let you know. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I too love actually spelling out who says what and why rather than just presenting facts as facts. There are similar issues in taxonomy, botany etc. and very often the answer is just not so clear cut. I will look at the copyrighted material in a minute. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
New Visibility sub-section
Hi Calisber. I've got a new section for you to look at. To be honest it's not quite finished. But given my commitment to have something ready within a day or two, I've produced a "condensed" version for prime time. There are two more additional paragraphs that I am still working on. I will try to include them soon.
Like last time, I have imported the most recent version of Betelgeuse into my User page so you can see the new section in context. It can be found by clicking: HERE!. That will take you to a new Visibility sub-section which I've entitled "Rhytmic dance" — an effective metaphor, I think, for the star's oscillating character. Consistent with comments made a few weeks ago at Talk:Pleione (star), I'm using standardized terminology for "major headings" and descriptive terminology for "sub-headings". I think it works. Let me know your thoughts.
If you wish to see the other sub-sections I'm working on, you can click: Here!. You will notice an extensive Contents Box and think I've possibly gone mad! No need for alarm however. I just found that I needed to bring some organization to the drafting of these sections, so I'm using the Contents Box as a kind of outline tool. That way, when I read an article, I have an idea where the new information fits, I can cut and paste for future editing, and then come back to it later. I hope you find this Contents Box helpful in understanding how I'm trying to tackle this project. If you have any idea as to how it can be improved, let me know.
The two additional paragraphs I'm working on for Rhythmic Dance you will find by clicking on the Rhythmic dance sub-section. I gave them an olive colored font, so they stand out.
The scope of this project has turned out to be far more than I ever imagined. There is so much information to absorb — kind of like putting together a giant jig-saw puzzle with 10,000 pieces. What I'm finding is you can't just work on one section at a time, as every piece is interconnected, and you need to have a sense as to where all the pieces fit. In any event, you'll see how each section is coming along. Some sections are more advanced than others.
I'm enjoying the challenge of it. I believe the goal of completing the different sub-sections by mid-August is still achievable. Let me know if you think the condensed version is ready to be transported over to the main article. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting - so the version you want to import is the condensed one above the olive text? Looks good - I find it easier to work with when I see it in the article, so bring it in. I think the olive bit is worth bringing in sooner rather than later and working from there. The prose can probably be tightened a bit - that will be easier to acheive once read as a whole. My approach is generally get all the content in first, then do the copyedit. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I just imported it and refined it further. Click HERE! for the latest. I actually included 4 out of the 6 paragraphs that I'm contemplating. The extra 2 paragraphs I will add in the next week or so as I gather more information. This first import holds together pretty well by itself, I think, and may not need the extra paragraphs. The extra information will simply discuss additional variability issues like periodicity. It's always a judgement call as to what constitutes "too much information". We'll see. What makes Betelgeuse so challenging is there is a lot of conflicting information out there — just like all the conflicting information I saw regarding distance. My intent is to at least cover the different findings and put them into perspective. Sadalsuud (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Calisber. In notice you've been busy the last few days. When you have a moment and have been able to review the "chunks" enumerated above, your thoughts on what to do here would be really helpful. Click HERE to see comments. Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Observations on Import #3
I finally got most of those "chucks" cleaned up over the weekend and, pursuant to your suggestions imported them into the main article. Also, I've posted some observations related thereto for your insight and comment. When you have a moment, click HERE to see comments. To see recent changes, simply go to the Betelgeuse article. I look forward to your thoughts and any ideas you have for GA review submission.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Reconsidering strategy
Hi Casliber. When you have a chance, I've posted some recent thoughts on the future direction of the Betelgeuse article, and would value your insights. Click HERE to see comments.----Sadalsuud (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
System launch + GAN?
Hi Casliber. The "Star system" section is close to complete. Just needs a few refs and xrefs, I think. Click HERE to review and post any comments or concerns. Thanks again for your focused attention. --Sadalsuud (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reworked the Angular anomalies section to create a more balanced argument. When you have a chance, please review HERE and let me know your thoughts.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and included the revised "Angular anomalies" sub-section with a few additional improvements. When you have a chance, your insights on a few other issues would be helpful. You can find them HERE.--24.203.198.172 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Casliber. I think this section is finally done. Though it's a bit of a rush job, I think it will stand up. Click HERE to see comments and get to the latest version in the sandbox. Thanks again for your on-going support of this project. I'm pooped! Fortunately, we're almost there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Concerns at the crossroads
Getting close to the finish line. There are a couple of concerns, however. When you have a moment, can you review comments HERE? Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Pleione GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to say that I've had to divert my attention to the Pleione article, as you probably guessed. I noticed your contributions, and in fact, provided some xrefs, which I believe are accurate. I hope to have all the GA improvements done by Saturday. If you have a chance to give it a quick lookover in a few days, that would be great. This weekend, I'll try to get the "Organizational history" section up to standard, get your thoughts, and then propose the article for GA review.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if you noticed, but we got GA status on Pleione. Now I can come back to the Betelgeuse article in earnest. There's only a few minor edits needed after which I'll finally submit the article for GA review. The only missing element is a discussion of stellar mass. When mass was originally addressed back in July, I simply referenced Jim Kaler, though now I recognize the conversation to be more complex. Once addressed in earnest, it will clear up any confusion from the Fate section which quotes a different metric. Bottom line? Hope to get all this done in a few days and submit. Any last thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been pretty busy IRL lately. I am more than happy to let you take the dirver's seat WRT mass as you have a handle on all the mass calculations - will try to follow with copyediting ideas and/or observations and boring format fixes. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Understood. With the summer now behind us in Canada, I too have become very busy with work and other stuff. We'll at least get this to GA soon and then we can plan from there. Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Organizational history upgrade
I've now turned my attention back to Betelgeuse and decided to post a new section on the talk page Major surgery on Observational history section?. Given that this section was the focus of early contributions, I have intentionally avoided editing "other people's work", focusing as you know on adding new sections. But as I point out, the job needs to be done for various reasons and I thought it would be useful to put everyone on notice and invite comments. The last thing I want to do is create an edit war. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've gotten started. Check out Herschel's discovery section for recent edits. As I point out on the Talk page, I'm trying to keep most of the early contributions while giving the whole section a "historical" focus. I think it works. Your insights however would be useful.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Finally nominated for GA
Hi Casliber. Just a short note to let you know that Betelgeuse has finally been nominated for GA review. Updated observations HERE! Thanks again for your on-going participation in this process.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
GA corrections complete?
I noticed you were able to make a few corrections pursuant to the GA Review. The review was clearly quite favorable. I made a few other changes and responded. Let me know if you see anything missing. You can see my comments Here!. Thanks again. We're finally getting there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Misplaced Pages. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Casliber- You reviewed the American Alsatian a year back now for Good Article and since then there has been some new reliable sourcing added to the article. You mentioned at that time that if new reliable sources were included to let you know. The following sources have been added and/or improved:
Imam, Bassam. "Animalogy: Dogs and Other Canids". free e-books.com. Retrieved 2010-11-08.,
"American Alsatian: Appearance". Rightpet.com. July 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-08.,
Sicard, Gary (February 2008). "American Alsatian (Shepalute)". MolosserDogs. Retrieved 2009-06-08.
Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).
One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Data requested yonks ago, lately retrieved with many apologies for delays from the wikiwankingwonk.
Couldn't for the effing life of me find that vol which contained the info on star names in Japanese dialect you asked about until I stumbled across it this morning while cleaning up where my disrespectful cat cocked its leg, on a pile of TLS's near my desk. I tremble to add these details because, with my rotten reputation as someone who is always looking for a political angle, it ain't going to help that Obama must be mentioned.
In Japanese dialects Betelgeuse or α Orionis is configured with Rigel β Orionis as the opposite sides of Orion's Belt
Thus, in the dialect of the coastal village of Obama in Fukui prefecture, the two were called wakiboshi or 'sidestars' because they lie on either side of the belt. In the dialect of Ikishima (壱岐島) island in Nagasaki Prefecture, the pair were known as ēte-boshi (相手星, standard Japanese = aiteboshi or ‘opposing stars’) in the phrase kanatsuki no ēteboshi. Here kanatsuki is equivalent to karatsuki, and thus the phrase meant the 'opposing stars of the Belt of Orion'. The same idiom existed in Wajima (輪島) dialect further north in Ishikawa Prefecture.
In 1950, a quite distinctive and archaic dialect term for the two stars was retrieved from the dialect of Yokokura village (横蔵村) in the Ibi district of Gifu Prefecture. There Betelgeuse and Rigel were denominated respectively by two famous clan names. The two clans were the Taira, otherwise known as the Heike, and the Minamoto, or Genji. These two clans conducted an epic struggle to wrest control over Japan during the historic Genpei war of the early medieval period, a devastating conflict that was memorialized in the The Tale of the Heike, an early masterpiece of Japanese literature. The crest of the Taira is red (揚羽蝶/Ageha-chō or 'swallowtail butterfly'). The crest of the Minamoto is gentian blue (笹竜胆/sasa-rindō, or 'bamboo gentian'). Thus, in Yokokura, the red supergiant Betelgeuse was called Heike-boshi (平家星, the Heike star) and the blue supergiant Rigel the Genji-boshi (源氏星, the Minamoto or Genji star), corresponding to the the respective colours of the two stars. The reference is Nojiri Hōei,Nihon no hoshi, Chūkō Bunko, Tokyo 1976 pp.243-245. Nishidunny aka Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
He's a pretty good speaker. I created a stub about the book, which is probably worth getting to DYK, although I'm not sure I have the time to expand it enough this weekend. Cheers, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your post, let me know what you're looking for, there or here. One problem is that our brains automatically throw out information as we read, and things like "the length of the little line" are one of the first things we throw out ... leading people to think they remember what they read, when they don't. Another problem is that there's a clear split between older and more recent usage, and between American and non-American usage (as I just detailed at WT:MOS#Style guides). These problems make the issue more contentious than it would otherwise be. Personally, I've been fiddling with dashes and hyphens for years when during copyediting for review processes, and no one ever cared, but obviously people care now, so let's do whatever's needed to lower the volume, which in my experience means backing up what we're doing with sources rather than making it up as we go. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, the more structure the better - what I envisage is a separate subpage on WT:MOS, with a preamble section which includes all the May discussion plus some notes on outstanding issues. We then clarify outstanding issues and set up how to vote on each. This must be circulated broadly around the 'pedia so we get some numbers once voting starts. The key is that however excessively fine-split motions are, it needs to be more. For instane here - Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC:_simple_resolution_to_disagreements_over_dashes - packaging six uses into one motion is a bad idea. They need to be split out individually. Right now I am waiting for hte clerks to post the motion and invite uninvolved editors and admins to coordinate as facilitators. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll probably be more useful citing style guides, so for purposes of this case, I won't be "uninvolved". I'll hop in after some structure develops. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Peer reviewing this article, you suggested writing a short summary of each of Mrs David's books. I thought it was an excellent idea, and did so, but it rather ran away with me, and I have made it a separate article at Elizabeth David bibliography. If, perchance, you were minded to look in and make any changes or suggestions you thought suitable I should esteem it a favour. Tim riley (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I gather that the Magpie-lark is also called the Mudlark in Australia, but I have no idea how common the use of "Mudlark" is. It seems to me that the current article at "Mudlark" about people collecting items in mud is a rather uncommon use of the word these days, and therefore this meaning might not be the primary topic. I am also not sure if Mudlark should be redirected to Magpie-lark or if "Mudlark" should be the dab rather than "Mudlark (disambiguation)". Snowman (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, good question. My recall is that "Magpie-lark" and "Peewit" are the two most common names I've seen in bird books, but they note "peewee" and "mudlark" as alternative names. I use "peewee" myself which my family understands and uses. This is a good question as the other use (for mudlark) is archaic too. I will ask on the australian birdwatchers' forum and try and tally up the responses and where the respondents are from - this could be an interesting study. These are very tame and friendly birds and very common site in urban areas. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I think I might buff it for GA/FA. I was amused a couple of years ago when there was a young bird in my father-in-law's garden. He'd feed it some bird seed and it would happily come and walk around and explore the lounge room and dining room. Later, when it wanted to be fed it would land and walk around outside the glass doors and ruffle its feathers and fluff itself up and wait expectantly until my father in law would feed it. it was an interesting exercise to figure out who was training whom. 07:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
After a few weeks the hits on the new dab Mudlark (disambiguation) will help to gauge how many of the hits that go to "Mudlark" (people searching in mud) then go onto the new dab (the only signpost on article pages to the new dab is on "Mudlark"). I suspect that there is no primary topic supposing that you do not come up with something about Australian bird names that you have not heard about. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I started an article, Flying High Bird Sanctuary, about an Australian bird sanctuary some time ago, and out-of-the-blue someone has added a speedy tag despite the article being well sourced. I think that it is worthy of an article on the wiki, and I would be grateful for your opinion either for or against deletion. Snowman (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Re-think: I would agree with you that the current sources are not very good. I understand that it is often difficult to find good independent sources about zoos, and often the zoo's own website is used as a source. Snowman (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Users being harassed
Hello, sorry if I am bugging you or if I'm not doing this right, but as far as I know you are an administrator, so I just wanted to alert you to something.
The user Fatty2k10 has been making abusive edits and having edit wars for weeks now, and every time he gets a warning he just blanks his page, which prevents other members from seeing them and therefore preventing a block. His talk page history proves he is very abusive to other members of Misplaced Pages, for example in one case where he called someone a prick just for giving him a warning. His user page states he is retired, however he is still rapidly making un-constructive edits to Misplaced Pages and numerous people are trying to get him to stop via the talk page, but again, he just blanks it.
Please take a look into this if you have any spare time, and take whatever action you feel is necessary. Thanks --Andy4789 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Fatty2k10 has returned their latest retirement and I've tried to engage them in a proper discussion over their edits again rather than sending templates but this was the result. Do you have any thoughts on how/if I should continue with the matter? - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a question about the one of the points you raised. If having the retired template on their user page (and presumably also the recent death one that's on there) is okay, why was Fatty2k10's user page deleted by an administrator earlier in the month with essentially the same content? - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
They've quickly changed to semi-retired and no longer dead on their user page (still retired on their talk page) probably after reading this but I'd still like to know for future reference even if it may not apply now. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting out that troublesome user, and getting us all to work together. I hope it works out well, and that the user(s) who was abusive will now see a different side. Andy4789 (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I may need to thank you for this, but I'm not sure. "**@FT2 -"Scott was reasonably within policy and practice by every standard I can find" - is really stretching things. He pretty clearly did." leaves something dangling. I think you must have cut something out somewhere in the course of editing.—Kww(talk) 21:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I did muse on several variations and added and removed stuff before I finally decided to post, but I felt FT2's comment was a somewhat extreme interpretation that needed disendorsing (by me anyway). I'll revisit. I was about to say, yeah it's missing alot of cuss-words but that would have been facetious and hopefully jocular.... Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have responded on the page (implicitly) to what FT2 said. Because something is a "reasonable" interpretation (and I think mine are) does not mean it cannot be "reasonably" be thought to be wrong. Even I wouldn't argue that what I did here was clearly within policy - I think it is justifiable if one considers the bigger picture (but even that does not mean, with hindsight, it was the wisest course).--Scott Mac21:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
FT2 is arguing that BLP and admin discretion in exceptional circumstances allow a latitude with the normal rules and process (and seeming consensus). I agree. However, I fear in his attempt to make things "clear" he is in danger of wikilawyering in the opposite direction. I'd rather not rely such minutiae either in prosecution or defence. The nature of exceptions is that are usually justified on pragmatic grounds, and thus unclear and situational. You clarify them, and you just tie your hands to another inflexibility - or open the door to all sorts of undesirable things being justified.--Scott Mac22:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. This isn't a cut-and-dried black-and-white sort of problem and portraying it as such is facile and divisive. If all of us arbs are pretty set on our views (and hence a case opening is numerically impossible), then the sooner we close it off and start focussing on how we'll proceed from here...after all...
We're in one of those inability-to-make-an-omelette-without-breaking-eggs type scenarios...
Generally folks get a bit less interested when there are unstable taxa - with Accipitridae there is some work that suggests the Elanid kites (Elaninae) are an earlier offshoot than the Osprey(s) - Pandionidae - hence some rejigging is in order. More amazing is that some research suggests the Elanids might be basal to both accipitrids and owls (!!) As if there isn't enough on my plate....Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
wut? I was asking about teh method of referencing... unstable taxa would be our "Holy Community", no? The cites in scientific articles will have DOI available far more frequently than, say, Miley Cyrus and I would think typical editors of such would have a bit better neurological arrangement so that they would be able to deal with the syntax. The goals here would be linkage between the footnotes and the full cites in the reference section, proper structuring of those cites with templates, and sharing complex cites between articles via the doi templates. I only went to this article because it was using several of the doi cites as White-bellied Sea Eagle (the other being {{cite doi/10.1016.2FS0305-1978.2896.2900049-X}}). 125.162.150.88 (talk) David 12:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
That's the ticket. Gonna need a lot of hands as there must be tens of thousands of bird articles. Then there would be lizards and such. Spread the word.
This pretty clearly illustrates how modern referencing techniques can de-snot article prose. Three of those went all the way off to a doi template. ;)
Bald Eagle should have {{cite doi | 10.1016/S0305-1978(96)00049-X }} invoked, but you protected-it-forever. See this and this for several ways to do it, depending on just where you want the cite to appear down south.It's now shared by nine articles 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Casliber! Thanks for commenting back to me on the AFD. I thought that although I agreed with User:TreasuryTag's nomination they had made it a rather unpleasant experience, so I didn't really feel I could vote. I see you had a run in with him: I think it must have made his day when an administrator commented on his AFD nomination, he got no ambush someone in authority! I also see that he's threatened you with some sort of Wiki-etiquette tribunal. Oh well I found it all very unfriendly and off-putting, so I think I'll leave him a note on his very bare discussion page. All best, Chris - aka TehGrauniad (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Chris, you might want to have a check of the page history and look at the diffs of some of the material that has been removed, as well as this thread and this thread. Find two or more comments where folks have been frustrated by his (1) propensity to get the last word in, and (2) some inept tagging, and set up a request for comment. It will be validated. If you don't want to I will later on today but am busy for the next few hours. He won't listen to a request by a single user. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is definitely his way. It seems that his editing exists for the most part to rock the boat. Misplaced Pages is very nice in that it tolerates problem editors, which is a lovely thing to do, as sometimes problems are just down to misunderstandings. I think a little wikilove can go a long way, but I don’t think it’s helpful for this user who has been on Misplaced Pages for c.5 years, and seems to relish skirmishes, and it seems in one case he’s managed to push someone over the edge. As he’s ignored my message do you think that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct is the right way to go about this? TehGrauniad (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @talk:TehGrauniad - does a bear shit in the woods...is the pope Polish German....does a fish have a watertight arsehole? I am off to have some dinner...if you set it up, I'll take a look. Made you-know-who look anyway (chuckle/lightly taps fingers on side of nose twice)Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, I think TreasuryTag's behaviour onwiki is becoming more and more unpleasant. I get the feeling he's running out of friends. It's a shame. When I mentored him back into the community, he really showed a lot of promise, to the extent that I hoped the community might consider him for adminship. I'll try contacting him again, because that AfD and some of what I've seen at ANI is just unpleasant. --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(seriously) TreasuryTag. I was about to post, seriously, just knock it off. Now. But I think it is just too late. We'll see what the community thinks. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You are most welcome! I make it a practice, as an admin, to readily agree to virtually all userfy requests! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can I just say, I am actually serious about my request that you stop following my edits. I've currently got a moderately lengthy .txt file on my computer containing a not insubstantial list of pages to which you have either obviously tracked me, or at the very least made a special effort to comment in threads by or about me. Not all of your contributions in this regard are altogether 'good' on their own merits, let alone the fact that they involved following me around Misplaced Pages. Since they do not show any concerted effort to correct policy violations, for instance, there doesn't seem to be any obvious justification for this trend, and I would ask that you simply and voluntarily put a stop to it. I don't track your edits, and I would appreciate it if you didn't track mine. Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Casliber. I saw your thread at WT:DYK about more DYK articles. From that list so afar, I've created two article on female children's book writers. Now I've expanded Yellow-crowned Bishopin my sandbox (I used your Hooded Crow as an example). Size has gone from 535 to 3265 (using DYKcheck prose size). As you have lots of experience in bird, animal, and plant articles, I was wondering if you'd like to help improve it. Listing you as co-expander is not a problem. Or perhaps you'd like to check it after I move it to mainspace. Let me know. BarkingMoon (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for the help Cas! I just copied my sandbox to the article, so I'd guess you don't need to do any admin thing. I made a DYKmake for both of us but I don't know how to fix the red link with our names in the nom line. If you think of a better hook, by all means propose it. You're very kind for the prompt help. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ched Davis said to use "Did you know that when some Bishops are ready to mate, that their heads and backs turn a distinctive yellow in color." so I'll put that in as an alt. I think I will do some more bird articles.BarkingMoon (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Cirt liked yours, but having alternatives is always good. A bot went through in 2007 and made a stub for every bird species, so there are oodles to choose from...I am sure there is some cute hook for Black Bishop which we can say is not a chess piece or something....Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Awesome that the article made it to the DYK! VERY cool. I wish I had a bit more time to edit it for the sake of accuracy and completeness, but no matter, I am overwhelmingly pleased! Yay! ;-) Jgreeter (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Glad you are happy - DYK is a great way to constructively graffiti the main page ;) - let me know if you want help expanding anything else. Interesting plant too.... Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Casliber...sorry for taking off for a while. I ran into a personal tragedy in my life (death of a relative) and needed to take a break from a few things. I'm logging back into wikipedia and hoping to take off where I left. Sorry for the sudden departure.Thompsma (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, Cas. This one is kicking me. There is MUCH less info than on the yellow-crowned one. It must be much rarer. See my sandbox. I can't find squat on description and behavior. I did find this, but I think it won't pass muster for wiki. Do you have some offline sources you can use to beef this up? Thanks, and oh BTW you need to archive a ton of your talk page ;-) BarkingMoon (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC) PS, feel free to directly edit my sandbox. BarkingMoon (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where else to look for more info, we'd only need a little more but I can't find diddly squat. Anything we can do here? BarkingMoon (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Yea it was for this one. I started another in my sandbox2 on the White-winged Widowbird. I just joined WP:Birds too. You're very kind for all this help. Got any google books links?BarkingMoon (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Robin Friday
Hi Casliber! It's been a while; I hope all is well. I'm just looking for a bit of input onto the Robin Friday article, which I've been working on quite a bit with a view to Featured status. Specifically, I'm after your opinion on a sourcing issue. There is only one book about Friday, The Greatest Footballer You Never Saw, which I used as my base for the article; obviously this could create an over-reliance problem, but I'm not so sure that in this case it does. The book is made up almost entirely of interview extracts and match reports taken from the Reading Evening Post and South Wales Echo. So long as all quotes and so on are credited (which they are), I think that an exception can be made: It's going to be hard to avoid relying largely upon it otherwise. In a nutshell: Since it is itself taking from many sources which it openly and obviously cites, the argument could be made that it isn't over-reliance on just one source. What do you think? Thanks! – Cliftonian22:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK ready-Thanks. I changed ref. 3 as you recommended. I hope you enjoyed reading the article as much as I enjoyed writting it. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I realize it's short notice, but would you be able to get this in the next DYK queue for today to coincide with the National Archives' featuring of the document? It's been approved now. I'll have the high-resolution photo up in about an hour, once I get in to work, too. It would probably look great on the main page. Dominic·t12:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
We generally use British spelling in Oz (though I do use "ize"), and there are a preonderance of british and Australasian folks there....General rule has been US bird, US spelling, elsewhere British. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
On 2 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melaleuca fulgens, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the scarlet honey myrtle, an ornamental garden shrub, is from the same genus as the punk tree? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I am surprised this was untouched for so long. It was only 97 char prose long and was interesting. Lots of possible hooks here. Propose and alt if you like. BarkingMoon (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
