Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tajik (talk | contribs) at 18:56, 13 November 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial (this is really great for getting used to editing Misplaced Pages)
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Also, don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! It might be a good idea to read this to see how you can avoid making common mistakes, though.

1. Misplaced Pages keeps a neutral point of view policy, meaning that all contributions must not be biased one way or the other. Even if both biases are presented, it is still not allowed on Misplaced Pages.
2. Only public domain resources can be copied directly to Misplaced Pages without permission — this does not include most web pages.

Misplaced Pages:Questions, Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Formats for tables

I would like a table, inserted by another user in the Rhodophyta article, to look better after I did some edits to it, namely the columns should be wider, and the content should not be vertically centered in the table. Can someone explain how to do this or point me to the correct page that explains this?

KP Botany 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find both the answers here (section 4/5) Help:Table Cheers --Lethaniol 18:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

California's flora

Hi KP Botany. There were a few problems with MetsBot's run, caused by category misplacement mostly. Feel free to remove any tags from articles that you feel should not have them. MetsBot will not be tagging talk pages again (I'll leave that for other bots). Yours, —Mets501 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Protists Project

I would like to gain some consensus on what to use in taxoboxes for the protists and/or plants such as Rhodophyta, Glaucophyta, and the like. I see you've discussed this to some extent before. Things have changed even more since then. Still, can we simply stack taxoboxes of two currently accepted by different systems, or what? KP Botany 17:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi KP. Basically there is no consensus; what we did in the first place is what's stuck, because nobody's sure whether to change it. Listing multiple systems in the taxobox is going to be difficult, though, since most parts of the classification are variable. To make things easy, I'll just add to the discussion on TOL; thanks for inviting me. Josh

Cecropia

There may indeed be a cecropia growing on the other side of the lake I live on, but I am not sure as the photo on the Wiki page is not very clear, even the high-resolution version. It could be another, similar-looking tree (which seems to be smaller than the one already on Misplaced Pages). I will take some notes on Cecropias and take a picture of the mytery tree soon to show to the Project:Botany members.

Where shall I post it once I've taken it, though? I wish I knew more about botany so I would know where to put pictures of the lovely plants (especially flowers) growing here.

Also, a (possibly stupid) question: why is this genus named after a king of Athens if they only grow in tropical America? (It's not a pop quiz! I'm genuinely scratching my head over that.)

Happy gardening! Marialadouce 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to your message

In response to your message in my Talk page: Afghanistan's current regions were entirely part of Khorasan. Khorasan was not a Political department with its own government, but rather a name for a Geographical region. Khorasan was for some periods under the reign of Persian empires, and for some periods it had its own independant dynasties and empires. In the main article of Greater Khorasan, I have mentioned all the main Afghan regions to be part of Khorasan, which is of course true: Greater Khorasan was formed of several provinces: Hari (Herat, Nishapur and Tus), Seestan, Bactria (Balkh and northern regions of Afghanistan), Transoxiana (Merv, Samarqand, Bukhara and Tajikistan), Stagidya or Ghazna (central regions of Afghanistan) and Kabulistan. Khorasan's boundaries have varied greatly during ages. The term was loosely applied to all territories of Persia that lied east and north east of "Kavir-e-namak" and therefore were subjected to change as the size of empire changed. Afghanistan's current regions form the largest parts of Greater Khorasan. I had also written that Afghanistan was known as Khorasan before the 18th century, but I had problem with some Iranian users. They insisted that this point should be used in Afghanistan's article and not in Khorasan. And in Afghanistan's article, Nisarkand is trying to push his Pashtun POVs. Thank you Ariana310 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Coffee as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Coffee was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

– ClockworkSoul 04:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Image Polynesia-triangle.png

Excellent and useful map for this article. One of the best images and most appropriate for context on all of Misplaced Pages and, heck, much of the web, too. It seems that cyberspace is the perfect medium for maps to show exactly the geographical region being discussed, tailored to a specific audience, but they're seldom done well or with any consideration of the end user. Thanks for taking the time to make and post something useful, and thanks for simply putting it in the public domain for others. KP Botany 19:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

GMT and GIMP make it easy; and yeah, public domain rules. :p ¦ Reisio 20:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

vitis californica

i hadnt given this plant an importance because i wasnt familiar with the entirety of the plant's status. your note is a great help. based upon your note i would place it in the "mid" to "high" importance rating. i would lean toward "mid" since there are very few entries in "high" and this is a complete state of california category, what do you think? Anlace 23:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Kingdoms notes

Except the kingdom is not especially disputable. For instance, look at the two classifications listed on red algae; they're similar, but one has added new classes and changed some of the ranks. What phylum Cyanidiophyceae gets is as disputed as its kingdom. And yet the relationships are the same, and I'd hesitate to leave its entire position as uncertain, when only the ranks of the groups are. (Incidentally, if most specialists working in red algae consider them plants, maybe we should follow them without worrying how more encompassing systems treat them).

Also, an explanation about the kingdoms should be given on green algae, but if we footnote each variation in classifiction in each page about each genus, we're going to have a very difficult time adjusting and maintaining it. Maybe a better idea would be to change the link from "scientific classification" to something like "typical classification", to emphasize that some authors deviate from it. It would be easy enough to add a flag to do that, like we do for viruses. The question would then be at what point we stop using it - for instead, is APG solid enough that we can treat it as authoritative, and what about the minor variations for mammal orders? Josh 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not much resolution on the matter. It is the kingdom that is in dispute in the Red Algae--whether or not the taxon called plants should start above or below the node where Rhodophyta and Glaucophytes branch off, and the Rhodophyta and Glaucophyta, or just the Rhodophyta be called plants due to their theorized shared symbiosis evolutionary history. Or should "Protists" be called a kingdom, as it is on Misplaced Pages in some places, although it is simply the remainder of what's left over after the major macroscopic organisms have been classified? And if this is a kingdom, does it necessarily exclude organisms from belonging in other kingdoms?

Does Misplaced Pages subscribe to the 5 kingdom or 6 kingdom scheme, also? Isn't 6 the current?

The Eukaryote page groups green plants, Rhodophyta and Glaucophyta as Archaeplastida. Many of the protists on Misplaced Pages include references to a Cavalier-Smith article, and he generally calls Rhodophyta and Glaucophyta plants. Another major reference in Misplaced Pages articles doesn't use a hierarchical classification scheme, but does group green plants, Glaucophytes and Rhodophyta together under the same name, Archaeplastida.

The protist classification scheme is more the "typical classification," as most classifications done today emphasize the difference between monophyletic clades and nonmonophyletic grades, strictly moving away from classification schemes that require any of the latter.

APG II is solid enough that most researchers in the botanical sciences are using it as the reference point for peer-reviewed publications at least for American, British, French, Polish, Japanese, and Australian publications, and most Canadian that I see. I have to hedge a bit here, as botany is not strictly my field, although it's where I'm researching right now, so maybe Curtis has some more insight into this, and also the type of stuff I research is skewed towards using phylogenies from a handful of researchers who are the main contributers to APG I and II, or paleobotanists who are at institutions where major APG II players are.

I'm willing to do it anyway, but it would be nice to have some stable guidelines on Misplaced Pages in the ToL section for what writers are to do. It may wind up being messy, but wouldn't it be easier to start writing stuff with a more solid representation of the current science on classifying organisms than redo everything soon? KP Botany 20:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well okay. I sympathize with your plight. Misplaced Pages is essentially a game of Nomic,in which the object of the game is to make up the rules as you go along. It has a higher purpose, of course: to put a knowledge base online. But the way our community makes rules is pretty much itself a constant object of change. Thus, now that the project has been running for a few years, we have a very large number of rules. Every so often somebody tries to hack away at this rule thicket but they only end up creating another rule, like Ignore all rules. At heart, this last rule does make a lot of sense. Do whatever you like. If somebody doesn't like it as much as you do, he may change it; if you're sufficiently annoying, you may be blocked or banned. Then you know not to do that again. Of course, if people IAR all the time, we'd have chaos. As it is, we have near-chaos.

Let me answer your specific questions as best I can. Keep in mind that somebody else will likely give you different answers.

Q: What is "space"?

A: MediaWiki, the software tool or engine that runs Misplaced Pages, is much more powerful than some other wiki tools, with all sorts of additional features. One such is namespaceing. If you look at any page that is not an article, such as Dog, you will see a word or two followed by a colon. For example, the namespace of this page is User talk:. Articles are also in a namespace, variously called articlespace or mainspace.

There are 9 regular namespaces; each of these has a corresponding talk namespace. Some pages are outside of these namespaces, too: Special pages, like Special:Contributions/KP Botany/Archive 1. These are generated by the engine and can't be edited directly. There are a total of 20 namespaces.

Each namespace has a more or less specific technical and social purpose.

• Articlespace is for encyclopedic articles. Whatever you put here is subject to review.
• Userspace is subdivided into pseudo-namespaces, one for each editor (e.g, User:YourNameHere/Sandbox). You are generally allowed to do what you like within your own space. Cautions apply.
• Imagespace is where you go after you upload an image; also, where you go if you click an existing image. It contains information on the image itself.
• Categoryspace consists of pages which index or list other pages, often including image pages. You can edit category pages to add notes but the usual way to add a page to a category is to add a link to the category to the page itself.
• Templatespace is for bits and pieces that are used in several places in the project. For example, see Template:Tilde. Almost anything can be put in a template but some people get angry at this or that. Templates can be very complicated.
• Helpspace is supposed to contain information useful to editors: how to use this tool. However, it has been hijacked by Meta and cannot usefully be edited. You can find much valuable information there but it's not easy to navigate. Give it a try.
• Projectspace or wikipediaspace is for almost everything else. You will find policies, proposals, real help pages, metaphysical essays, and "kitchens".
• Talkspace is really 9 different namespaces. There is a talk page for every other page on the project (although it may not yet have been created). I think of this as the "back side" of the page. Talkspace is for talking. Sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. It's generally considered rude to edit anybody else's comment, although we often reformat each other for clarity.

There are a couple other namespaces but I don't want to overwhelm you. Most arguments over where a given page should be put boil down to articlespace, projectspace, templatespace, or userspace. Moving a page from another namespace into userspace is called userfying.

Q: What is transclusion?

A: To use the contents of a template, you insert markup into the destination page that looks like this: {{tilde}}. When the page is rendered by the engine, the double braces tell it to transclude or copy the template contents into the rendered page. Any page can be transcluded but templatespace is specifically intended for the purpose.

It's worthwhile mentioning substitution here, too. Using slightly different code, the contents of a template can be copied into a destination page once, not every time the page is rendered. If the template changes, its substitution does not.

Q: What is a userbox's template location?

A: A fancy way of saying the template page that a given UBX is on. UBX are normally created as templates and transcluded onto user pages. You could say, more simply, "a userbox page" but since the debate rages around whether a box should be moved to userspace, the distinction is drawn between the old place and the new place.

Q: What happens when a page is moved?

A: When a userbox, or any template, or any page at all is moved from one name or namespace to another, the engine automatically creates a redirect from the old to the new. So, everything is fine. Sometimes editors then go around deleting the redirects, which is usually stupid but not always. Sometimes bots fix this; sometimes they don't.

Q: What are Misplaced Pages userpages?

A: No such thing. Beware; anybody can edit -- and everyone does.

What you are still probably trying to figure out is why anybody would start a war over where a UBX is stored. Well, I don't really think there is any good reason; such people are confusing the cereal with the box it comes in. If you ask them, they will give you a lot of reasons but none of them have convinced me. I think it's a lot of makework and a controversy stirred up to distract us from more important issues.

If I can help further, please let me know. John Reid 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Coffee

Always glad to help. Best, Gwernol 03:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Herat

Saying that you are not neutral is NOT an insult, it is my opinion and the impression I have from your writings. And the fact that you have deleted my entire comment on the Herat talk page, which included important information, further underminds this impression (just for your information: deleting information you do not like or do not understand does not really change the truth).

You are constantly supporting NisarKand's wrong and unsourced propaganda. Besides that, you only eem to be interested in the name-calling of others, but NEVER seem to be concerned with the many insults and name-callings of NisarKand against others. This is another proof for your POVish behaviour (and I really do not care if you feel insulted by that).

NisarKand is pushing for a nationalist, racist, and totally unsourced POV ... and you are - very obviously - supporting or at least tolerating his views.

Tājik 17:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I no more support his outrageous behavior than yours, I have posted him notes commenting on his behaviour and asking him to stop.

I did read your post and it supports Nisar's comment that the Pashtuns are the second largest ethnic group in Herat. This is important information in regards to the current political and human rights situation in Herat. Because this is one of the few things in the English-national news about Herat, human rights violations, and in the primary literature, the targets of the human rights violations, and its leadership, it belongs in the first paragraph.

So, what exactly is nationalistic about the Pashtuns being the second largest ethnic group in Herat? What is racist about it? What is POV about it, when you come into the Herat discussion page all upset about it being included, then you post information that you have that supports it? Please explain without attacking me, why it is nationalistic (I'm an American, by the way) to say that the Pashtuns are the second largest ethnic group in Herat when you yourself agree with it?

By all means post all useful information you have, but don't post it all tangled up in personal attacks on users. What you think about me here or anywhere simply has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, and you will lose supporters if you keep posting what amounts to vitriolic attacks against anyone who does not see that the history of Afghanistan should be written entirely from a Persian POV--and I told Nisar the exact same thing, that he will have no support on Misplaced Pages if he personally attacks people rather than discusses the issues.

I hope you can pause and take a moment to see what looks pretty bad from a neutral point of view: you attacked me and Nisar for including information you just provided data to support. Please also read up a bit about what is happening in Herat today to learn why it is important to list that the Pashtuns are the second largest ethnic population in Herat. KP Botany 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Racist" were other comments of NisarKand (actually most of his comments) which were very obviously tolerated and partly supported by you!

There is no need to mention a 10% minority in the introduction. The Pashtun population of Herat, as well as other minority communities should be mentioned in a special section in the article, but NOT in the intro.

Take a look at the article Kandahar: although Tajiks constitute 1/4 of the population, they are not mentioned in the intro as the "second largest ethnic group" because of the very simple reason that it is not an important comment and has no place in the intro. Kandahar is since at least 3 centuries the center of Pashtun national-identity and history - neither the Tajiks, nor the Hazaras of Kandahar are that important to be mentioned in the intro.

With all due respect: I am really tired of your pointless efforts in messing up articles and then suddenly vanish when everything is out of control (see Afghanistan where you first supported all the nonsense of NisarKand, including his racist comments against Iranians, and then suddenly dissapeared when things got out of control until an admin protected the article!). Either try to contribute to an article in a POSITIVE WAY and - most of all - in a NEUTRAL way, or leave it to someone else who can support his claims with valid points (you have also deleted the major information that the main population of Herat is not generally "Tajik" but Farsiwan! I have corrected YOUR mistake and supported it with a source!).

You are free to edit whatever article you want ... but your recent edits in Afghanistan and Herat were not positive or helpful at all.

Tājik 07:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again, another unique quote from your "online friend" NisarKand:

• "... Finally, when Emperor Babur stated in his 1525 AD memoires about calling Tajiks "Sarts"....Perhaps he meant to call them "Rats" ..."

In the future, I advise you to be careful about whom you blindly support (I am refering to your recent comments that "NisarKand is not racist at all"). I have reported him to an admin.

Tājik 16:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW: I just read your comment on NisarKand's talk-page , and it is sad that you are STILL fully supporting his racist and POVish opinion. Not only this, but you also come up with totally meaningless accusations about me, claiming that "others are complaining about me" and that I "might be block". What the hell are you talking about?! Whom are you talking about?! User:Karcha? Or any other Turkish nationalists in here who have been depanted so many times, not only by me, but also by others?!

You are no scholar and no specialist on Central Asia - these are your own words. If you do not believe me, then stop spreading lies about me and stop supporting racism. It might interest you that in both cases - athat of the Hephthalites as well as Afghanistan - User:Sikandarji who is an academic in Oxford and a specialist on Central Asian and Indian history is supporting MY VIEW - because of a very simply reason: I am able to provide reliable sources, you and your racist fried are NOT.

Ahhh ... and I forgot: NisarKand may delete his countless racist comments, but this not change the fact that he has already stated them. All comments are saved on Misplaced Pages servers, and he has been reported to admins.

As for you, KP Botany: I do not consider you a neutral person or someone who has a good will concerning artciles about Afghanistan. You have proven to be biased, and you seem to have sympüathy for Pashtun nationalism as well as unsourced POV, not to mention sympathy for those who themselvs have sympathy for the Taliban. I do not consider your edits helpful.

Tājik 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Manuel de Guirior

Hi KP. Those were different expeditions. Mutis's did not begin until 1783, three years after Guirior had left office. There were three royal expeditions to the New World at about that time, those of Hipólito Ruiz López in Peru (including New Granada), Mutis (as far as I know only in New Granada, not in Peru proper), and Martín Sessé y Lacasta in New Spain. And thanks for starting the Ruiz López article. I had intended to translate his article from the Spanish Misplaced Pages, but haven't gotten to it yet. --Rbraunwa 16:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do any translations let me know, and I'll add whatever information I have. I want all the Spanish botanists and expeditions on en.wiki. I did download it, but didn't use it for this brief start. However, I did check the dates in my notes, and, oh, I see Mutis started under Antonio Caballero y Góngora. Thanks for checking. I'll revert if you haven't. KP Botany 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)