If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 03:34, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

Trillium

Oh, that's a shame. I've replied to your question on how to delete it at Image talk:Trillium.jpg. It wasn't actually my picture by the way. Michael Becker uploaded it for me so he could earn Wikimoney! Angela 18:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well done for finding that Trillium picture! Your new one looks great too. Angela 20:34, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Looks like mav has already reverted it (and added a "What the heck are you doing?" to the user's talk page!). You did the right thing not wanting to get in an edit war though. I'll keep an eye on it in case it happens again, but you could mention on the talk page what your concerns with the previous version were, although probably not necessary unless he comes back to it. Angela 20:53, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Trillium

Thanks for the reminder. I've renamed them now and listed the old ones on WP:IfD. Image deletion was recently re-enabled, so they will be able to be deleted in a week, assuming there are no objections. Angela 21:38, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. Just now noticed it. :) How long ago did you attend Reed (if you don't mind my asking)? Anakolouthon

Ahh, so you know all about "Olde Reed" then? Heh. My friends and I are trying (as annoying freshmen, of course) to perpetuate an image of N� Reed. Which basically involves not going on about "back in my day, blah blah blah." It is especially annoying to those of us who are trying to enjoy our present Reed experiences when, say, sophomores talk about Olde Reed as if it was some mystical land that will never return, and we just missed it. A lot of people seem pretty annoyed with us, too. Anyway, I only mean this to be anecdotal. Glad to "meet" another Reedie on Wikipedia. :) --Anakolouthon 07:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Headings

Just so you know, =H1= headings are only for the title of pages. It is never appropriate to have them in the article itself. ==H2== is the next level down and is thus the most common. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Headline style. --mav 08:32, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi WormRunner, nice to meet you.

I agree entirely about Mountain Ash: there are, I think, three different species that share that common name, one in Australia, one in Europe, and one in the New World - and only one of the three is actually an ash! Eucalyptus regnans is much the best title for in, in my view. (Indeed, as you know, that's what I originally created it under, back before I knew about the "always use common names" rule. In this case, of course, the common name is impractical, so we are quite justified in making a disambiguation page at Mountain ash and using the botanical names instead.

In fact, there is a school of thought here that all plants should be listed by botanical name, as plant common names are so chaotic and contradictory. This would require a Wikipedia policy change and a good deal of discussion to push through, but on the whole I am in sympathy with it. In the meantime, I'm using common names, but only where they are sensible and unambiguous. As an example, Corymbia ficifolia, though a very common and much-loved garden plant in Oz, doesn't really have a proper common name. People sometimes call it Red Flowering Gum, but it isn't always red, all 800-odd eucalypts flower, and it isn't a gum at all, it's a bloodwood! So I made that one under the botanical name.

Anyway, go right ahead and make a disambiguation page at Mountain ash, I think it's the best solution, and I doubt that anyone will oppose it. (If you are not sure how to do the page move thing, sing out.)

Best -- Tony (Tannin 06:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC))

Images for deletion

I saw your question on Angela's page. If you've not already found it, there is indeed an images for deletion page - it's Wikipedia:Images for deletion :) -- Finlay McWalter 19:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's what I was going to say. :) Angela . 23:13, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

It is not advertising, it is just informations

When the intent is clearly to get a commercial web site linked, that is not "just information" in any sense that is compatible with wikipedia's goals. If you want to give "information" write a real article about the area. WormRunner 01:31, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just trying to help!!! lol

If i am trying to provide more info and ressources to th encyclopedia, i am then doing advertising??? anyway, i won't reput the link in aranes, though i should!! :-(

Araucaria

Duh! missed it! Thanks for pointing it out - I had found a dead link by a slightly different name - I will run round and do the redirects. seglea 07:25, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: Red alder

I saw your newly created article (nicely done, by the way.. love how you worked in the actinomycete) and figured there must be a PD image or two floating around somewhere. The grove picture is somewhat more atmospheric than the usual government fare, so I went ahead and snagged it. Informative and easy on the eyes.. always the best way to go, I say. If only the Canadian government would release its images! Oh and well. :) Hadal 17:23, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Potato vine

I see; sorry for the mixup! - Hephaestos 05:53, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) Very good job on it. I see from your user page it's in your specialty, I should pay closer attention. :) - Hephaestos 06:18, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Image markup

That works well! Thanks for the tip. - Hephaestos 17:44, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi WR. Actually, I didn't realise what I'd done until afterwards. I happened to glance at the page again (not having edited it since last night) and thought Tannin, you idiot: there is a great big typo in the middle of your shiny new wikicode taxobox. It was only after saving the (minor) change that I paused to wonder where that particular typo had snuck in from and the reality dawned on me.

Having explained that, let's ponder the idea. Currently, none of the animal taxa taxoboxes provide the author (or at least not in the areas I am familiar with, mostly the higher taxa). In fact, I don't recall seeing it around the plant pages either, though I've not spent much time there. So the tree of life "standard" is not a standard, at least not currently. I suspect it was quietly added by someone and no-one has noticed that it's there yet.

Should it be a standard thing? Hmmm .... I can see arguments both ways. The "pro" is obvious, the main "cons" are (a) layout considerations in the already cramped taxoboxes, and (b) readability. My first impression thought it is that if we were to add the author to the taxoboxes we would need, at the very least, to abandon the bold type to help make stuff fit. Possibly the article text is a better place. One to ponder.

Factbox design and standards are very much the topic of the hour right now, so this would be a good time to propose any new addition/deletion/change, and perhaps we should adjourn this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life .

Best -- Tannin 09:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What do you guys mean by "author"? Do you mean the super-ugly ref link? That is what the ==References== section of articles are for. Standard MoS stuff. --mav 09:43, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

List of Genera

On several family pages, I created a separate list of genera because the list was so long that it could interfere with page loading and handling for the main family page (and similarly with lists of species for genus pages). We need to pay attention to limiting the size of Wikipedia article pages. In the case of Araliaceae, this was not yet a problem because there was little under the family itself, but if the family's ever fleshed out, it may become an issue. jaknouse 17:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Other than very actively edited pages, I do not see much problem with long pages. For editing purposes, we can create sections, even within a list of genera. Where is the cutoff? and shouldn't we cross that bridge when we come to it, rather than creating a confusing array of subpages? WormRunner 22:31, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My book says barberry is used for its high citric acide content and used with mutton after being made into a jelly. Pickled for use with curries and used in rice dishes in Afghanistan. The author says he puts it with apples, like in apple pie. There is also a recipe here for a Persian rice and chicken dish, calls for 4 Tbsp. of barberries. He says it complements: rice pilafs, stewed fruits, especially apples, and jellies to accompany red meats. Goes good with allspice, chili, coriander, ginger, pepper, and turmeric. Please don't copy this word for word into the article. Some of this is right from my book. dave 06:49, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's a grey area, but pepper is also a fruit. My spice book takes the approach that a spice is any other part of a plant (other than leaf) used for flavouring dishes. I think things like raisins, craisins, etc.. don't qualify because they are more sweet and have less spicy notes to them. dave 14:04, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

No I couldn't find woodruff anywhere? But then I typed "woodruff spice" in google right now and I found it. It wasn't on Gernot Katzer's page anywhere, nor in my spice bible.... dave 08:11, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Sassafras: synergistic effect of (Cut-and-paste disease) + Altzheimers...sorry Pollinator 00:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew about the self-referential whisk fern link. I'm going to redo the whisk fern as a legitimate article in its own right . . . soon. . . anon . . . someday. jaknouse 06:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"butter and eggs"

What's the justification for this being important? - it is not a name with any formal validity, not found in any floristic or scientific texts. I've no objection to its being mentioned, but I can't see why it deserves bold text to compete with the standard name - MPF 16:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Frankly, I don't see why you insist on reducing its importance."

Partly because it conveys no information as to the species' botanical relationships; partly because it comes over as a foreign attempt to impose a new (and rather trite) name on one of our native plants

"It is a very widely used name and is in the references I can find. Which ones is it missing in?"

The standard floras in the species' native area - Blamey & Grey-Wilson; Clapham, Tutin & Warburg; Dandy; Druce; Jalas & Suominen; Kent; Perring & Walters; Polunin; Stace; Tutin et al.

"Interestingly, a google search for Linaria "common toadflax" produces 710 results. A search for Linaria "butter-and-eggs" produces 3,490 hits"

All that proves is the agressive dominance of the US on the web! Also that the 'common' is a somewhat optional qualifier, it is often just called 'Toadflax' - MPF 17:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I made a general topics sidebar for biology - at Mediawiki:biology - use {{msg:biology}} tag to put it on articles as needed. Sub-field article sidebars like psychology can be worked on as well. -SV(talk) 18:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Old Growth

You probably didn't notice, but I offered WikiMoney for anyone who started an article on old growth. So I paid ya in your WikiMoney account. Just for fun! Elf | Talk 04:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your help re:Kohlrabi - renamed and added to the article. Secretlondon 18:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be white eggplant, so that's what I've gone with. Thanks. Secretlondon 20:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Allium

Hi, I noticed you've worked some on the Allium list. There seem to be some confusions: A. diabolense is given the common name "wild onion", which links to an article about A. ursinum (I'm going to fix this one now by moving the wild onion article to Ramsons); A. ascalonicum links to Shallot which refers to Allium oschaninii and Allium cepa var. aggregatum and so on. I'd like to do some sorting on this, but don't want to muck it up! What would you say is the best source for matching up species with their common names? http://hortiplex.gardenweb.com/plants/ and http://plants.usda.gov/ seem useful, are there other sites you would recommend? Thanks for any advice. -- sannse (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

ToL and Categories

Please weigh in: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#MW_1.3_categories

Red Valerian

Hi... I have now redeemed my error about Valerian by writing a page about Red Valerian to go with the image. I haven't done redirects from any of the innumerable other common names for it - you may like to do so if your experience suggests they are better known. You may be able to improve the page, too, it's only a potboiler from standard sources. seglea 04:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You must be a writer of some sort ! Wonderful languaging at chickenpox. Jay 15:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Blush

Vietnamese coriander

Re: Vietnamese Coriander, why do you insist on capitalizing the name? "Coriander" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized; see also all other herbs in List of herbs. Jpatokal 15:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I hadn't seen the discussion in Tree of Life... and while I still think All Caps looks butt-ugly, I hesitate to go stir up that particular nest of hornets. But since no consensus has been achieved, and you don't seem to hold any strong opinions about the matter yourself, I'd appreciate it if you could move V.C. back to the grammatically correct non-caps version. Jpatokal 02:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer the capitalized form. WormRunner | Talk 03:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Last posted 0 of 0 messages

[no messages posted yet]

>> post message >>

Watch

You can add this article to your own "watchlist" and receive e-mail notification about all changes in this page.

Retrieved from "http://www.thebestlinks.com/User_talk__3A__WormRunner.html"

User talk:WormRunner

From TheBestLinks.com

Previous messages

Trillium

Trillium

Headings

Categories

Images for deletion

It is not advertising, it is just informations

Just trying to help!!! lol

Araucaria

Re: Red alder

Potato vine

Image markup

List of Genera

"butter and eggs"

Old Growth

Allium

ToL and Categories

Red Valerian

Vietnamese coriander

Related links

Discussion

Watch