User talk:JoJan

. .Well, that’s me

John Tarleton (8 November 1811 – 25 September 1880) was a Royal Navy officer who went on to be Second Naval Lord. He was given command of the fifth-rate HMS Fox in 1852, of the frigate HMS Eurydice in 1855 and of the frigate HMS Euryalus in 1858: he led the latter ship as an element of the Channel Squadron and then of the Mediterranean Squadron. Tarleton served as Junior Naval Lord from 1871 and then as Second Naval Lord from 1872 to 1874. He was promoted to Vice Admiral in 1875 and retired in 1879. He is seen here in an 1860 photograph by John Jabez Edwin Mayall.Photograph credit: John Jabez Edwin Mayall; restored by User:Adam Cuerden

Archive – More featured pictures...

Archive l : March 2004 - December 2004 Archive 2 : till end June 2005

Hello JoJan, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to join the community. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Newcomers' Village pump. And of course, feel free to talk with me or ask questions on my talk page. Enjoy! --Αλεξ Σ 15:14, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I noticed that you put an asterisk next to your name on RickBlock's list. I would be happy to nominate you for adminship. Guettarda 22:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Uther beat me to it. Guettarda 23:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh sure... spoil my announcement. ;) - UtherSRG 23:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Supported with pleasure. seglea 08:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin

You may be interested in this link. - UtherSRG 23:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 23:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA

Good luck! Great work on contributing all those images. --Silversmith Hewwo 00:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

African Daisy

Yes, thanks for your help on identifying the species. I just did a quick google last night for it and I wasn't entirely sure. More pics would be great. I'll get onto that article later, although to be honest, plant species arent my specialty. Any help is more than welcome. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vertrouwen

Ik heb alle vertrouwen in je! Waerth 18:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phagobox

Hi, Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it a go. I admit wrestling with boxes isn't my number 1 favourite thing but I'll try and come up with something. Richard Barlow 16:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've managed to split the phagobox into 2 columns in the Ghost Moth article but I'm unsure how to change the text size in piped format. Do you think it is necessary to change the text size (phagoboxes for some species will be considerably bigger than this) and if so, how do I do it? Richard Barlow 30 June 2005 10:35 (UTC)

Adminship

I have promoted you to be an admin. Congradulations. →Raul654 01:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion. Guettarda 02:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Identifying plants

Hello JoJan. I just took two nice pics of plants in my neighborhood, but I am complete botanic amateur. Can you help me please with identifying them? You can find these pics here: [1] and [2] . Thank you. - Darwinek 09:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. In July I will be trying to take more photos of flowers in our garden. - Darwinek 15:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you help me please with identifying this Paeonia [3] ? - Darwinek 29 June 2005 09:52 (UTC)

Daisy

Hi Jo, could you have a look at the last vote on the FP nom of your African Daisy pic? [4] Thanks, --Silversmith Hewwo 13:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging

Thanks for uploading Image:Paphiopedilum-wolterianum.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{no source}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{gfdl}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding {{NoRightsReserved}}. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}}. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks so much, Superm401 | Talk July 4, 2005 03:12 (UTC)

I answered on his talk page. JoJan 4 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)

Anionic addition polymerization

Sorry, maar daar ligt mijn specialisme niet helemaal. Ik ben meer een biochemicus en organische synthese is een veld waarin ik niet zo sterk ben. Het is waarschijnlijk beter om om input te vragen bij het Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 18:06 (UTC)

English translation for those not fluent in Dutch: Sorry but that (organic chemistry) isn't my specialism. I'm a biochemist and I'm afraid my knowledge of organic synthesis is lacking too much to give meaningful feedback. It's probably better to ask for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 18:06 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/I1

Dragon's Flight pointed out a serious omission to this proposal: that the image description page of WikiCommons should include the content of the one on Wikipedia. I have reworded the proposal to include that. Because the wording changed, I have hidden your vote; please read the new version and see if you support it now, and reinstate your vote under the appropriate section depending on whether you do. Yours, R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Sophora

Hi Jo - Sophora japonica is now Styphnolobium japonicum, so I've removed the pic from Sophora. I've also added it to the Commons|Styphnolobium japonicum page, so it comes up on the Commons link at Styphnolobium - MPF 23:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. My handbook still llist this as Sophora japonica and therefore I didn't check it any further. My available time was limited, and I had to upload a lot of tree pictures. JoJan 13:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oncidium-longipes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Oncidium-longipes.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{no source}} or {{no license}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its source and/or copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{GFDL}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding {{NoRightsReserved}}. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}} but you need to substantiate your claim by explaining why you think it's fair use. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks. RedWolf 05:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Image files from Molecule editors

I didn' fully understand the question you posed me, but I will try to give you some information anyway! You cannot "cut-and-paste" images into Wikipedia pages: you must upload the image file and then link to it from the wiki-code. The file can be uploaded in any format which wikipedia supports (including .jpg and .gif) but we find that .png images work best for chemical diagrams, even if they are somewhat more complicated to produce. Once your diagram is finished, select the Export item in the File menu: this will give you a choice of file formats to choose from. ACD/ChemSketch allows you to export the image directly as a .gif file, or as a .tif file which can be converted into a .png file by most image processing software. If you cannot produce a .png file, do not worry! A .gif image is far far better than no image at all. Once you have saved the image on your hard disk in the chosen file format, you can upload it to wikipedia in the usual way, by clicking on the Upload file link and following the instructions there. Please do not forget to include a copyright tag: chemical diagrams are usually considered copyrightable, and so a tag such as {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}} should be used. Hope this answers your problem, en goede teken! Physchim62 11:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods

Please accept my apologies. I was going through Category:WikiProjects and making sure they displayed in alphabetical order and I noticed a lot of projects which were inactive, and in some cases consisted of one line. I drew an admittedly very arbitrary line and decided any project that hadn't been edited since before June I would mark as inactive. I had meant to place a message on each talk page once I had done so, but my computer crashed around 5pm BST and I've only just got back online. I did not mean to cause offence, and please feel free to remove the template, or let me know and I will do so. Steve block 21:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

File:Betulapendula2web.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Betulapendula2web.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#File:Betulapendula2web.jpg|discussion]] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

I only listed this because it isn't used anywhere and Category:Betula pendula have similar photos. Regards, Thuresson 23:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Boys

I would ask you to reconsider your vote for deletion as this article has now been expanded. PatGallacher 17:54, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Image:Aegopodium podagraria1.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Aegopodium podagraria1.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

RedWolf 05:02, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Also Image:Aeshnamixta1web.jpg, Image:Ajuga reptans1.jpg

Answer on user page of RedWolf JoJan 14:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Anacamptis

I see you edited that page but did not answer my query on the discussion page. Could you please clarify that? Are there 32 or 36 diploid chromosomes, or is in numbers 32 or 26, and what is the "of" doing please? Pdn 00:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed on the talk page of Anacamptis. JoJan 05:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Assorted-living-corals.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Assorted-living-corals.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Nv8200p 13:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on discussion page of User:Nv8200p JoJan 14:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else uploaded the same image Image:Assorted living corals.jpg, named it slightly different and attached it to the Corals article. I figured it was the same uploader, but now I see it was someone else. Unfortunately, it does not have a source either so no telling how long it will stay on Wikipedia. Thanks. Nv8200p 16:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acorus

Hi Jo - I took out the links to Acoraceae and Acorales, as they are just redirects back to Acorus (the sole genus in the order). On an aside, the Sweet Flag (Acorus calamus) page needs either some heavy editing or merging with Acorus, as (with the new breakup of Acorus calamus into two or more species), the Sweet Flag page is now no longer about a single species, it is nearly the same as the genus page - MPF 20:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on talk page of MPF ++++

Hi Jo - many thanks for checking over! (I've been out all day to see a Booted Warbler, a major rarity here) - MPF 20:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translation, please?

Hi JoJan, can you maybe translate the things I wrote here. It would be really nice, because I don't know if Ed understands English. Thank you very much in advance, --Flominator 20:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done + some comments JoJan 07:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Revolution Radio

Hi, I just noticed this speedy deletion.

19:29, 19 August 2005 JoJan deleted "Wrestling Revolution Radio" (vanity)

Could you explain on what grounds you deleted this article? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

answer on the discussion page of Tony Sidaway. JoJan 08:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me about a particular institution, although two people are mentioned in connection with it. It could be deletable as an ad (via VfD) but I haven't made my mind up on that. Someone has recreated it so I'll have a go at expanding it and I'll list on VfD if I think it's not suitable for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 11:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatsername

I notice from the deletion log that you deleted Whatsername. The page is up on VfU, and I can't tell from the deletion log entry which of the crieteria for deletion it fulfilled. Could you please tell me exactly why you deleted this, or perhaps indicate as much on WP:VFU? DES ^(talk) 13:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

answer on discussion page of User:DES JoJan 16:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on this article. I have copied them to the relevant VfU section. I don't think the contnet you quoted id nonsense in the sense used by WP:CSD, nor does it seem to me to fit any of the other speedy deletion criteria. Mind you, i might well vote to delte it on a VfD, but that is a quite different standard IMO. I have voted to undelete this page. I tend to interpret the CSD rather strictly. DES ^(talk) 05:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers

Hello. Me again. Can you please take a look at these flowers [5], [6], [7], [8] and help with identyfying. Thanks a lot. -- Darwinek 09:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Franz von Siebold

That's a splendid job you've done! --Wetman 04:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JoJan 05:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Turk an authentic replica of HMS Blandford?

You wrote in the article Grand Turk (frigate) that she was built as an authentic replica of HMS Blandford. I followed the career of this vessel, since before the first HH miniseries. And this is not my recollection at all. My recollection is that construction of the Grand Turk began when she was going to be used in a big budget film about the Crusades, that was to star Arnold Schwarznegger. The film was cancelled. The vessel was half-built. The vessel remained half-built until the producers of the HH films acquired it, and completed it, trying to adapt it to look more like a frigate than like a 12 century vessel suitable for a film about the Crusades. If you look at the Grand Turk in the first HH film she doesn't really look like a frigate. The producers could have rented the reproduction of HMS Rose, which is based on a real frigate, as the producers of "Master and Commander" did. Presumably using it would have been too expensive. Do you know where you got the info that she was authentically based on HMS Blandford? -- Geo Swan 13:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. A crew member confirmed to me that the Grand Turk was indeed an authentic replica of the HMS Blandford. This is equally confirmed by internet sites dating before I wrote the text of the Wikipedia article. Just type in Google : "Grand Turk" + Blandford and you'll get 85 hits confirming this statement. On the other hand, if your information is reliable, then there is no reason why shouldn't mention this in the article, but I cannot find any confirmation of this story. JoJan 15:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dry "Period" or Dry "Season" for Pachypodia.

JoJan, I have a question that maybe you could help figure out.

Stoive has suggested that the term "dry" when used to modify a period of time be linked to the Wiki:dry season for Pachypodia. I think it is a strong intuitive move because, as Stoive has observed that the Wiki: dry is meaningless as it is written; whereas the Wiki: dry season is not. Certainly this prolonged period for which Pachypodium species experience without rain could synchronize with a notion of a "Dry Season." See the Wiki: dry season. Apparently (a) there is an oscillating "belt" of both a "Wet" and "Dry" season around the equator that cycles North and South from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn. The Wiki: Tropic of Capricorndemonstrates that the Tropic of Capricorn bisects Southern Africa and Madagascar. Also the Wiki states that (b) "local geographical" conditions have a significant affect upon this oscillating belt, which might explain how a "Wet Season" could occur in a xeric, geological landscape. Local conditions are probably influenced by the Oceans (South Atlantic and Indian) and topography (Mountain ranges). The "Wet Season" could be indeed "wet" but slight given this influence. That is, the oceans and the topography minimalize the amount of rainfall, but rainfall occurs nonetheless. Where I am unclear is about a "dry season" as part of this more global explanation of wet/dry cycles. I am clear about the geography of South Africa and Madagascar. It is a xeric landscape for large areas. I am pretty sure without looking at my notes that the shortest dry period or "season" for Pachypodium is about 5-6 months. All and all, this hypothesis that the dry "periods" mentioned in the literature I have read be part a global cycle of wet/dry seasons seems tempting.

There is also a pragmatic reason to define "dry" as "dry season." The Wiki: Dryness is not informative; so Stoieve switched it to "[[[dry season | Dry Season]]" so as to give the link meaning. I think that instinct is good too. This way the term "dry" carries a lot more meaning to the reader.

Nevertheless, I have some reservations about making this inference: Is this prolonged period that Pachypodia have to endure without rain a "Dry Season" or rather a "Dry period. . . ? (1) Why does none of the literature I have read not make mention of this tropical wave of "dry/wet" seasons. . . ? Its omission in a book like Rapanarivo et al. has me wondering because the authors specifically address a larger context to the habitats of Pachypodium. Yet, this omission might not be such a big deal; too, because I know that Southern Africa is divided into, I believe, an Easterly Winter Wet Season and a Westerly Summer Wet season. I know this climatic geography from studying Haworthia and members of the Mesembryantheum family (e.g. Lithop, Conophytum, etc.) that inhabit the Horn of Africa. Rapanarivo et al. do not mention this large scale continental climatic geography either so, maybe, as authors, they choose not to go that far with the larger context of Pachypodium. (2) Having stated that this "East-Winter-Wet" and "West-Summer-Wet" prevailing continental, climatic geography already exists to my knowledge, the question becomes: "How does this tropical oscillating Wet/Dry cycle from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn fit together with the aforementioned known continental pattern, which seems to be more dependent upon the Oceans and Topography than a macro global cycle. Yes it is a "Continental" cycle but not one that effects the whole globe like the el Nino effect off the West coast of South America. I can not answer this question either. (3) Without an explicit reference stating that this tropical "wet/dry" seasonal cycle plays a decided role in Madagascar and Southern Africa, are we not acting presumptively. I mean I am uncomfortable with making a statement that I cannot point to research or documents that state clearly what I am suggesting. I mean, the global, tropical oscillating "wet/dry" season is a compelling conjecture, one that I would like to make, but do we have the authority to make such a claim. . . ? (4) Lastly the amount of wetness and dryness varies greatly for Pachypodium. In Madagascar, the East Central coast is a jungle. Yet to the North, it is xeric. But the South of the island, by far, receives the lest amount of rain. This rainfall pattern is clearly documented. As I spoke earlier, Southern Africa has three zones of overall climate: (a) Easterly Wet Winter; (b) Westerly Wet Summer; and (c) a zone in between the two where rain occurs naturally all year. Pachypodium inhabit all three zones as well as all of Madagascar except the Jungle (hydric) and the more mesic areas.

I do not know really what to do here. It is compelling to think of the dry period for Pachypodium as a global phenomenon. It enriches the article with a larger context. But without any direct reference is it not just speculation . . . ?. And if it is speculation, that does not seem not to be proper for Wikipedia. One might might allude to the possibility of this tropical global "wet/dry" seasonal phenomenon as a possibility, but I would not hasten to claim it for truth and fact without a rigorous source.

So I am not sure what is best . . .I thought you might have an answer. I have been discussing this subject with Stoive a while ago but forgot to follow up on it. I am doing so now, as I suggested an Administrator might know what is better to conclude.

tdwin476 Tim Winchester 19:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Luckily, Pachypodium is confined to Madagascar. Tnis means, that, when defining the word dry you don't have to take into account global weather patterns. It should be sufficient if you define just the climactic conditions of Madagascar. There is no need to turn a botanical article into a meteorological article about global climatic conditions. As you point out in point 4, here above, that Pachypodium grows in different climatic conditions, it should be enough to document these conditions. Of course, you can always apply some fine-tuning and try to articulate your ideas more clearly where you deem it necessary. But as always, try to be brief and to the point. JoJan 08:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unclear apparently. I am sorry. Five species of Pachypodium do reside on the continent of Africa--Pachypodium bispinosum. P. leallii, P. namaquanum, P. saundersii, and P. succulentum--the Type species for the Genus. But your implication is correct; in that the other 20 species are residents of Madagacar. They sufficiently inhabit diverse habitats that vary geographically. I think, but can not be certain, that a contributing factor to the moisture regime is the typhoon season in the Indian Ocean. I wish I had the book that I think that reference is in currently. For Madagascar, I have a pattern but no real marco-climatic cycle that explains the island's weather. As I state above, and I believe I have the geography correct, Southern CONTINENTAL Africa is dicvided into the aforementioned three zones--(a) East-Wet-Winter; (b) West-Wet-Summer; and (c) and intermediate zone. Pachypodia are found in all three locations, I believe.

At this point, the more I think about it, it seems more rigorous, despite the loss of richness, to stick with what can be documented. It might be pointed out that a possible "Wet/Dry" Cycle does occurr between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn that could possibly explain the wet/dry "period" that Pachypodium experience. Without a reference; however, it remains a conjecture--a very compelling one.

So guess I am with you on the part of staying to the individual habitats and not venturing into a global explanation. Simply the Wiki for "dry" needs to be deleted, unless it can perhaps point to "xeric," rather than link to Dry Season or Dryness. I will inform [[User: Stoive | Stoive] about this correction I plan to make to the afffected articles that link dry months and dry period to dry season.

Also, today I did some minor clean-up on the von Siebold article. Nothing major. I am proud of that article, as collaboration turned out for the best.

tdwin476 Tim Winchester 21:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the Day

Hi JoJan,

Just to let you know that a picture you uploaded, Image:Daisy1web.jpg, is up for Pic of the Day on the 4th September. As this will be a weekend, it will probably also appear on the MainPage. You look like you may be an editor who knows more about this flower than most, so could I ask you to check the associated caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 4, 2005. -- Solipsist 11:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orchid Genera: Acineta & Aerides

There is a reference in the Acineta genera that there are 15 species contained therein; however, there are actually 16 species listed in the Species section. So, would you happen to know if one the species should not be contained... or if the number should simply state the genera contains 16 species? Also in the Aerides genera there is a 25 vs. 27 mismatch similar to the Acineta numbering mismatch.

Thanks for pointing this out. Every year about 800 new orchid species are being discovered. I have edited the article in this sense. JoJan 15:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orchid Genus abbreviations, not botanists

In the latest revision of the Laelia orchid genus "Lindley = abbr. Lindl.: Linnaeus = abbr. L. - already mentioned in the taxobox" I think there is a bit of a disconnect. I was trying to to include both the botanist's abbreviation Lindl. and the actual genus' abbreviation L..

I agree the text-based Lindl. reference should be removed and left in the taxobox... my miss for Laelia. Once some of the other genera stubs get taxoboxes I will move text-based botanist references to the taxobox to be consistent with this practice.

Beyond the botanist reference, what I was actually trying to improve was that none of the genera had a reference to the actual genus abbreviations... hence my addition of (abbreviation L.) for Laelia. Do you have a suggestion of where an orchid genus' abbreviation might be placed? Maybe we could start something we could be consistent with, then we could both attack this minor but valuable addition to the multitude of orchid genera.

Maybe the orchid genus abbreviation should go in the taxobox, too?... or, Maybe a whole new "List of Orchid Genus Abbreviations" page? Maybe these abbreviations should all be on the Orchid Genera List page? What do you think? {Brett Francis 07:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

There is not much to be gained by adding genera abbreviations in the text. I know these abbreviations are being used by orchid growers (see here : [9]). I don't think these abbreviations are in use in botany. Ascocentrum miniatum can be written as A. miniatum but NOT as Asctm. miniatum (Asctm. being proposed as the abbreviation in this list). It would only add to the confusion of the reader. Thus L. can only mean the taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus and not the genus Laelia. But, on the other hand, it could be mentioned in the text that in trade journals Laelia is being abbreviated as L. This would be a more clear-cut description than Laelia (abbreviation L.). As to the Orchid Genera List, I wouldn't add genera abbreviations, for the same reason : added confusion. As I go along describing orchid genera, I add the official abbreviation of the author(s) in this list. Two abbreviations wouldn't do. If you really want to add those genera abbreviations, do it then in the text, always mentioning that this is being used in trade journals. And to conclude, I appreciate any help in describing the orchid genera. The orchid family is the largest family in the Plant Kingdom and there are certainly many years of hard work ahead, even for a team of contributors. JoJan 08:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The deeper detail on this idea is about thinking in terms of someone using a search engine to find a Wikipedia article. Having the abbreviation L. in the same article as the species names would allow someone to find the proper Wikipedia article by either pair of keywords "L. albida" or "Laelia albida" when all that person might have is the abbreviated name from a plant they possess. I have reviewed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage again and do agree that it doesn't seem to have a place to fit trade-pub related abbreviations, so if the only tools available are the taxobox and the actual article text then I think the idea for a text-based "in trade journals Laelia is being abbreviated as L" style entry would work the best. But before running off and using this approach, maybe an improvement would be to have a more formal opening template for orchid genera? This template could be used to capture and explicitly show the absence of "place of origin", "trade abbreviation", "epiphytic... lithophytic... etc", "name history", etc. Such a template would be significantly better than a purely text-based solution since a text-based approach for these items seems destined to have inconsistencies in how they will be captured across the orchid genera entries for at least the next few years of improvements. :) Brett Francis 16:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right when you state that anyone using the search engine should easily find the object of the search. However using abbreviations in the search engine can complicate the search. A quick search in Google delivers for 'L. albida' the following results, besides Laelia albida : Luzula albida (synonym of Luzula luzuloides), the North African species Lavatera albida and a bacterium Longispora albida. Therefore I shun abbreviations, unless I have already stated the full name in the article. Thus, when composing a list of species, I always use the full name. And then, as with Laelia albida, I can use the abbreviated name L. albida in the text. This way, someone searching for Laelia albida will always get the right result, while searching for L. albida in Wikipedia delivers 50,686 results, unless you put the name between double quotation marks. As to the proposed templates, yes, it would alleviate our task describing plants. But there are already more than 11,000 botany articles, all text-based. Changing them all into a template-based article would be an enormous task, nobody is inclined to begin. All we can do, is trying to give an as complete text as possible. JoJan 09:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's keep things in the text, but possibly with another template. We can start with the orchids. :) as this is a smaller set and over time could be an example for the other plant articles that would migrate over a larger amount of time. Relatively there are not as many orchid genera that are actually filled out, so starting now with a template would at least catch those that are added from now on. I look at the Orchid Genera List and see all the red links that could be setup with stubs that could point toward a template approach for orchids. This really feels like an opportunity as I was going to go through them and start setting up stubs anyway. I just don't know how to create a template and would rather not simply dive in without some consensus on doing so; I am not up for a mass-revert if there's eventual disagreement. Brett Francis 15:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to your proposal for templates : you can put this forward on the talk page of the Tree of Life (TOL). But I'm afraid you won't find an enthusiastic welcome. All articles about flora and fauna are being written in the same way. It has taken a lot of time and many lengthy discussions to come to a common point of view. Nevertheless, you can always try.Thanks.

I'll look into floating the idea once I have an example. Brett Francis

And as to creating stubs : I'm against it for the following reason : stubs create BLUE hyperlinks and give to a contributor the false idea that the article has already been been written. I follow this method : I create a new article for genera with one or more photos available. A photo gives a much better look to the article. Each new article may take a lot of time and a lot of research. But in my opinion, this is much better than creating stubs one after another. Furthermore, stubs downgrade the value of Wikipedia. People wouldn't take it seriously any more. JoJan 18:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was planning on starting stubs with some valuable information only after some research in order to make them valuable BLUE items; so some stubs, but valuable stubs. However, if I am going to do this repeatedly for a few months I want to explore the consistency template idea first. I'll be heading to the ToL once I have an example to use in the conversation. Brett Francis 04:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK JoJan 18:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the {todo} tag and think it fills the intent I had for a template that would explicitly state what is missing in an orchid article. I'll put a couple on some existing genus stubs. Brett Francis 07:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orchid Hybrids

Have you come across any guidelines for adding Orchid Hybrids to the genus pages? Some genera have naturally occurring hybrids only and others have man-made hybrids. Brett Francis 16:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are no such guidelines, as far as I know. However there templates for taxoboxes of hybrid SPECIES and cultivars. But I don't think we're already ready to describe hybrid orchid species, when there is so much work left describing orchid genera. Where necessary, I add a LIST of hybrid GENERA, such as in Ascocentrum or Vanda. But it is not always easy to know which hybrid genus is man-made or naturally occurring without deeper research. I'll look into it as soon as I can find the time. Or otherwise, you're welcome to do it yourself. Any help is appreciated.

The idea on the hybrid side is that I have a growing list of species images that capture species, natural hybrid species and man-made hybrid species. I'd like to post, donate, and setup some links to these images in the proper genera, and I am again looking for guidance before I dive in. Brett Francis 16:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please sign your mail by four tildes ~~~~. I like to know whom I'm talking to. JoJan 08:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added my sig above and continue to appreciate this flurry of help JoJan. Brett Francis

A growing list ? Hmm, very well. We need lots of pictures of orchids. Copyright-free photos are hard to get. I've uploaded a few hundred, essentially from a Danish website. You can upload your images to Wikipedia Commons. First make sure that you possess the copyright or have the written autorisation from the owner of the copyright. On the Commons, this lesson Commons:First steps should be helpful. In the box on the upload page, give a description of the species this way : start with a semi colon like this ;Species : Laelia albida - on the next line : ;Family : Orchidaceae - then you give the source or the url and the name of the photographer. In the next box, tick the appropriate license (for your own pictures : take the one with the double license). After uploading, find out (with the search box) if there already exists a page for the genus Laelia. Then add your picture to the article page in the same way as others have done it before you. If there is no such article yet, then create one. This is all very easy, just look to other articles (such as Laelia) how others have done it before you. Create a gallery. Add [[Category:Orchidaceae]]. If an article about the genus (or about the species) has already been written in the English Wikipedia, then add [[en:name of article]]. It's really easy, you just have to try it. JoJan 19:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fumaric acid structural image

Hi, I've listed Image:Fumaric acid.jpg, uploaded by you, for deletion as it's been replaced by a somewhat cleaner PNG version Image:Fumaric acid.png. Hope this is OK. –Mysid (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. JoJan 18:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhood Orchid Genus

I started chatting with BerndH about the possible incosistency that the Greenhood genus entry simply should be an alias to an actual Pterostylis genus entry that doesn't exist yet. Any thoughts? I don't know much about moving pages. Regardless, with your exposure to more Wiki-history than I, have other genera been moved to their more scientific names? (Brett Francis 07:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. I prefer the scientific name as the title, while, if there is a commonly accepted English name, I put this English on top of the taxobox. I'll move Greenhood to Pterostylis, while keeping a redirect at Greenhood. This way, any one searching for Greenhood or Pterostylis, will end up at Pterostylis. This has also the advantage of avoiding piped links. JoJan 08:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. (Brett Francis 22:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Divide List of Orchidaceae Genera page

Since the List of Orchidaceae genera page is a long page, I was thinking of splitting this List page into multiple indexed pages. First, I don't know how to do this; second I wanted to chat about it first to see if other long pages like this one get split in similar ways. I'd also like to learn about a more public place a change like this should be floated beyond your talk page. Example: The List of Orchidaceae genera page would contain the same overview text but have links to alphebatized orchid links:

 List of Orchidaceae genera/A-F
 List of Orchidaceae genera/G-M
 List of Orchidaceae genera/N-T
 List of Orchidaceae genera/U-Z

...which then possess the appropriately divided genera list. Another idea was that the division could be as follows... the page List of Orchidaceae genera would contain the same overview but simply have links to the following pages:

 Orchidoideae
 Epidendroideae
 Apostasioideae
 Cypripedioideae
 Vanilloideae

...and these pages would then contain appropriately divided ==List of genera== subsections. Of course this would take some more time and possibly even might be organized as a project... but the existing information would be more logically divided and categorized appropriately. My last thought is... why does this page exist when the Taxonomy_of_the_orchid_family page exists and with a little help checking all the genera in the List page we could reduce redundant entry of genera data in Wikipedia. Thereby reducing the need for any synchronization or mismatches. Thoughts, or other ideas? (Brett Francis 05:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]