Jump to content

User talk:Wsiegmund

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wsiegmund (talk | contribs) at 13:11, 8 October 2005 (Using ''Talk pages''). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

- Welcome to my talk page -
So that it is easier to follow a discussion, I will reply to messages left here on this page. If I have posted on your talk page,
I will be watching so you can reply there if you wish.

Because of length, some discussions on this page have been archived. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


Subalpine Fir

Hi Walter - thanks! very nice pics again :-) I'm doing very little on wiki just at the mo, my computer seems set to expire, keeps on freezing in mid-type . . grrrr! (so if I disappear that's why). Nootka Cypress has been reclassified recently, you'll find it at Callitropsis nootkatensis now (the reasons for the change are outlined there) - MPF 22:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've put Nootka Cypress in the proper category, now. I'm sorry to hear of your computer woes. Best wishes. Walter Siegmund 01:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Been wondering - do you have any opinion on whether it would be better to have Subalpine Fir at one page or two?: the two species split used by Fl. N. Amer. is far from universally accepted (e.g. USDA don't accept it). I was thinking of (a) moving the present page to just 'Subalpine Fir', and (b) expanding on the one/two species discussion, to make a page similar to that for White Fir (also split into two species by Fl. N. Amer.), or the coverage of Alpine Spruce at Norway Spruce. Let me know what you think - MPF 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a good proposal and support it. Pojar (op. cit.) does much the same and it works well. Coast Range Subalpine Fir and Rocky Mountains Subalpine Fir would be replaced by redirects to help those unfamiliar with the issue.
    • Will do, computer permitting! (just now, it seems to need 2 hours cool-off time for every half hour of working before it goes on the blink - yet a temperature indicator says it isn't overheating)
    • Hmmm - needs an admin to do it; I'll give Guettarda a buzz - MPF 20:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Addenum - Guettarda's done it now, I'll start working on the page - MPF 21:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the White Fir and Norway Spruce articles were very good.
    • Thanks! :-)
  • Some redirects for the White Fir and Norway Spruce common names seem to be missing. Is this intentional?
    • No, my oversight - I'm forever forgetting to do all the necessary redirects. By all means add any you see missing!
  • Do you have plans to work on Abies amabilis anytime soon? It is the dominant mid-elevation species west of the Cascade crest in Washington, often with only small number of other individuals, mostly Thuja plicata and Tsuga heterophylia.
    • Yes, again computer permitting; for pics I've got a studio closeup of some foliage (useful to show the dense pubescence) but a pic or two (or three or four ...!) from the wild would be brilliant. Any options on getting cones, or is it a poor crop this year?
  • Your suggestions of image subjects from Washington are welcome.
    • Any are welcome! If there's lots, they can always go in <gallery>...</gallery> format. Outsize trees are nice, but typical 'average' mature specimens are also perhaps better for an encyclopedia (I liked the Whitebark Pine pic in that respect), and shots of foliage + cones. Vine Maple would be good too, there's already a PD pic from the USDA, but it's very low res and could do with replacing, ditto for several other broadleaves too. And Taxus brevifolia (only very low res PD pic at the mo).
  • Best wishes, Walter Siegmund 17:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image suggestions. I think that I can get some of them soon.

Thought of another - Grand Fir could do with a tree pic - MPF

Perhaps the giant tree images could go into a new article Giant Trees or something similar, eventually.

Someone else suggested that too, by moving the ==Champion trees== section out of Tree to its own page; it might be a good idea - MPF

Why not request admin status? I'd be happy to suggest it, if you prefer. Walter Siegmund 22:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I may do yet, Guettarda is also suggesting it - MPF 23:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Silver Fir

Hi Walter - done now, awaiting a pic for the taxobox and any more details I've omitted! - MPF 15:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. I like the illustrations you found, especially the closeup of the lower surface. I spent several hours looking through thousands of images without finding any that are suitable. Either the trees/foliage are incidental to the image or the identity of the species is uncertain. Now that I have a good reason to go on a photography expedition, the weather has turned bad. Snow is forecast down to 4 to 5000' in the next few days. It is our first significant storm of the fall. When it improves, I'll try to take good images of cones, bark, and typical trees. The pitch blisters in the bark of younger trees is a good ID feature. - Walter Siegmund 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :-)) The pics are from a twig I picked and stuck on a scanner a while back (before I got my digi camera); unfortunately, the tree it is from is a long way away (it isn't a common species in cultivation around here) so I'll not be revisiting it for a while. Want to add a sentence on the bark? Annoying about the weather, nowt I can do about that! - MPF 21:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found an image. Please look at A. amabilis bark[1]. All but the Western Hemlock to the left of the foreground tree are A. amabilis. The pitch blisters are clear. I think a closeup might be better. Do you think this image is worth uploading?
No reason why not - it's a little blurred, but no worse than some of my pics! You could always put it on, and then overwrite it when you can get a better pic (like I did with Image:Abies homolepis cones.jpg, see its file history at commons) - MPF
That was a clever use of a scanner. The results are superb. Walter Siegmund 00:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing what can be done - all these are done on my scanner - MPF 13:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those are splendid images. Thank you for sending me to your fascinating Arboretum de Villardebelle web site. Walter Siegmund 06:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an Abies amabilis bark picture to the article. It is from Kachess Ridge. Walter Siegmund 17:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar Mountain expedition

On October 1, 2005, I walked about 6 miles in Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlands Park[2] to look for Taxus brevifolia individuals to photograph. The first hour was partly sunny, but later, a rare western Washington thunderstorm developed and brought rain.

I didn't see any Taxus brevifolia, but I did get Acer circinatum images. They are not completely satisfactory. This late in the year, they are somewhat damaged. Moreover they are damp from recent rain. But, they are higher resolution than the fall foliage image, they are sun-illuminated summer foliage and their provenance is well documented. I took pictures of Western Redcedar foliage, Western Hemlock, Red Alder and Bigleaf Maple bark and Douglas-fir cone and foliage. Please see the additions to my gallery. Walter Siegmund 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pics! - particularly like the Mountain Hemlock with fresh purple cones - MPF 01:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm greatful for all comments, favorable or otherwise. They help me improve, or so I hope. - Walter Siegmund 03:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the Mountain Hemlock image with open cones with the one with fresh purple cone. People are more likely to see the purple cones in the late summer, than the open cones in the winter or spring (when the snow is deep).

Is there a standard for referencing additional pictures? You mentioned using a gallery. Where is that done? Hike395 added the Commons template to Whitebark Pine. I added a {{Commons|Tsuga mertensiana}} template near the bottom for now. Walter Siegmund 05:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the Mountain Hemlock captions. The new arrangement looks good. -Walter Siegmund 21:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shows up the difference between the two subspecies well! - MPF 21:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing additional pictures

Is there a standard for referencing additional pictures? You mentioned using a gallery. Where is that done? Hike395 added the Commons template to Whitebark Pine. To Tsuga mertensiana, I added a {{Commons|Tsuga mertensiana}} template near the bottom for now. Walter Siegmund 05:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On additional pictures, they can go in gallery format at the end of the page (above cats), like this:
   <gallery>
   Image:xxxxx.jpg|Caption
   Image:xxxxy.jpg|Caption
   Image:xxxxz.jpg|Caption
   </gallery>
The gallery format makes them very small thumbnails, but they're still clickable for the full size pic page - MPF 21:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image to Tsuga mertensiana in this manner. - Walter Siegmund 03:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image wish list

Image Deletion Request

Hi. You asked that Image:Img 0965.jpg be deleted and stuck it on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 25. It's actually an image on Commons not on English Wikipedia. You need to ask there - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests Secretlondon 09:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. - Walter Siegmund 10:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kachess Ridge Trail

Having a vague memory of seeing some Grand Fir trees about 1976 at the Kachess Ridge Trailhead, I returned to that location today, in part to check my memory. In any event, I expected to get some exercise, enjoy the fall weather, and obtain more images of plants, even if they weren't Grand Fir. My trip was successful. I returned with images of Grand Fir, Pacific Silver Fir, Vine Maple, Oregon-grape, Douglas squirrel and an interesting, but unidentified fungus. Unfortunately, I didn't see any cones other than Douglas-fir, but did obtain images of the Vine Maple seeds.

Kachess Ridge is about 27 km southeast of Snoqualmie Pass. The trailhead elevation is 2360'. [3] Walter Siegmund 04:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! (apart from the no cone crop, but that's life :-). They may well be Interior GF (var. idahoensis) or intergrades with it, up there - MPF 22:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hi i'm just leaving a message for u, just to show u how well u taught me. proud? hi hi hi Tieu yeu nu 12:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using Talk pages

That is good. You indented and signed your message!

Here are a couple of more suggestions:

  • When you start a new discussion on a talk page (like here), use the "+" tab at the top of the page. That will at a subject headline and separate the new discussion from what went on previously. Also, it will add the headline to the table of contents at the top of the talk page.
  • Click on watch, the rightmost tab at the top of the talk page. That way, when someone replies to you, you will see it when you click on my watchlist at the very top of every page. Walter Siegmund 13:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wsiegmund&oldid=25056228"