User talk:Rkitko/Archive10

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

As usual, thanks for doing little detail work on my the articles I start. --KP Botany (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I created a lot of work for you. Thanks for all the edit support--will try not to create new articles when I'm miserably ill and taking cough medicine in the future. I appreciate that you take time to assess all the plant articles. --KP Botany (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Move families off the talk page if you finish them on the project page, please, and I'll try to add more when I can. I'm still not following your scheme for putting them up, but I'm sure I'm okay with it. Good to see what's red linked, and not, though. --KP Botany (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will do. The classification scheme is explained in the lead section. It's essentially a reproduction of Heywood et al., which differs slightly from APG II, which is why some families are italicized and others are bold. Any questions in particular? I'm open to suggestions on organization. I'm surprised by how few are red linked, really. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised, also, pleasantly for once. I added about 3 plant families that were red-linked. I think that only Curtis and I commented and we both pretty much agreed with Heywood, or rather failed to disagree, so I think however you're doing it, if you have a plan, and it's tied to a printed source is fine. --KP Botany (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rkitko, Puzzled by action by Kingturtle, who decided on 30 Nov 2008 to move the page of a cultivar, Ulmus parvifolia 'Frosty' to the main page for Ulmus parvifolia, for reasons best known to himself. Regret I appear to have made things worse by recklessly reverting the page to 'Frosty', and finding myself unable to retrieve the original U. parvifolia page. Should have sought your help first of course. If not too late, your assistance once more greatly appreciated. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks again for assistance rendered. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rkitko I saw that you posted a photo of the MCD on its page which was dated Dec 1913. Its a great photo but I wanted to let you know that I am the owner of the photo. I own the original gelatin print as well as the intellectural property rights on it. My name is Lucas McGrail and to the best of my recollection I was never asked if my property could be posted to Wiki without proper compensation. So I would respectfully requested that you remove the image from Wiki as soon as possible. If you wish to post it to Wiki, that would be fine but I will need to be compensated. Just so you don't doubt my seriousness, the back waves in the photo are from the adhesive on the back side of the print. They were formed by off gassing. The photo's original owner was Col. George Walbridge of Detroit MI who founded the construction company Walbridge Aldinger. I inheirted the photo from his estate. I would hope you'd do the right thing. Thank you for your time. ~~Lucas McGrail~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmcgrail (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to File:Michigancentralstation1913.jpg, my sincere apologies. The source I obtained it from noted it was published in 1913, which makes a big difference in copyright. To your knowledge, has it ever been published? Is it known who the author was? Was it Walbridge himself? If published prior to 1923, the image is now in the public domain. If unpublished where the author is known and the author's date of death is known, the copyright remains for 70 years after the author's death (if the author died prior to 1939, the image is now in the public domain). If the author is unknown or it was anonymous as a work for a company, the copyright remains for 120 years after the date of creation (so in this case, the copyright is valid until 2033). In the interest of erring on the side of caution, I will delete the image this afternoon - I'm short on time now - and await your reply. If none of the above apply, I do wish you would consider releasing it into the public domain as it is a nice image to illustrate the article. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Rkitko for respecting my property rights. This is what I can tell you about it. George Walbridge was the structural engineer on the Depot project. Three years later he founded his own general contracting company, Walbridge Aldinger. The photo in question is the last remaining photo of the construction progression photos that were taken by the construction company who built the station. If you look closely you can see workers on a ladder to the far right of the shot, gandy dancers laying track to the far left and just off of center two men in top coats watching the work (one I believe IS Walbridge himself). The station was opened Dec 27 1913 which means these workers were doing the last bit of work on the place when the photo was taken. FYI, it was opened ahead of schedule because the old Central depot had a fire which caused the whole station to be shut down. but I digress, the original photographer is unknown but other historians like me have postulated that it was the Manning Brothers of Detroit who took it because they were THE biggest construction photography studio in Detroit at the time. But there is no way to verify that. So as for publishing, it was and has always been a privately owned image and never published, unless someone used it without my permission recently. Now, this angle has been used may time over the decades to capture the building for publication but this particular image has never been. But for the sake of argument, the author is unknown which means the copy right lasts until 2033. However you make a valid point about the quality of the composition. You obviously understand what my complaint was by your act of removing it, which again, thank you for that. After thinking about it, I'm willing to release it if you would do one of two things for me. Either watermark it with "LMcgrail" across it when it is opened as a larger size OR reduce the resolution so that if anyone were to reproduce it, the resolution quality would be so low that it would not look right. If you would do either one of those things for me, I'd be willing to let it out for good.

On a similar note, since you are a fan of the building, I'd be willing to have a copy of the original photo made for you. The image that was posted is a black and white copy of my original silver gelatin which has browned over the years. Well when i was having some restoration work done on it, I had a new negative made of it which allows me to have real photographic copies made. If you'd like your own real copy, the lab I go to costs 15 bucks per copy but they look fantastic. If you are interested, then the same copy right rules would apply to you but you could have one of your own. My yahoo email is [email protected]. Drop me a line if you want one and if not, just post your response here to my requirements about the photo. Nice to talk to you. We'll talk again soon. ~~Lucas McGrail~~

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lmcgrail" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmcgrail (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried moving

I responded to you on my talk page (trying to keep it all in one place). Thanks. First Light (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good advice. I was already leaning in the direction of an article with Salvia hybrids, and having articles on the notable ones would be good also. First Light (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Ryan, thanks for the links. Very usefull and I see a pretty good defense about Sci names on Jwinius page too. Good to have it just in case time for this discussion ever comes co pt-wiki. Anyway I suppose it never will, we just place the articles in Sci names and let anyone else deal with the common names if they can manage them. No one will do, too messy and they do not know how to handle them, so the articles have remained on Sci names so far. It is the only way to do it. Acually we don't even look for the common names anymore. Let this task to the ones who know them well. Lol. Of course animals are a different thing, oh well enlightnement will come some day I hope Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rkitko, I have a few style questions that all came up in the same article, Salvia longispicata. When mentioning the specific epithet separate from the scientific name, is it italicized (see the second sentence)? When mentioning that the plant is a "fast growing salvia", is 'salvia' italicized? Same question regarding the plural 'salvias' used in the same way. Obviously this is all somewhat new to me, and I've seen enough variation to have no idea what is correct. Thanks. First Light (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a crack, since Rkitko's not online ATM apparently.

As a general convention (i.e. nothing to do with botany), you italicise a word when you intend it to stand for the word itself, rather than its usual meaning. e.g. "Dogs are four-legged mammals. Dogs is a four-letter word."

When used as a scientific name, it is singular Salvia, plural Salvia. When used as a vernacular name, it is singular salvia, plural salvias. I encountered this situation with Banksia / banksias, and made the personal decision to use the scientific orthography exclusively.

Hesperian 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahaa. You've also answered a question I wasn't even smart enough to ask yet! Hardyplants also helped out at the article, and edited in such a way to keep the scientific usage without stilting the prose. Thanks, to all helpful plant editors. First Light (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

On Drosera stolonifera subsp. monticola, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Dravecky (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drosera stolonifera, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, I notice you have not moved the sandbox over yet. Would you like to do it? I'm not an admin yet and it's protected. Cheers,

My apologies, I assumed it had been done. I've been a bit distracted offline. I'll take care of it today. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

G'day mate. On the small chance you're interested in some idle reading in the historical archives of Stylidiaceae, I have this day transcribed the section (merely five paragraphs) on "Stylideæ" in Robert Brown's 1814 General remarks. Hesperian 13:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! That's quite a bit of transcribing you did. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Only 1200 pages to go.... Hesperian 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pleas see

That is not true, Raziel. The ICBN has nothing to say on the matter. The longstanding convention, which does not originate with the ICBN, is to italicise only taxa of generic or lower rank. Hesperian 10:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In a way, Raziel is right: 6th paragraph of the preface to the Vienna Code. That's the only time they mention it, though. And they don't even lobby for it strongly, putting the emphasis on editorial style, where the tradition has long been to italicize only the ranks at genus and below. No one would expect any other encyclopedia to follow this obscure paragraph in the preface to the most recent Code. (See here for an example within the Code itself where they italicized

Spermatophyta). As they do make it clear it's an editorial or typographical decision, we should stick to the existing convention as already established at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms. --Rkitko ^(talk

) 14:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But why we must write incorrect? Word go forward and wikipedia must stay? Certainly taksons of Animalia according

International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria) anywhere (?) in science publication now is italicize. Rules is bad and old, that we must change it. raziel (talk

) 22:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is followed in a number of botanical and mycological journals." (my emphasis). Perhaps Polish publications italicize higher ranks; English publications most certainly do not. Hesperian 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Check any recent article from the American Journal of Botany and you'll find that any taxon above the rank of genus is not italicized. The St. Louis Code was published in 2000 and this provision was also in it, but I'm not aware of any English publications that follow it. Even the English language Polish Botanical Journal (see, for example, this) doesn't italicize ranks above genus. Until the tradition catches on and editorial manual of styles change at nearly every scientific journal, it is correct to follow the established convention of only italicizing ranks below genus. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, taking a cue from Raziel's user page, I checked out recent publications from the Polish Journal of Environmental Studies and found italicized family names in this 2005 article. This is the first time I've seen this editorial style used. I wonder, now, if it's more prevalent in environmental publications... Rkitko ^(talk) 04:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rkitko I would like to ask for your help again. I concocted a userbox which is now on my userpage (with all the entrails hanging out on the "edit" page.) Would you please turn it into a real userbox? there are probably many Zipsians out there since they all command three languages or more. Thanks Tusbra (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. Acquiring the language would be too much of an effort but a visit more to the point. Tusbra (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drosera erythrorhiza, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thanks Victuallers (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - It was kind of you to welcome a noobie and the links look very useful (to be digested over time). It seems unfair to this algae person that Ameobozoa and Excavata get their own colors when the beautiful blue-green algae get the bacterial grey foisted off on them, but if that's the usage then my preferences are moot (I don't suppose there's a discussion page for the colors? It would be probably be ferocious to try to correct them all even if I succeeded in persuading people). The reminder to add references is valuable - I don't know that there is enough to say that is specific to Rivulariaceae to expand the article much, though, but having the stub reminder does no harm. Thanks again for a warm welcome. Alice (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drosera zonaria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that you deleted the botany templates at the bottom of a bunch of algae stubs, and said in your edit summary it was because it wasn't within the scope of the plant wikiproject. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the {{botany}} template, under plants, it lists algae. So did they change the scope of the wikiproject and forget to update the template? Regards,

Sorry, same mistake again.. I guess I somehow interpreted this this page wrong. I saw that it had plantae under kingdom so I thought it would be appropriate. Could you help me out with this? I'm a bit confused. Regards,

Ok thanks, I'll make sure to look up multiple sources next time. So this would go under the microbiology wikiproject? Regards,

Hi Rkitko, If you have the time, could you look at Salvia tingitana? It's a new article that goes into some areas way over my head—especially the 'History' and 'Relation to other species' sections. Before I submit it to DYK, I want to be sure it's accurate, and that I use the jargon correctly. Thanks. (I've also copied Hesperian on this). First Light (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks, I will follow your advice Peter Woodard Poyt448 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Where should the Ohio meet up take place? The best option is probably wherever the most people can attend, so you opinion counts. See Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Ohio 1#Location !vote. hmwithτ 20:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. If you have any references unavailable to us civilians which support any of StationNT5Bmedia's claims, I would be more than happy to see it in the article. I tried to help him, and couldn't find a thing (I have no need to be 'right', I just want the article to be correct) . First Light (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't very interesting, but I have no-one else to tell, so you had better smile and nod: Wikisource:Category:Carnivorous plants. Hesperian 12:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm offended that he didn't think to mention it to me, count yourself lucky. cygnis insignis 17:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Crikey; ya know what? — I forgot that Cephalotus was carnivorous! Hesperian 02:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

*smiles and nods* ;-) It is quite useful and I notice there isn't a wikisource template on our carnivorous plant article, so I'll go ahead and add one that will link to this category. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

:) I was thinking the same thing, how about adding commons too. I can think of one quote to start a page at that much neglected wikisister. cygnis insignis 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There's already a commons-cat template on the carnivorous plant article. ...quote? Did you mean wikiquote? --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, but when I do a page. I actually misread your post, I was thinking of the template. I have seen some neat little icons on some. Don't let H know that I have talking about improving a template ;) cygnis insignis 21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mums the word. Your secret's safe with me. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just rereading a user page on which I had recently commented, and was surprised to see that I appeared to be endorsing the users view on your good self. A check of the history revealed that the earlier comment was 'revised'. Best regards, cygnis insignis 04:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Me baying for blood? Don't recall doing that. I'm a vegetarian, afterall. Reporting an edit war in which I was not really involved? Yeah, I remember doing that. I think until Rotational stops treating his articles as "his" (

ownership) and not discussing before reverting, and reverting without good cause, his edits will be viewed as disruptive and blocking is really the option of last resort in preventing disruption and damage to the 'pedia. Through mounds of discussion, at least one mediated, it apparently hasn't sunk in. I agree with all your other points on his talk page, though -- a reasonable assessment of the situation. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk

) 02:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think that any Latin term which is recurrent up to three times might well deserve a disambiguation. I will not fight very long to keep Obscurum because I have no strong ideas on this, but I am willing to defend it anyways because Latin terms are often read backwards, in that the Latin declension means that English grammar is often inappropriate for analyzing the eight different cases which show up in that language. ADM (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the composite image for the plant taxobox, if it includes only one green algae, should be Chara or something, rather than Volvox. I believe I agreed to this image at one time in a discussion.... Were there comments made about which green algae (beastly and difficult combination of words there). --KP Botany (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You try. I give up. --KP Botany (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool set of cats. I had no idea that they existed. (Time to go fill them up!) Guettarda (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I took my cues from the person who was creating the animal categories. I love how you can already see that in 2009 there have been three new Nepenthes species described (Category:Plants described in 2009); now I almost expect the pace to continue, but I think I'll be disappointed. Still plenty of categories to create! See User:Rkitko/sandbox6 for a list and User talk:Rkitko/sandbox6 for what I think might be a good header for each year category (or at the very least, a link from each category to such an essay). Any suggestions on the header/essay? By far our largest category is Category:Plants described in 1753, of course. I'm slowly filling in holes as I check the AlexNewArtBot page. User:IceCreamAntisocial's California flora stubs are quite useful for finding and creating those needed categories. I also need to go back through my 200 or so Utricularia stubs with these categories. Still no Category:Plants described in the 1770s - know of any? --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, quick question on usage. I noticed that Category:Species described in 1821 is a subcat of Category:1820s in science, but Category:Species described in 1829 is not, nor is Category:Plants described in 1821. Rather than slog through all of them or (horror of horrors!) think for myself, I was just wondering what you thought the usage should be. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to go through them all and standardize them. I just recently figured out what I think when I recognized the discrepancy, so I'm open to other ideas. My general idea is:

• Category:1820s in science

• Category:Species described in the 1820s

• Category:Species described in 1821

• Category:Plants described in 1821
• Category:Animals described in 1821
• etc...

• Category:Plants described in the 1820s

• Category:Plants described in 1821

• Category:Animals described in the 1820s

• Category:Animals described in 1821

It might be useful, though, to be browsing the 1820s in science category and be bale to jump down to Category:Plants described in the 1820s, Category:Animals described in the 1820s, Category:Fungi described in the 1820s, etc., but since they're subcats of Category:Species described in the 1820s, you can get there anyway. Does that make sense or am I being unnecessarily restrictive in the category hierarchy? --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - I prefer hierarchical categories (which reminds me - I hate the current trend in adding plants to every national category available...I see the value, but I figure if you're in every or almost every national cat in a supra-national entity, you should just be in the supernational entity. But typing that I realise that the solution is probably to break national categories into "Family, by country" cats. Otherwise you'll end up with 2500 species in "cat:Flora of Trinidad and Tobago"...) Guettarda (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree and I've welcomed Hesperian's work on Category:Asterales of Australia, etc. Yeah, the overpopulation of country categories can be a problem. Another solution is splitting some off into e.g. Category:Endemic flora of Hawaii. I routinely try to use the highest hierarchical category that applies, but I rarely write plant articles that are native to large areas. Or they'll be native to all but one country within a region. I've used the region-within-country categories, but dislike them for their lack of precision (such as Category:Flora of the Northwestern United States; Colorado? Really?). I like the family by country idea. Would there be a threshold for making such a category to avoid single article family by country/state/province categories? --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the species I write about are Caribbean, so they may be native to half a dozen countries, but still have a fairly narrow geographic range. I like categories like "Trees of the Greater Antilles", and my rationale would be that if a species is found in 3 or more of Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica and the Puerto Rican bank (PR + the Virgin Islands), then it should be in Cat:Greater Antilles. Two or fewer and you tag countries. But you tend to end up with things being tagged in each country or island. So I gave up and followed suit - I don't like it from the article side of things, but I can see it having value to someone using the category. Ficus aurea before and after. Oh well... Guettarda (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Registering my awareness of this discussion, since I am deep in some aspects of it.
2. I think there may be special cases where it is appropriate to categorise by publication, e.g. Category:Plants described in Species Plantarum. These publication category could be subcategories of the appropriate "by year" categories (though 1753 may be a problem; were any plants described in 1753 not described in Species Plantarum?)
3. Can you advise whether—and can we get some headers on those categories indicating whether—for plants that are described by recourse to a basionym, the year is the year the current name was published, or the year the basionym was published? (I like the idea of these categories, but am reluctant to roll them out until I am satisfied that we have got the structure, semantics and titles right. e.g. see my comment at the bottom of User talk:Stemonitis/Archive22#Category' rationale; and there was discussion at WT:PLANTS a while back too)

Hesperian 04:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and 4. If you're grouping your by-year categories into Category:Species by year of formal description, oughtn't you group your decade categories into Category;Species by decade of formal description; and ditto centuries? Hesperian 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't stop talking.

5. It bothers me that these categories are (nominally) restricted to species. Why exclude subspecies, genera, etcetera? (We have the same problem with Category:Endangered species, which is a battle I won't be having because I know I can't win it).

6. Category:Species by century of formal description might seem to have little value, but it would give me a parent category for Category:Banksia species by century published. Not that I'm in a rush to create that category: my point is that categorising by year would be ridiculous in such a situation, whereas categorising by century or even decade might be okay there.

Hesperian 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Always appreciate your input!

2. Good idea. I was thinking along the same lines for some of the larger publications. I really don't know if there are any other species described in 1753 other than those in Species Plantarum. IPNI is down for the moment (it's been fussy these last couple days), but if I recall correctly, you can search by year of publication.

3. Was working on that. See User talk:Rkitko/sandbox6. Comments or alterations to that would be welcomed. I think it may be a bit too long, but I was writing for those who know very little about taxonomy and wouldn't bother to click on a link to basionym for an explanation of the term. I've been using the year of publication of the basionym, preferring the year of first formal description. Does that make sense to you? Hmm, now that I think about it, we could categorize the species article with the year of publication of the current name and categorize the basionym redirect with the year of first publication. Only place you could run into trouble is where a single basionym has been used multiple times and is a set index article - would it be useful to put multiple by year of description categories on those?

4 and 6. That would make sense and would be rather easy. Although the subcats of {{cl|Species by year of formal description are the century categories. (I'm still not happy how Category:Plants described in 1800 is a subcat of Category:Plants described in the 1800s, which is a subcat of Category:Plants described in the 19th century, since 1800 is not the 19th century...)

5. Category:Plant taxa described in 2009? My only reservation is that you'd have different taxa ranks in the same category, but that may not be a realistic concern. The alternative, making parallel categories for each rank, wouldn't make much sense.

Apologies if this is brief and not entirely coherent. The in-laws are visiting; didn't have much time. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

1. You're supposed to stalk other people's talk pages. :)
2. I think something like that would be a good idea. "Species published in Genera Plantarum" would be a valid category even without this system. It could either be a subcat of 1753 (presumably the only thing in the cat) or you could just sort it be 1753, and add an explanatory note at the top of the "Species published in the 1850s" cat. And, as Ryan says, it makes sense to do this for other large publications. Another advantage to using a "Species published in Genera Plantarum" cat is that it creates the opportunity for subcats ("Arecales published in Genera Plantarum", although that might be a bit of an anachronism) without providing an easy model for people who want to go overboard and split every year into subcats, whether they need it or not. (I remember coming across a category that was buried two deep in otherwise empty cats...for consistency, you know).
3. That's a difficult one. In most cases, the year the basionym was published should be the first scientific description of the species. We can ignore older descriptions that don't fit the Linnean system (I'm not talking about Plumier, I'm thinking about things like ancient Greek, Islamic or Chinese descriptions of plants). With the P. cygnus example you mentioned in your link...it's not a plant, why should anyone care about it??!! No, but seriously - was it described as a variety or subspecies or something prior to its elevation to species status, or was it just lumped into P. penicillatus and P. longipes with no recognition of its distinctive status? In the former case, I would go with the date of first description of the variety or subspecies...if I understand it correctly, that would be considered the original description anyway, wouldn't it? (i.e., the name of the person who described it first, albeit as a variety or subspecies, would be the name in brackets...well, would be if it's a plant, animal names seem to be written in a strange and inconsistent fashion...one day I need to figure that out - like maybe today, since that's just about the last thing I need to sort out in the ms I'm reviewing...whether the species name of the small mammal is a typo, or if it's just a weird animal thing). On the other hand, if we're talking about a species that wasn't recognised as distinct until 1962, I would be inclined to use the 1962 cat, no matter how anachronistic it feels.

   This does make me think about

   Corydoradinae
   where species are given L-numbers and C-number when they enter the aquarium trade, and may not be formally described until years later.

4. I have nothing useful to add here.
5. I don't see why we couldn't come up with a parallel set of cats for genera. Since I'm not really a fan of sub-specific categorisation, I won't express an opinion on that ;). I would probably add "subspecific taxa, by year" as a subcat as "plant by year" and "animal by year" as appropriate.
6. Century is fine. I'll sit and watch, amused, as the pedants edit-war. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, should be move this to

Actually it's a TOL discussion, not just a PLANT discussions, isn't it? Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd support moving this discussion to TOL. Seems reasonable to get more input since there are some issues to work out before continuing. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, discussion set up at TOL and I spammed the Animal, Plant, Fungi, and Microbiology projects. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion over there seems to be heading in a slightly different direction, and the context is here, so I think I'll carry on here:

The more I think about it, the more I think it is reasonable to support any combination of taxon, rank and date that is sustainable in terms of category size; e.g. Category:Proteaceae genera by decade described, Category:Angiosperm families by decade described, Category:Angiosperm genera by year described, etc. With so many taxa to categorize, this kind of subdivision is inevitable eventually.

The challenge is to get the naming right. At present, "plants described in 1999" is a subcategory of "species described in 1999", which implies that the former category is not for genera, etc. That's just one worm sticking out of the can. Another worm is the conflict between "described" and "published"; we should be using one of those terms, not switching between them indiscriminately.

We need a naming scheme we can work from. Here's an initial proposal, using Angiosperms as an example:

You can see how any combination of taxon, rank and date yields a sensible and consistent category title. The exception is when the taxon is Biota: "Biota species", "Biota taxa", etcetera, sound awful. In that case I think the taxon would be dropped altogether: "Taxa by year described", "Species by year described", etcetera.

If we can tweak the above to a naming convention we all agree with, then I say we make it happen now, while the categories are relatively new and unpopulated, rather than wait until reworking is a major task. That doesn't mean we roll it all out at once; it just means that we make sure that what we do roll out doesn't conflict with the master plan.

Hesperian 03:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the general way we want to head. After having read some of the comments at TOL, I'm still not sure what I think about published vs. described. Either has the potential to be misinterpreted depending on the context. Which seems more correct to you? I could live with either as long as the category header clarifies. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I had been avoiding this aspect because I am no less bamboozled by it now than I was in October 2007. The taxonomic point of view (i.e. the year the taxon was first described) is the more interesting and informative, but the nomenclatural point of view (i.e. the year the name was published) is more "official", easier to implement, and probably the meaning that people will assume. One (slightly scary) question is whether both aspects are significant enough to warrant categories. Should Banksia sessilis be tagged with both Category:Plant taxa described in 1809 and Category:Plant names published in 2007? If so, then Banksia integrifolia will need to be tagged with both Category:Plant taxa described in 1782 and Category:Plant names published in 1782, and that duplication makes me retch. Hesperian 01:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the recent activity in the debate and the article, would you consider withdrawing the nomination in good faith? The editor of these articles has shown initiative in bringing one of them up to a good standard, and I strongly believe the others will follow. Withdrawing the nomination would take that "what if" cloud from the articles. If you still feel in a few weeks that they are inappropriate, I'd support a renomination.

I gave it some thought. The editor has done quite a bit of good work on this, but my concern with the article wasn't {{unreferenced}} or something similar that a bit of elbow grease could fix. The fundamental purpose of the entry is a dictionary entry and usage guide. I know

WP:NOTDICTIONARY is in flux right now, but the general sentiment remains. Yes, the editor has brought them up to a good standard for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. I'll make a similar statement on the AfD page. --Rkitko ^(talk

) 13:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)