User talk:Peter coxhead

Please note that if you leave a message for me here, I'll reply to it here, so put this page on your watch list.
If I left a message on your talk page, you can reply there as I'll be watching your page.
This makes it easier to follow the conversation.
Thanks!

List of vegetable oils FLRC

It's been well over two weeks now, and I'd love to get this closed. Would you revisit Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates and add your final recommendation to the discussion? Thanks. Waitak (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Waitak (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 4e41785016df312d7f4772b046fd919f

I now have a TUSC account!

Marcofran

Hello. I see that you have participated in the peer review of Ionian islands under Venetian rule, which I am reviewing for GA. I have some questions and concerns I'd like to convey to Marcofran, but it seems like he's no longer active on the website. Do you know anything about his activity, or if he is indeed around? DCI2026 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I don't. (I listed an article for review and while doing so happened to look at those awaiting a review. As I'm interested in Greece and its history – while having no expertise in this area – I thought I'd have a look and perhaps learn something about reviewing. As a piece of writing the article seemed quite good, but I didn't check any of the sources and don't know if it presents a balanced NPOV.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he might be back, and will give him more time (and my help) if he'd like it, to improve his article. Thanks, DCItalk

MoS - "a" versus "an"

Hi Peter. Did you mean to write what you did in your last edit about dropping aitches at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Indefinite articles before certain words beginning with a (pronounced) 'h'? I think you must have got the "a" and "an" the wrong way round - otherwise you're contradicting yourself. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks, you were quite right: I had written it the wrong way round. Sigh... Now corrected! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a relief - I would think there must be something going wrong in the world if you were to start being inconsistent! (Incidentally, I raised it here rather than on the page itself as discussions sometimes don't make sense when read back later, not if corrections are made in response to posting a question, as the question can become confusingly redundant after the correction is made - although I note that you've put a line through the incorrect form, which would get round that issue...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(And of course also I thought I might spare a fellow Plants person a few blushes.....) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your concern is appreciated! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

monocots....

I am a neophyte with monocots, so this is appreciated. We have so few native plants like this here - loads of folks grow the usual exotic bulbs and lilies etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

They look interesting plants; from the illustrations I would have expected them to grow from bulbs or corms. I see that they should be in flower now; rather a contrast to the weather where I am at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Aw! This would have been great to have expanded for DYK in time for Christmas. Maybe next year... --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Roscoea debilis - "…but what was weak?"

Hi Peter, you were wondering why R. debilis was named this. A clue may be found at the source (but you have to know how to read Latin and French). You may or may not know that many original botany papers are downloadable from the Biodiversity Heritage Library in PDF form. I find it to be a really marvelous resource... Starting at the front page, Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France can be found here; the following description of Roscoea debilis is located on the PDF page 538 (but it's actually LXXVI on the page itself, which can be directly linked to at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/321310#page/538/mode/1up) :

Roscoea debilis Gagnep.

Radices... Caulis gracilis, elongatus. Vaginae infimae aphyllae 2-3. Folia lanceolata, acuminata, attenuata, longe pedunculata, ligulae inconspicuae. Scapus gracilis, 2-3 bracteis distantibus. Flores purpurascentes; calyx spathaceo-fissus, bidentatus, duplo minor quam tubus corollae cujus lobi lineares, posticus duplo latior, concavus. Staminodia late lanceolata asymetrica, nervis mediis in laminam prominentissimam abeuntibus; labellum ovato-lanceolatum profunde emarginatum (?) vel bifidum (?) lobis corollae aequilongum. Anthera falciformis angustata vix in parte media constricta bicalcarata, filamento calcaribus aequilongo.

Herba 50-60 cm. alta; folium usque ad 18 cm. longum, 3 1/2 cm. latum, scapus 15-17 cm. altus; flos explicatus 5 cm. latus.

Yunnan (Chine), Fr. Ducloux, n° 688. « Plante cueillie par le P. Liétard, dans le bois de Lan-ngy-tien, fleurs rouges, août 1899. »

Plante remarquable par sa gracilité, sa longue tige faible, ses feuilles très longuement pétiolées et longuement acuminées, ses fleurs rares distantes sur une hampe grêle. Elle est bien distincte du Roscoea capitata dont il faut la rapprocher; par l'inflorescence, elle tend vers Cautlea.

Hope this is useful (and sans any typographical errors on my part, but, of course, you can check it for yourself). Good Luck! Hamamelis (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Yes, I left myself a note because I wrote the text on a plane away from the internet and my reference books; I knew what debilis means but not why it was used for this species. So I had intended to look it up now that I'm back in contact again. Now you've saved me some work. (I can read botanical Latin and French.) It's always a bit tricky in Wikipedia articles, I think, if the author doesn't explicitly say why the name was given. Thus Roscoea australis is the most southerly in occurrence, but the paper which named it doesn't actually say that this is why it was named, so it would be SYNTH for me to say so. I'm not sure that writing "The epithet australis means southern. The species has the most southerly occurrence." is actually less SYNTH than writing "It was named australis because it has the most southerly distribution", but there it is. Happy New Year! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

SYNTH tangent

Happy 2012 to you!

I feel the same way about the trickiness of SYNTH, as I'm sure I've done it before, unconsciously. I felt very lucky when writing Spenceria ramalana, as the authority, Henry Trimen said explicitly how he arrived at the name of the genus; and, um, ramalana is (please correct me if I am wrong) "from Ramala" or "of Ramala". Trimen very nearly says outright that this was his reason for choosing the epithet (but doesn't quite), by writing “Among a few specimens brought home by Capt. Gill … are some interesting species collected on Ra-Ma-La, a mountain …”. Would it be SYNTH to make the connection that I have? Strictly speaking, I think yes; but also think it would hold up after scrutinizing the text (Trimen's). However, I would like your take on this, if you don't mind. Did I overstep? This link takes you to (a jpg of) Trimen's description.

By the way, like what you did with the naming origin of Roscoea debilis; the semicolon was used very judiciously, I think, as it allowed for an implicit inference to be made, while avoiding any pitfall-laden claims to fact. The relevant information is simply there, side-by-side, for the reader to use their judgement. Hamamelis (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could conceivably doubt that what you've written is true. But could an editor argue that it's not verifiable? Possibly given that the source doesn't specifically say what you've written. On the other hand, is there really an difference between writing what you have and writing "Trimen gave it the specific epithet ramalana; it was found on a mountain called Ra-Ma-La"? Not in my view, and as I noted before, I don't like being pushed into writing in this evasive way. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking and responding. Well, I think the semicoloned style you've hit upon actually works pretty well, at least in this instance. I hope you didn't feel I was pushing you to edit in a certain way or anything. That very much wasn't my intention. I did want to point out, in case you were unaware of it, that the original sources (many, not all) are available at BHL, as many editors, I think, haven't known about it; and that it can be great for things like finding out why a plant was named such-and-such (though, obviously not always); R. debilis was a possible example of where it could be helpful.

I've changed the appropriate text of Spenceria ramalana, as you've convinced me that it was synthesis. See what you think of it now. Thanks again. Hamamelis (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't thinking that you were pushing me to write in this evasive way – it's the wording of policies such as WP:SYNTH which do that and which I'm not happy about. However, given that these are the policies, it seems that leading the reader to make the deduction for themselves is open to less criticism than making it for them, so in that sense (and only in that sense) I think that your change is an improvement. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance. Unfortunately, I've just now been told I am about to lose my internet access (for how long, I don't know). See you later, whenever I can find a computer with access. Hamamelis (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been granted a temporary internet reprieve for now. I didn't have the time to comment completely last time, so I just wanted to add that it is sometimes difficult to interpret what is written on the internet (e.g. Wikipedia correspondences). Judging by what I've seen you write in the past, I know that you are one who strives mightily to not have your words misinterpreted by others (more so than most); but, alas it happens sometimes anyway. I just wasn't sure, in this case. I'll end this boring tangent here; sorry for the fuss. Hamamelis (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

ICNCP online link

	An apple for the teacher
	Thank you very much for giving the online link to the ICNCP on its talk page. I wasn't aware of that, and it is very useful! Nadiatalent (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology

I've returned to this article. I've outlined in the Talk page what I would like to do. You might like to look in, since you were taking an interest earlier. PiCo (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

k.d. lang

I'm just going to copy my previous statement here to show you the issue

This is just a self-admitted crusade on Kauffner's part to eliminate any sort of leeway in MOS:TM and the other manuals of style when it comes to people's stage names. Kauffner, Dicklyon, and Greg L are simply editors who think that the manual of style is a set of rules written in stone. I believe they are seeking to make a point after I attempted to get some clarity at WT:AT#Names of individuals over the apparent kerfluffle I started when I requested that Kesha be moved to "Ke$ha", with an RM at DJ OZMA, based on the fact that this page is at k.d. lang and we have pages like bell hooks, brian d foy, and will.i.am. I believe you, and other interested parties, should add your opinion to the discussion at WT:AT, because this very vocal minority of 3 editors should not be the ones to enforce a set of guidelines as unbending rules, such as Greg L's insistence that "[he] can only assume that a bat-shit-crazy, rabid following on [k.d. lang] established a local consensus in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS".—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Petaloid monocots thumb.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Petaloid monocots thumb.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A note on notification

WRT Agapanthus in New Zealand, if you are taking a discussion from a user talk page to a project page, or elsewhere for that matter, it is a good idea to notify the editor. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I had thought that the wording of what I wrote on your talk page ("I think this is worth discussing at WT:PLANTS to see what others think") made it clear that I was going to do this, but on re-reading I didn't specifically say that I was going to do it. Please accept that I didn't intend you not to know. I can genuinely see the arguments either way on this one, and would really like to see what others think. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It all cool. I s'pose I should have picked up on yr comment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Edit to Sansevieria

Not sure what I was trying to do there, but I certainly messed up. Thanks for catching that! mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. There was quite a bit of vandalism/silly editing there, and it can be very confusing sometimes to get back to a "clean" version without omitting the one sensible edit in the middle. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Birmingham Natural History Society

New article: Birmingham Natural History Society. Regards, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. I've added a little more more factual material. I think there is a history of the Society in one of the volumes of the Proceedings; I'll try to find it.

I'd like to see more in Wikipedia on the history of natural history societies in Midlands in the late 1880s period (e.g. the "Midland Union" and its journal The Midland Naturalist). Maybe later... Peter coxhead (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bambusa vulgaris

I took the article on Bambusa vulgaris to a peer review here. Would you take a look and advice on improvement? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Selling names

Thank you for your observations. I would favour the tdes option if necessary, however, I am aware that within the horticultural trade there is an insistence that upper case spellings are used wherever, including, presumably, Wikipedia. Moreover, this the style adopted by IPNI. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've now added something at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)#Selling names which (I think) records the limited consensus WikiProject:Plants reached in previous discussions. I'm not sure that it's correct that upper-case spelling are "insisted" on. The ICNCP, which is the authority here, just requires typographical distinction from cultivar names. It uses small capitals, but Wikipedia editors don't seem to like either all caps or small caps. The RHS uses a different font face.

Where does IPNI cover selling names? I can only find scientific names. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Buddleja

Dear PC, Thank you for your encouragement and suggestion on 'selling names', which I shall attempt to incorporate forthwith. I've had a fascination with the genus since childhood, but what started here as a labour of love has become a labour of Hercules. Hopefully when all is done, it will offer more accurate and complete information than can be found in a certain one of the monographs. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

New plant articles

Hi Peter. I noticed you quickly found my Rhizanthes articles, thanks for adding the templates. I'll have to remember to do that for future articles I create. I've been wondering if there is some way to see a list of newly created plant articles, to see what new and interesting things are coming down the line; and the speed with which you found my articles suggest you might know of one? Anyways, thanks again, and best regards. --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

When the prospect of working on my "to do" list palls, I look at User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult in search of some "quick fixes"! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Galanthus

I agree that the snowdrop page is better than a start class, it needs a bit more work though as in the list of snow drop varieties and also what was highlighted on the talk page was that the galanthus and galanthus nivalis redirect to the same page and they shouldnt! JMRH6 (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually they don't now; follow these links: Galanthus and Galanthus nivalis. But there should be many more species articles, given the number of galanthophiles there are (in the UK anyway). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)