User:Boston/Maplemania

• Hi again. Thanks for your edits and additions to my Acer articles. I know you are a Pinophyta buff yourself, but I am no less appreciative of having discerning eyes behind my shoulder. Best wishes. ◄HouseOfScandal► 12:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi HouseOfScandal - thanks! I've always had a soft spot for maples, too. Don't know if you noticed a couple of shortcuts I've been using, links to plurals can be [[maple]]s, rather than having to type out [[maple|maples]] (only works where the link is wholly contained within the plural, it doesn't work for things like [[goose|geese]] which do have to be piped), and the <ref name="x"/> setup for repeats of the same ref. - MPF 12:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've had a plan to try and work on these articles for a while, and a start I had begun work on is at User:Circeus/Maple. I also have access to Van Gelderen's original Maples of the World, which is a great read. Circeus 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And BTW, multiple references to a book are far more useful when you can also cite a specific page. Circeus 13:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Circeus, I don't have a copy of Maples of the World but have seen and admired it. I do have well-read copies of both the other book by van Gelderen's & son as well as Japanese Maples by J. D. Vertrees and Peter Gregory. MPF, I do know about leaving plural "s's" outside of links but don't like how it looks. I have noticed several of your techniques regarding style and citation and plan to follow your lead. I am about to do an article for Acer shirasawanum right now. I have a 1 m tall specimen which I highly regard and which is visible from my workroom window. Thanks to you both for the tips and comments; I am glad my maple articles have been noticed. ◄HouseOfScandal►13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I am wondering why the common names of maples have been re-edited so as to be capitalized. One doesn't capitalize the common names of plants or animals except for the potion that is a proper noun, i.e. sugar maple, Shetland sheepdog, etc. Maples for Gardens: A Color Encyclopedia by C.J. van Gelderen & D.M. van Gelderen doesn't capitalize common names. Is this a specific Wikipedia guideline you are following? ◄HouseOfScandal►13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It's simply how most maple articles are already named. These is considereable disagreement on capitalization of living organisms in general, and you might want to add your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants over this. Circeus 14:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Since we are on the esoteric subject of Acer, I wanted to point out that although there was no article on A. shirasawanum, the plant was described under Fullmoon Maple in a way that indicated the name "Fullmoon maple" applied to all varieties of A. japonicum (rather than the actual case, which is that A. shirasawanum is sometimes considered a variety of A. japonicum, sometimes its own species). The Fullmoon maple article didn't mention the word "shirasawanum" anywhere. I've cleared up this confusion by editing the Fullmoon maple article and creating a separate, more acurate article for Acer japonicum. Both articles clearly describe the over-lapping nomenclature issues regarding A. japonicum and A. shirasawanum. The A. japonicum article further details the over-lapping nomenclature between A. japonicum and A. palmatum. Please let me know if I have appropriately outlined the situation (without beating it to death) so that novices can understand.◄HouseOfScandal►15:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi HouseOfScandal - on the Fullmoon Maple page, I'm afraid this was a bit of a breach of wiki proceedure; what should have been done is correct the description to fit the established taxon named, and then to start a new page for A. shirasawanum. I can have a go at sorting it out in a day or two, if you like. On Field Maple, because it gives undue prominence to a name that is regarded within the species' native area as an example of cultural imperialism; I think it is reasonable to have it in the 'cultivation' section, as it only applies to the species in cultivation (always a secondary aspect; any species article should concentrate on the species in its native environment). Caps for names have been hotly debated on numerous occasions; take a look through the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Some (me included) are in favour of caps for species common names, some others are not; generally, there's been a majority in favour of caps, but only a very small one. The idea of using caps is far from new; most field guides use them, and have done for decades (I've got an old 1937 handbook that does so). My feeling is that it is a very useful practical format, e.g. wild cherry (any species of Prunus in its native environment) is not the same as Wild Cherry (the specific English name of Prunus avium). It also introduces consistency, uniformity of treatment (lists with names randomly capitalised and not capitalised look awful), and predictability. In many cases, how does one know if a name is derived from a proper noun or not? - surprisingly difficult to know in many cases. Is e.g. Pohutukawa a proper name? Or Kusamaki? I think it is unreasonable to have to expect people to delve into Maori, Japanese, etc., etymology to find out whether to use a capital or not. Others of course disagree, but I have yet to see anyone produce any reason for doing so other than 'going by the grammatical rule book' ("the bible says so, so therefore you must do so"; obedience to scripture, rather than reason). The net result though is that no consensus has been reached, and both styles are accepted on wikipedia; you will find many species pages with capitalised common names, many with lower case common names, but generally, it is best to be consistent within a genus or family. Hope this helps! - MPF 17:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Cultural imperialism? I hope you are being at least a little tongue-in-cheek, my friend! Europeans telling the Khoikhoi that they were renamed Hottentots was cultural imperialism. We are talking about mentioning an alternate name for a shrubby little tree that little old ladies and nerds like me tend in our gardens. I do understand your point about cultivation versus growth in the wild; I just disagree that a bold face mention is undue prominence. Inclusivity should be the guiding spirit of Wikipedia, except when it compromises veracity. However, in the sake of general goodwill and as a show of appreciation for your technical advise, I won't re-edit the article so as to include that boldface. Maybe after you've thought about it for a few days you'll warm up and do it yourself. Regarding the whole A. shirasawanum issue, if we rename the Fullmoon Maple article "Acer shirasawanum" I think we accomplish the same thing, even if the process is different. I'm not really sure, and I'm especially unsure if it really matters. You may not realize how much editing the article required (one inaccurate article needed to be split up into two accurate ones). Anyways, I have no objections to whatever you want to do with it. I just enjoy sharing knowledge and explaining things; I have no POV or agenda. Thanks again for all the advice and dialogue. ◄HouseOfScandal►17:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi HouseOfScandal - somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but not entirely so; it arises because common names (something I've been realising from working in wikipedia) have a very different status in UK and US usage. Over here, they are much more standardised and semi-formalised that I gather they are in the US, where I get the impression pretty much anything goes. The net result is that including the US renaming of the species in bold at the top of the page is, to UK readers, very close to an instruction that people here must use the US name together with, or to replace, our own standard name; a lot more than just "mentioning an alternate name". I'm sure this is not your intention al all, but the effect still remains, looking (to non-US eyes) like an agenda to enforce US usage across the world. I've no objection to including the US name in the article, but I do think it is reasonable that it should not be on the same level of prominence as the de facto (if not de jure) official name used in the species' native area. Hope this helps clarify! - MPF 11:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. As I was checking the diffs of this article, I was surprised by this change. I did a Google check, and found out that this change was unwarranted. So, I did a rollback (and I must confess your username wasn't helpful either). But I'm not an expert on maples (we have MPF for that). So, if you are sure of these common names, revert the article again and I won't stand in your way anymore. JoJan 21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL re: my username! That's a good point! Thanks for understanding after I explained. Yes, MPF is very savy, and Circeus has been helpful as well. They've been following in my wake and catching some of the imperfections in my articles, which I appreciate more than I can say, Best wishes, JoJan. ◄HouseOfScandal► 21:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried looking in other languages wiki? fr:Érable de Montpellier has a beautiful autumn foliage picture. Personally, though, I contend that the article is currently a bit on the short side for multiple images, and I would advocate consolidating the images from all the wikis into the Commons page and link that via {{commons}} (which is how I usually deal with articles suffering from image overuse). Cheers! Circeus 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't gone hunting for images in other languages. One reason is that when the image begins with a word other than "image" (as was the case with an image I lifted from the Polish wiki for my Dún Aengus article) I run into technical problems. For the Dún Aengus article I re-submitted the image under another file name, but I suspect there may have been and easier and/or more recommended way to handle it. I haven't used the "commons" method you mention but I have made galleries (such as that which can be seen at the Acer capillipes article). I like this method because it doesn't create white areas in a shorter article and seems even more useful in the case of shorter, less descriptive articles (a picture being worth...well, you know). On your recommendation, I added some text regarding bonsai to the A. monspessulanum article, and to the A. campestre article as well. ◄HouseOfScandal► 08:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"when the image begins with a word other than "image" ... I run into technical problems" – If the pic is only available on the other language wiki (and not on commons), the thing to do is (1) to save the image to your computer (the full resolution, not just the image page thubmnail, if that is smaller), then (2) upload the image to commons, and (3) add the licensing and uploader's name from the original to the image page in commons. - MPF 11:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Esveld Aceretum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Doc Tropics 06:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Update: I reverted myself and removed the Speedy tag after carefully reading the article again. The reason I hadn't realized this "family owned nursery in the Netherlands" was notable, is that the really important bit "...largest in the world" was buried in the second para. So, to atone for my error, I yanked the tag and moved the sentences around to emphasize the notability, but I didn't change any of the text. That left the last two sentences a bit awkward, so you might want to do a little touch-up. I would do it myself, but I wouldn't blame you for being sensitive about the article and not wanting me to touch it. Sorry about the confusion! Doc Tropics 06:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No worry. I think I organized the info that way so the citations could be placed more neatly; I'll take another look at the article and see if I can do a better job of organizing it. Thanks for your thoughfulness in this matter. - ◄HouseOfScandal►12:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely notable! - I'll see if I can dig out any further details, I should have something in the Int. Dendrol. Soc. Yearbooks I've got - MPF 12:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Acer redux

All four of the references given with the Acer negundo article list "Box Elder" as its primary common name. When we look at almost any reference, the name Box Elder is given first. Box Elder is, by far, the name most used for this species...and I know that you know this. Please justify this Manitoba Maple business. ◄HouseOfScandal► 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi HouseOfScandal - because it is a name that clearly indicates that it is a maple (Acer), rather than an elder (Sambucus). It is also a name with clear established use in a good chunk of the species' native range (Canada) (UK books call it Ash-leaved Maple, but that doesn't have any significance as being unused in its native range - so I didn't use that). Calling it an elder is very confusing for most people (at least outside of the USA!) "what's this elder doing on a page about maples???". - MPF 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Will we also be censoring antlion and sea lion (neither is Panthera), bedbug (not Heteroptera), buffalo grass and grass of Parnassus (neither is Poaceae) catgut (not made from cats), crayfish (a crustacean, not a fish), pilot whale (just a big-ass dolphin), poison ivy (not Hedera), skunk cabbage (not Brassicaceae), tarantula hawk (a wasp) and all other common name misnomers in the English language? Or is this issue only a matter of concern when it provides an opportunity to bury a USA usage in favor (correction: "favour") of a non-USA usage?
• Why is clarity the prime concern with the A. negundo article yet in regards to the A. campestre article worry about "undue prominence to a name that is regarded within the species' native area as an example of cultural imperialism" supercedes clarity and justifies burying the very common name "Hedge Maple" sans bold face in paragraph four ?
• For that matter, why is the "Hedge Maple" common name buried while the A. negundo article has room for 13 bold face names at the beginning? I accepted the native vs cultivation argument as justification for calling the A. campestre article "Field Maple" rather than "Hedge Maple". I don't accept this argument as justification for completely burying the common name "Hedge Maple". It must be dug up.
• Just for the record, don't mistake me for someone who is USA-centric because I am resisting the suppression of certain common names which are in wide use in the States. I am thinking globally. I did an impromptu test of three search engines (alta vista, google and yahoo) using the terms “hedge maple and “field maple”. I set settings so that these results would be the same whether I were in New York, Riyad, Hong Kong, London, Morpeth or Timbiktu. Alta vista showed far more results for the first, google showed far more results for the second, and yahoo was a near-tie (Field Maple won by a narrow margin. Congrads.).
• Frankly, I feel a little bullied. I understand that we become personally invested in articles we create or to which we have contributed much. But decisions in areas not covered by specific Wikipedia guidelines aren't yours to make, nor are they mine to make. They are ours to make: you, me, and anyone else who has an opinion made in good faith and supported by relevant knowledge of the subject at hand. You have read my articles and contributions to articles. Do I really come across as a buffoon to be dismissed? I try not to.
• Unilaterally making the changes I want would have been damn easier than creating this epistle; although I have expressed some of my frustration sardonically, these words are intended as a gesture of respect. I commend your work, appreciate many of the edits you make to mine, and look forward to cooperating in the future.
• Here are my specific suggestions: 1. Field Maple should be moved to "Acer campestre". That is what Wikipedia guidelines recommend when there could be any confusion, correct? 2. Field maple should remain the primary common name used in the article, including the species box. 3. In the Acer campestre article, the name "Hedge maple" must get a bold face mention in the first or second paragraph so that it can be seen without scrolling down. 4. In the Acer negundo article, the name "Boxelder Maple" should be used in the species box and as the common name of choice throughout the article. Manitoba Maple is simply too Canada-specific. 5. Many of the common names listed in conjunction with A. negundo may be spurious (i.e. California Boxelder, Western Boxelder, Inland Boxelder). I think these are actually subspecies/varieties/whatever but I haven't checked yet. Clean up of this section is needed; I don’t mind doing it.
• I invite all interested parties to consider these suggestions and voice their opinions. ◄HouseOfScandal► House of Scandal 08:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi House of Scandal - been away doing other things today. First, I'm very sorry if I came over as bullying, that wasn't my intention at all. I know how it feels (often happens to me too, too - sadly, it is all too easy to get to like one's own text and resent any changes others make). And don't worry, I've not thought of your coming across as a buffon at all! - generally I think your work is good, and a credit to wikipedia. We are only getting heated over name preferences, which is objectively a minor thing, but in practice something that many people have very strong emotional attachment to.

On common names, my feeling is that an encyclopedia should be educational, very much agreeing with the principles e.g. here Recommended English names for South African Trees and their list. Therefore, I like to encourage as far as conveniently possible the use of names that are in order of importance (1) botanically meaningful, avoiding names that conflict with other well-established usage (as in this case, where elder = Sambucus); (2) avoiding names that are offensive to any group (supporting e.g. the US Forest Service's change of Pinus sabineana to Gray Pine from 'digger pine' offensive to some Native Americans; ; and (3) giving precedence to names used by English speakers within the native range of the species. All of them, I try to do as fairly as I can within the limitations of my knowledge. Obviously there are cases like your sea-lion example where there are few or no good options to avoid the common name duplication (other than by hyphenating, as in e.g. the USFS's use of Douglas-fir rather than Douglas Fir; again, I agree with them).

I think it would be a good idea (now that the policy is established) to move all the maple species pages to sci names; at the moment, finding a particular species in Category:Sapindaceae is not easy, as half are under 'A', and the other half under 'M'. I can do them if you like, the 'move' operation for some of them may need admin powers (it shouldn't be done by a cut-n-paste, only by using the 'move' tab). On Field Maple, I'm happy with Hedge Maple being bolded in the cultivation section (where it is most relevant, I think). I generally work on one header per 20-25 lines of text; with fewer lines per header than that, a page gets to look rather header-heavy. That would then leave 'Cultivation' as the first or second header. With most species (other than commercially important ones like Apple), three headers is enough (thereby also avoiding one of those blue toc boxes with the ugly adjacent whitespace!).

Boxelder Maple is an excellent proposal: the important thing for me is to include 'maple' in its headline name (for education purposes), beyond that I do not mind what; my only worry is that some other editors might object on their preferred basis of name selection purely by google count (to me, that's anti-educational, not helping people of the future to learn botany - far too many people have a phobia for scientific names, so congruence in common and scientific group names is very helpful). I'd already very similarly given preference to the US name Sycamore Maple for Acer pseudoplatanus, as it is much better than the confusing plain 'Sycamore' that it generally gets called over here (both an Acer and a Platanus appropriating a name that originally applied to a Ficus!). As an aside, the first para at Acer negundo isn't my work, I too would not have put so many bold names in the first para (and yes, those you mention above do belong to various subspecies or varieties). On what to put in the taxobox title, my usual preference is that it should be the same as the page title (thus Acer negundo in this case), but it isn't something I feel very strongly about.

Hope this helps, and thanks for the discussion! - MPF 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you too, very much. You've restored my good feelings about Wikipedia. I have been concentrating on a deluge of history articles lately, but will probably dive back into botany within a few days.◄HouseOfScandal►20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid what you did to Montpellier Maple. Cut-and-paste moves are harmful to page histories. You can ask an admin (e.g. me) or at WP:RM for non controversial moves like that one. You can also usually move an article over a redirect, assuming that redirect has no history. It was my fault that Acer monspessulanum had a history, so I would have gladly made the move myself. Circeus 19:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for breaking protocol. I think you and MPF had both mentioned that there was a right way and a wrong way to move pages, and I should have heeded that. By way of explanation (rather than exuse), I was thinking that I had just made the page recently, you had been the only other editor, your edits were excellent, so history didn't much matter. What completely didn't occur to me was that be "restarting" the history of the article, I had hidden the record of your excellent contributions. BTW, per your suggestion of some days ago, MPF and I think its a good idea to change Field Maple to Acer campestre (MPF may have already acted on this). ◄HouseOfScandal►20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Maple nausea

Why did you remove the discussion of the common names for Acer negundo from its article? The inclusion of the information was discussed on the talk page, and your opportunity to disagree was then, and is there, not be revising. Please replace the information you removed, then discuss your reasons for it on the talk page, or I will simply revert your edits, assuming you had no reason, as you have not given one. KP Botany 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I count three paragraphs at the start of the Acer negundo article which discuss its common names and are listed under the section heading "Common names." Please clarify what has been removed. ◄HouseOfScandal► 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The section on the etymology of the common names, "The American common names come from the pinnately compound leaves of Acer negundo that are similar to those on the elder (Sambucus) and some species of ash (Fraxinus). The "box" in the name is thought to be because this maple's wood superficially resembles that of the box hedge (Buxus sempervirens). Additional common names include Cut-leaved Maple (because of the compound, or fully dissected, leaves), or Three-leaved Maple (because all new leaves from overwintering buds have 3 leaflets), or Sugar Ash (because the leaves resemble the ash, but it is a source of maple syrup). Its numerous and diverse common names attest to its familiarity to many peoples over a great geographic range." KP Botany 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, the whole article is a mess, but you did remove something that actually said something, and left in lines, instead, about certain common names being "confusing" or whatever. KP Botany 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please takes a few minutes and look more closely. Ash, elder, maple syrup, those common names, etc. -- its all still in the article. The only bit that is missing is is the explanation of the "box" element. I am often wary of etymologies -- even those appearing in reasonably respectable sources are sometimes wrong (or at least fall ito the category of "folk etymology"). If you think the buxus mention is important, stick in back in. Just please maintain the "thought to be" or some similar wording. ◄HouseOfScandal► 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To Acer negundo page. KP Botany 23:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that part of the articles are at their Latin names (which are logically sortkey-ed under "A", whereas the ones at their common names are sorted under "M". Considering the new naming guidelines that favors Latin names, the simplest procedure would be to move the common names at their Latin names. If any article hit a redirects that can't be overwritten, just tell me and I'll fix that. Circeus 23:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, a little attention for you: ::::And can you imagine how I would have felt if you had actually read anything the first time, like maybe feeling the need to reread my post? Nope. No surprise that not having read what you removed, you don't want to discuss the article. So, why not stick with what you wrote, something about not engaging in this dialogue. Oh, well, again, you don't appear to read what you write any more than what you delete, or agree with what you say, so how can I won't value what you say any more than you do. KP Botany 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it was an uncalled for, childish, and surprising fracas all around. MPF aside, it would be good to get going on the maple articles, and we both had good points on improving the Acer negundo article. There's enough information on this scrappy little maple, and it has enough horticultural world-wide interest, that it's one article I'd like to see built up to FA status, with a proper show of how to use common names in botany articles, how to look at it internationally, the botany and the popular. Truce accepted--I'll even let you be the bigger party for offering it;) --KP Botany 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)