Good article, but a lot of cleanup[edit]

I think your information is VERY GOOD, VERY DETAILED and VERY HIGH QUALITY. However please respect the Wikipedia format and Wikipedia context as an ENCYCLOPEDIA. This is not a place for essays, so be CENTERED !!!!

The same remark for all articles concerning the Pachypodium project.Qwertzy2

Articles to be merged[edit]

I strongly suggest to merge up:

The 3 articles Habitats of Pachypodium of Southern Continental Africa and Madagascar, Pachypodium habitats and Larger context to habitats of Pachypodium into 1 great article, to be named Habitats of Pachypodium.
The 4 articles Invalid species and varieties of Pachypodium, Valid species of Pachypodium, Unrecognized species of Pachypodium and Pachypodium key to species into 1 articles, to be named Taxonomy of Pachypodium.
The 2 articles Pachypodium Morphology, Adaptive mechanisms of Pachypodium into one, to be named Morphology of Pachypodium.

You might think that the result of those merges will be HUGE articles. This is not true, since the information contained in those articles are very repetitive, so merging them up will only result in an economy of space and concision.

Also remember that this is en encyclopedia, so it must be organized in neat, centered articles. Do not write stuffs that are off topic please.Qwertzy2 17:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==[edit]

Quote: After consulting with various people, I think that we should proceed with your original organizational ideas. Well it's just a question of format. My idea is not so original, it's just that I am proceeding the way other Wikipedians are. :-))

RE: Actually you mirror the study . . . but the original pairing comes with "Adaptive Mechanisms" and "General Morphology of Pachypodium." That has real potential. I have not worked on it, yet, because I rewrote the section in the "Overview of Pachypodium" three times, where each time the section was more articulate but longer. . . . I have a sense about me that I am expansive right now in writing and that is not good. Brevity. Brevity. Brevity.

Quote: As I said, I am working collaboratively on this project. I would like that type of relationship with you, though to be frank, I find it not constructive that you use an unidentifiable name. (I would never sabotage your contributions. You are often telling me how Wikipedia encourages certain values. I think you should identify yourself like the majority of other people who work on Wikipedia--new or seasoned.)

The fact is that I have contributed under other name, but for personal reasons I have just changed to this one. So the nick is totally new, but if you want, I am a seasoned contributor. Moreover, what do you mean by "not constructive that you use an unidentifiable name" ? Is it solely the fact that I'm not indicating my competence ? Well if so, then now it's done. Besides, I would also like to cooperate with you, but of course, as far as it respects Wikipedia context as en encyclopedia.

RE: I can tell you are experienced, and I am clearly not questioning your competence.

Its a host of other factors like, on the surface, some editors who have awesome user pages that aid the writer in answering questions and showing how, for instance, you developed the wonderful navigation box at the end of the articles. (Can you right justify text? It would help to structure the format of the botanical Key, as the predicate condition is always right justified in a Key)

Also, more importantly, I do not get to see the breadth of your interests and your work, your experience, your history of contribution, etc. But one of the main problems is of perception, I think that is what most people respond to readily. I mean, if you have changed your nick, or handle, for personal reasons because of concerns over your welfare, I can understand better; but if not, an unidentifiable name "seems" like a process in which a person can work without developing a reputation and is free of responsibility for his or her actions. Say, "How do I know that you are not out to vandalize the project?" I know you are not, but at first I did not. A nick, a handle, that builds a reputation and trust and therefore risks attrition. It shines a bit more legitimate to me--and I think to others, though I am less experienced. Other people responded like I did at first so its not just me. Unless you really need to conceal your identity, I urge you to become like so many other Wikipedians--a name with experience, interests, abilities, histories, etc. who take "public" responsibility officially by his or her identity.

(Later: I just read something on "trolling" that I would be afraid that someone might associate with your nick, though you do not cause inflammatory or disruptive situations. There is more said, but the most pertinent sentence has to do with an alternate persona: "Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, which, because of the use of an "alternate persona," [bold face] allows for normal social boundaries and rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken." I am NOT saying you are an internet troll, so please understand me on that. No way am I saying that . . . but what if some else did because you did not identify yourself like other members of Wikipedia. It is touchy to individuals that you do not identify yourself. I think that is what people were responding to, though no one went beyond that initial response. You are a good editor. You know the format and style to be a "seasoned contributor." So why hide behind a second handle or nick? Or, is someone or some group threatening you in some manner on the internet and on Wikipedia?)

But lets not make this a major case. I am just suggesting a policy that is like other's actions in Wikipedia and that will profit your work in the end more, it seems to me.

(Later: Can See that you have indeed created a User Page. I am impressed by the intensity and breadth of your involment on some many different articles in Wikipedia. This makes me happy that you have taken this action. You should be proud with a page like that, which shows your expanse of work. Also the inclusion of guides for users is very useful. All around a solid efford on your part and a wise one too. Now there will not be uncomfortable intial reactions to your work on a project, I would imagine.)

Of course we work together for the good of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Realize though that when I first started writing, I held a different yet historically legitimate idea of what an encyclopedia is. I thought of it as a repository of all knowledge. Any knowledge was infinitely welcome--like the Great Library of Alexandria's policy towards books. Now I realize that there is "appropriateness" conceptually tied to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Again our work will benefit Wikipedia's content by appropriately structured articles. (I am trying my best.)

Quote: But please do not take my remark as confrontation. I am echoing a sentiment that ran through others "favorable" considerations of your work on "Pachypodium." Your article on the overall genus of "Pachypodium" is very good; especially with the logic of how it was restructured. It contains some mistakes that my writing likely contributed to in your editing. But I have begun to fix them through corrections, stronger articulation of concepts, and making sure that inferences are not drawn incorrectly. All this is fairly to the best of my ability for the present project.

Oh I'm really sorry for possible mistakes that my re-organization of the article might cause.... and I hope that you are not too angry at me because of them... :-) My reorganization is still favorable because it at least puts everything in a structured, articulate way and that it respects what an encyclopedia article should look like. And I think you agree with me about that point.

RE: Me, angry over an unintended, intellectual mistake, no. . . . I think it will happen just because of the process. And yes I agree with your reorganization. It is articulate, and structured in an encyclopedia manner fitting Wikipedia. I wrote to support your efforts for exactly that reason which in a large majority of cases I am agreeing with you. At first, I needed to change gears and conceptualize the extent of what your work. I am sensitive to a working personal structure. It meant a lot of changes in the plans I had been making. But the process of people working together sharing their strengths (or, is it (people) his or her?) is better. The "Overview for the Pachypodium" article, I think, was 14 to 15 pages on my machine. You got it down to 8 to 9 pages without raising alarms in me that some how something had been, by the gods, r-e-d-u-c-e-d!

Quote: Wikipedia encourages bold editing . . . and I think you have that in mind. You should be given the opportunity to express it. But remember this project is based on a series of comprehension studies I have referred to as Rapanarivo et al. At this time; I appear to be the only person who has a copy of the text. Care needs to be given that you do say something that they are not saying. That sometimes seems to happen. In what you consider "off centered" text, I believe, you will find that you cannot so easily eliminate text that contains concepts and solid examples; i.e. your synonymy for "landscape," "environment," "microenvironment," "habitats" and "ecology" is not always accurate. I have not strayed from Rapanarivo et al. with exception to some examples, so I do not understand what exactly you mean by "not centered." Unfortunately your remark beads off me like water. I think it is due to my newness to the media of Wikipedia, for which you are well-versed, which only makes your lack of identification more puzzling. Plus I think we fundamentally process thoughts differently. You value clarity and succinctness, perhaps. I definitely value complexity, which is not to say complication and creative insight more.

Your reference to Rapanarivo et al. should ONLY be mentioned at the references section at the end of the article, and not elsewhere. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a repository for primary sources.... Besides, I also apologize for any possible mistakes and inaccuracies that my Wikification of the article might cause. You know, it's a long long long article to wikify .... Whew !!!

RE: I have been resisting and eliminating the reference. But what happens when you have a reference that disagrees and is significant? Do you use a general statement like "Others think . . . " If so, How do you say that that "other" is Rowley and not Lüthery objecting to Rapanarivo et al. (Lavranos & Rapanarivo)? That confuses me because it becomes paramount who it is that disagrees. For instance, there are five species recognized by Rapanarivo et al, which are commonly called the Pachypodium rosulatum aggregates, that Rowley considers as Homotypic Synonyms for four varieties and one forma. The species read, except for the forma, Pachypodium species var. variety (Lavranos & Rapanarivo) G.D. Rowley so there is clear disagreement between noted botanists on Pachypodium. How can you in an encyclopedia manner distinguish Rowley in the reference as the active figure versus Lüthery.

Or, Lüthery creates subgenera relationships for the species of Pachypodium.. Again, if in the encyclopedia, you said "the latest literature erected subgenera for Pachypodium" . . . How do people known that the reference is in this case not Rowley, but Lüthery, for the inverse of the first example.

And yes the article is long. Can you imagine it before I broke it into subsections? But I have to take some credit here because I am reducing a 120 page book of a series of studies. Getting it to 1/10th to 1/15th the size is good isn't it?

Besides, I consider as NOT CENTERED all extra explanations that do not directly concern the genus Pachypodium, such as glossaries where you define other botanical notions. Well, then you should create separate articles about those notions and only about them, where it is legitimate to talk about them.

RE: This notes helps me a lot to understand what you meant by not centered. The Glossary is not centered because it employed extraneous terms to explain the definitions that did pertain to Pachypodium. In some cases I could feel those terms grow well beyond what I would normatively look-up to figure out what was meant by a certain term. But I felt an obligation to full consistency.

I looked at the plant physiology sections yesterday, because I am keeping a list of terms that I try to explain in the text but could use a wiki nonetheless. I do not know how to really go in and add a wiki to another article. One page had relevant terms in bold face but not in a wiki in sight for this terms yet it defined the term. I thought what a shame the person used the bold face instead of creating a wiki because the terms I was trying to define were common flower physiology. I have the list. I have the definitions, but how do I nest these terms into an organizational pattern that I am not sure of totally? (Once again we are talking organization!)

Quote: But be encouraged that with book in hand I will follow you in your venture to reshape the Pachypodium project. I can, in turn, offer the thing I have best to give--accuracy to the study. I believe that you are a very talented editor, but your knowledge of Pachypodium and the landscape and the environment is not as strong. Please remember that we can work together through this new structure, if you choose. Sentences can always be rewritten.

Yeah. I totally agree.

RE. Here I still need to be careful because I might better articulate something, but it could take up more space. Space is a premium. I want to shorten the work but my sensibilities sound an automatic alarm if the complexity is lost were it is needed. Please note; however, that I do not mean complications. Something could be simple and complex. But anything complicated is never simple-and so on.

Quote: I am currently reviewing the Pachypodium main article. I plan to move from there to your combined article on the "Adaptive mechanism of Pachypodium" and it’s "Morphology." I would like to rewrite that article because the strength of your logical move to combine them has not met fruition.

You think so ? OK. Anyway those articles really need reediting and cleaning up, merging or not merging. Besides, I have also replaced your "Pachypodium project schema" at the end of articles by the more "acceptable" Pachypodium template. I hope you'll like it. It's much more practical...

RE. I need to get focused and show how the logic you enacted can be very powerful here. In this manner morphology terms will knit together with adaptation mechanisms in places that will make the morphology seem more pertinent than just being descriptive. A very skilled botanists could really do justice here. Unfortunately I am not one. But I have a pretty good grasp of the genus, though. So I will give it my best shot.

I mean that the environment and the microenvironment and the landscape were eliminated in a way that is not true to how "Rapanarivo et al." conceived of the morphology of the genus. You must always keep in mind that "Rapanarivo et al." are strongest and at their best when working with micro-environmentalism of organisms--i.e. Pachypodium. That means that plant morphology should be explained in terms of ecological relevance--the "ecological coat" assumed by the taxon in the greater landscape. I think I can make this article work better and so would like the chance to work on it. Your editing will make it sharper.

OK, I believe you're right. Then you should add more sharpness to those concepts, but please please keep in mind that there should be absolutely NO reference to Rapanarivo et al. inside the article.

RE. Again no references within the article. Hey I just thought of an answer to the question I asked about the necessity of distinguishing different references in the text. Could it not be achieved by a to the point annotated bibliography? Or is that off center?

Quote: Also, I think we need to discuss the importance of history to a genus. Throw aside modes of truth that operate from ontology, publishing a species is a process that appears to utilize the correspondence model of truth, as best I can determine. A plant does not become a "species" until it is published in the literature and peer-reviewed. Upon successful competition of that, a new "species" has a fair chance of being accepted broadly. So if we think logically, all these plants that we want to talk about are not named “species” until there history of publication and peer-review is told. That to me means that history is of prime importance in the earlier phase of the articles to be written on Pachypodium. Else they are not "species," until the literature is explained; the predicated author name behind a species is put into context.

Lastly I would ask that any modification to the "Key to the Species" format be brought into a discussion before changes are made. The Botanical Key has been a hard piece of information to put forward. But, with exception to right justifying the predicate condition to either couplet it adheres to the form of a Key. Wikispecies uses a Key. I think it is entirely correct to include the Key as it is structured because it is diagnostic and descriptive. I mean: One can identify a species moving forward through the Key. (Diagnostic) Yet moving backwards one can generate characters of that species that help to articulate its definition. (Descriptive) I am very sensitive about this Key. I regret the elimination of the Quick list of terms. It had been suggested that I work on Plant Physiology to aid whatever term was not wikified. Without a wiki, or a ready at hand definition, the Key is difficult to read. The choice is to put the terminology in the Key, which will make it too dense to read or take the terminology and make sure it is in the plant physiology section. To do the later; however, one has to recall the source for these terms. The terms are especially defined for succulent plants. That would complicate their addition to the plant physiology, perhaps. What is your opinion?

Basically I agree with your ideas. As for the Key of Species, I just don't see how my changes to the article could have negative effects. It's just to make it more "readable". But if you deem my changes really undesirable, you can always revert to a previous version.... As for the Quick List of Term, this really is NOT RELEVANT for a Wikipedia article about the genus Pachypodium. I also regret the deletion of that part, but it JUST DOES NOT FIT Wikipedia, and I'm afraid even if I don't delete it, then sooner or later it will simply have to be deleted by anyone else. Again, it simply does not fit what Wikipedia is supposed to be.

RE: Yes I imagine your are right, though another seasoned Wikipedian said it was an excellent thing to do . . . BUT he felt that the terms should either be defined in the text or moved to the plant physiology section. I am doing both or one or the other . . . but again I am uncertain how to penetrate the structure of the plant physiology section to a resolution of simply adding terms to it. I guess ever wikified word has a page for itself so that adding to the plant physiology would be to establish the term in some relevant article and then creating a page for the term.

If you absolutely need to explain those terms, I guess you should go to the articles that are respectively made for each of them, then add information etc. Or create new articles of course, but please not on a pachypodium page. RE: Again I was told to use the plant physiology section to flush out these terms in the morphology and Key, not the Pachypodium pages.

Quote: That said, What are your thoughts . . . ? What will you be working on so that I will not interfere with your process? Please let me know when an article is ready to read. I wish you the best of luck. You are a very good editor, and I hope that we can form collaboration on the "Pachypodium Project. I apologize for the length.

The fact is that I'm only contributing to the Pachypodium project irregularly, because I'm so busy at this moment. Therefore I don't have any specific process in mind, just the idea of wikifying and cleaning up, merging articles to respect to Wikipedia standards and guidelines. That said, please just feel free to do any edits, I'm sure if it does follow Wikipedia guidelines, it wouldn't bother me at all. Qwertzy2 09:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: I feel a need to put in "like"-data for all the species, even though I know I will change in format and structure somehow. So I went ahead yesterday and added Pachypodium brevicaule Baker. I tried some new formatting structures that I will use on the already existing pages on the individual species. So I might clean that up today and another species. If my writing is sharp; however, then I will like cease the moment and work on the "Morphology" combination article.

By the way, for the most part I am writing articles, pages, locally on my machine in MS FrontPage. There I get my spelling checked, and if I want to I can import it into Word to check my work for any gross grammar errors. I have been doing this before I cut and past the work from Front Page to Wikipedia. I think it keeps things less messy and allows me to better organize the work. Also I can break anytime and not worry about the work be "public" and being incomplete at the same time. It feels more sane. So if I am not appearing as writing on Wikipedia I am likely writing on my machine.

Thanks again for your attention to the project. You have made some really solid suggestions.

Tim Winchester 15:50, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) Tim Winchester 17:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

It sure would be nice if people would end their comments with four tildes (this little thing: ~). That way the talk page doesn't become a huge sprawling mess where you don't know who's talking to who and nobody can extract any information from the discussion. Hermione is a dude 11:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]