Talk:Cirsium greimleri
Latest comment: 2 days ago by Иованъ in topic Greimler's thistle
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Greimler's thistle
editHi @Иованъ, I cannot find a mention of Cirsium greimleri having a common name of Greimler's thistle. Is that in a reference anywhere? Thanks, -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 01:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also what is happening with the notes in this article?? -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 01:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- The letters? Ellenberg indicator values also have letter abbreviations. Different readers will be familiar with different names, but the letters are universal. Ivan (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello! You are correct. This species has no English common name yet. It is a translation of the name given to it in Czech (Pichliač Greimlerov) and other languages. I had thought about not including it in the article per WP:SPECULATION, but the formation in English of common names for plants with a patronymic species name is fairly regular. If you disagree, feel free to remove it. Ivan (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I can only find it as Pichliač Greimlerov in Vavrinec. Is there a peer-reviewed publication or database that uses that name? I know that C. waldsteinii can go by Pichliač Waldsteinov so I believe you, but I need to be able to use some reliable sources if I were to introduce it into the article. We can introduce using the {{lang-cs}} and {{literal translation}} templates.As it stands, the article is overly technical and will be very difficult for a non-specialist to navigate. Therefore, I have tagged it. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 06:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivan. Forgot to ping, sorry if you recieved it multiple times. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 06:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Classicwiki could you tag the technical sections with {{Technical inline}}? Most of the content is fairly normal for a species article (see Ourisia integrifolia for example), but I agree that some of it is too technical. It would help to know which parts. Ivan (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivan, it is great that there is so much detail here, you have really dived deep into the research. However, Wikipedia is not a scientific manual (Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK). Personally, I like as much information as possible, but this is dense and difficult to navigate for a reader. Too many numbers in the [X-]XX-XX[-X] range format (I would encourage the use the {{Convert}} template too). I like the touch with the colored text, but I believe it is against the MOS (MOS:LINKCOLOR). Ourisia integrifolia is much more manageable (although it also has its pitfalls).Too much jargon (MOS:JARGON), lots of Wiktionary links. The lookalikes section is a bit superfluous. Often, species in the same genus can look alike, so to compare it to 17 others feels like overkill, especially since they all derive from the same source.I commend you on your efforts here, technical language is necessary, but we must keep the reader in mind. A long way of saying, if I were to put the tags inline they would be all over the place. I hope you see where I am coming from. If you disagree, feel free to remove the tags or bring in another experienced editor to this discussion. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 07:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. I will try to simplify the number format without losing valuable information for botanists, probably by relegating the extremes to the Notes section. Thank you for pointing me to {{convert}}. I will use {{color sample}} instead of coloured text.
- I disagree about the Wiktionary links, though. They provide a manageable medium between the requirements of botanical descriptions and Wikipedia's lay-centric orientation. I should probably add more. I have an idea to condense the lookalikes section. Since many of them share a single aspect which is repeated for each entry, I can condense such series into paragraphs.
- Once again, thank you! Ivan (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivan, it is great that there is so much detail here, you have really dived deep into the research. However, Wikipedia is not a scientific manual (Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK). Personally, I like as much information as possible, but this is dense and difficult to navigate for a reader. Too many numbers in the [X-]XX-XX[-X] range format (I would encourage the use the {{Convert}} template too). I like the touch with the colored text, but I believe it is against the MOS (MOS:LINKCOLOR). Ourisia integrifolia is much more manageable (although it also has its pitfalls).Too much jargon (MOS:JARGON), lots of Wiktionary links. The lookalikes section is a bit superfluous. Often, species in the same genus can look alike, so to compare it to 17 others feels like overkill, especially since they all derive from the same source.I commend you on your efforts here, technical language is necessary, but we must keep the reader in mind. A long way of saying, if I were to put the tags inline they would be all over the place. I hope you see where I am coming from. If you disagree, feel free to remove the tags or bring in another experienced editor to this discussion. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 07:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- For a database, you could use the German name from the Austrian Red List, Greimler-Kratzdistel.
- Schratt-Ehrendorfer, L. (2022). "Cirsium". Rote Liste der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Österreichs (3rd ed.). Retrieved 2024-07-04.
- Ivan (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Very limited as well. I'm fine with Greimler's thistle for the time being, as it is a very common naming pattern in this genus. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 07:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I can only find it as Pichliač Greimlerov in Vavrinec. Is there a peer-reviewed publication or database that uses that name? I know that C. waldsteinii can go by Pichliač Waldsteinov so I believe you, but I need to be able to use some reliable sources if I were to introduce it into the article. We can introduce using the {{lang-cs}} and {{literal translation}} templates.As it stands, the article is overly technical and will be very difficult for a non-specialist to navigate. Therefore, I have tagged it. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 06:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)