Talk:Aquilegia maimanica
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aquilegia maimanica article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Aquilegia microcentra?
edit@Pbritti: this article mentioned in several places that the species was Aquilegia microcentra. I assume that was a copy-paste error and I changed it to Aquilegia maimanica. I have not checked the cited sources. You must take care to ensure that the articles you create aren't using the names for species that aren't the subject of the articles. Plantdrew (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're right, @Plantdrew:: a copy-and-paste issue. The information for the two species is largely identical, though I believe the repeated names are the only issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 21:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- ... that Aquilegia gracillima, Aquilegia maimanica, and Aquilegia microcentra were first described as new species all related to Aquilegia moorcroftiana?
- Source: Nold, Robert (2003). Columbines: Aquilegia, Paraquilegia, and Semiaquilegia. Portland, OR: Timber Press. pp. 103–104. ISBN 0881925888.
- Reviewed: 1.) Template:Did you know nominations/2024 drone sightings, 2.) Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Pillay, 3.) Template:Did you know nominations/Caffey family murders
Pbritti (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC).
Can a better hook be proposed here? The hook as currently written doesn't seem very interesting to broad audiences, as merely being described as being related to a species that most readers have never heard of doesn't seem hooky. If it would be too difficult to do a multi-article hook, maybe just propose separate hooks for some or all of them? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
First, thanks for these articles. Wikipedia is still woefully short on articles about plant and animal species. The articles are new, long enough, well sourced, and carefully paraphrased. I should note that much of the content between them is identical or nearly identical, but separate pages are nevertheless needed. I too believe that a better hook can be produced from these articles. Nold's reference to the "political circumstances in the United States" seems interesting. Can this be clarified? It could lead to a very good hook. --Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 and Surtsicna: Thanks for the reviews! I'm traveling today but expect a proper response soonish. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 and Surtsicna: How do the two of you feel about this ALT1:
- ALT1 ... that the limited study of the Afghani plants Aquilegia gracillima, A. maimanica, and A. microcentra has been blamed on political circumstances?
- Happy new year! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 and Surtsicna: How do the two of you feel about this ALT1:
- That could certainly work. Thanks, Pbritti. We might get an even better hook if we learn what the political circumstances are/were. In any case, only the first listed species should be named in full; for the other two the genus should be abbreviated (Aquilegia gracillima, A. maimanica, and A. microcentra). --Surtsicna (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- ALT1 sounds good! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That could certainly work. Thanks, Pbritti. We might get an even better hook if we learn what the political circumstances are/were. In any case, only the first listed species should be named in full; for the other two the genus should be abbreviated (Aquilegia gracillima, A. maimanica, and A. microcentra). --Surtsicna (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have you managed to discover what political circumstances we are talking about, Pbritti? Surtsicna (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna: The context of the book is that it was released very shortly after the US invasion of Afghanistan. However, the only specificity is "in this country", which could either mean the US or Afghanistan. Additionally, the author spilt a good deal of ink in the lead to explain how then-recent US import controls were barring new Aquilegia species from being examined. I'm fairly certain the author was referring to all of these things, but keeping it general is as far as I'm willing to go. Thank you for your patience. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright! Then we go with ALT1, which is certainly interesting enough. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna: The context of the book is that it was released very shortly after the US invasion of Afghanistan. However, the only specificity is "in this country", which could either mean the US or Afghanistan. Additionally, the author spilt a good deal of ink in the lead to explain how then-recent US import controls were barring new Aquilegia species from being examined. I'm fairly certain the author was referring to all of these things, but keeping it general is as far as I'm willing to go. Thank you for your patience. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
