User talk:JarroNevsbaru

Primula stricta, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primula scandinavica, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbrks was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Per WP:NSPECIES, the subject must be referenced, with at least a short description, in a published academic journal. If you can find one, please include it and resubmit. Also, please fix the reference to https://www.alpinegardensociety.net/. This is a homepage of a website. References should link directly to the information cited.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Primula algida and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Primula algida, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– Pbrks ^(t • c) 16:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JarroNevsbaru! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! – Pbrks (t • c) 16:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primula algida, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– Pbrks ^(t • c) 19:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lejeunea mandonii, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thunbergia battiscombei, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 16:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Notable as a species but requires an academic publication to verify species name.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Primula minor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Primula minor, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 16:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primula aureata, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cassiopeia talk 01:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tulipa uniflora, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cassiopeia talk 01:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tête-à-tête Daffodil, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Caridina sarasinorum is a very good article. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please include |taxon= when you create a {{Speciesbox}}. Although the taxobox seems to be ok without this parameter (e.g. here), the page title isn't italicized and the underlying taxobox code can't perform some checks. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think I understand. Just to clarify, does this mean once the speciesbox is created, I go onto it's settings and on the "find field" section select taxon and then write the species name into the taxon field? I think that might be the gist of it?

Thanks for making me aware of this Peter, much appreciated. JarroNevsbaru (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. (See the documentation at {{Speciesbox}} for more details.}} Peter coxhead (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use either |taxon= or |genus=+|species=, whichever you prefer, but not a mixture. (Quite a learning curve with taxoboxes!) Keep up the good work. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I'll try and remember that, thank you. JarroNevsbaru (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate your comments. I started to create articles on roses after a visit to my son's garden in Portland a few years ago. My son and his girlfriend were planting their first rose, "Rock n Roll". I looked up the rose on Wikipedia and not only did not find an article on the rose, I found very few rose articles. That was surprising considering how popular roses have been throughout history and around the world today.

I love to garden, but knew little about the history of roses. I found myself on a rose journey, reading books on rose breeders and the origin of rose varieties. I created a few articles on notable rose breeders and rose awards besides the rose articles I created, including the David Austin roses. Here is a link to what I have written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MauraWen/Roses:_2019-2020

I had to end my rose article contributions when my latest rose article was put up for deletion. The editor did not think it was a notable rose. I believe that any rose created by a notable rose breeder deserves a wikipedia article. I was concerned that future rose articles might be deleted, so I stopped writing about roses.

I appreciate the work you have done adding plant cultivars to Wikipedia, especially on endemic and endangered species. Did you find any challenges to the creation of these articles in terms of other editors thinking these articles were not notable?

On a side note, when I moved from Seattle to Chicago in 2018, I donated most of my library including all my gardening books. One large, heavy book I could not leave behind was the Primula book that you own by John Richards! I love primulas and used to plant many interesting varieties in my garden. I hope you get a chance to add more primula related content to Wikipedia MauraWen (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I love Narcissus cultivars and have made a few cultivar pages too. I wanted to make pages for any daffodil cultivar that is currently popular within cultivation as in the future these cultivars will be lost to time (Narcissus King Alfred for instance is only found in old gardens and is no longer commercially sold. One day it'll become extinct, but it was once a massively important cultivar historically and economically.)

I was told "cultivars aren't inherently notable" by who I think might have been a moderator. He said he'd deleted a lot of cultivar articles so far. It made me worry that my articles and the work I invested would be deleted so I stopped too. :(

It's weird because Wikipedia exists for "all branches of knowledge" and famous ornamental plant cultivars seem to not be a recognised or valid branch on the Wikipedia knowledge tree. I feel as though Wikipedia is a bit backwards when it comes to gardening. There doesn't seem to be any issues with people making articles on most things, but cultivars seem to be looked down on. I can find 1 line stub articles for almost anything from extinct species of fly to random people from history who didn't hold much relevance. Whenever I've made articles I always try my best to include a picture of the cultivar in question and as much info as possible. I wonder if the reason cultivars are persecuted on Wikipedia is because there is a worry that what defines a cultivar is too broad. Perhaps a list of requirements should be met to ensure a cultivar is "notable".

Here are some arguments to support the significance of cultivars on Wikipedia:

1. Historical Importance: Many plant cultivars have a rich historical background and have played a crucial role in shaping human culture, agriculture, and horticulture. For example, historic rose cultivars have been cultivated for centuries, and their presence in gardens, literature, and art reflects their cultural and aesthetic importance. Documenting these cultivars on Wikipedia ensures that their historical significance is preserved for future generations.
2. Cultural Significance: Plant cultivars often hold cultural significance and have become symbols or icons of specific regions or communities. For instance, certain cultivars may be associated with local festivals, traditions, or even national emblems. Including information about these cultivars on Wikipedia helps to capture the cultural heritage and traditions linked to them.
3. Genetic Diversity and Conservation: Plant cultivars represent distinct genetic variations within a species, offering unique traits and characteristics. Preserving information about notable cultivars on Wikipedia promotes the conservation of genetic diversity, especially for endangered or rare cultivars. This is crucial for future breeding programs, sustainable agriculture, and environmental resilience. In the event that a cultivar goes extinct the information that remains on Wikipedia will safeguard its legacy.
4. Scientific and Botanical Importance: Some plant cultivars possess exceptional traits or exhibit unique genetic mutations, making them valuable subjects of scientific research and botanical studies. By documenting their characteristics, growth habits, disease resistance, or other distinguishing features, Wikipedia contributes to the dissemination of knowledge in the field of botany and horticulture.
5. Reliable Sources and Online Presence: Notable plant cultivars often have a wealth of reliable sources of information available online, including scientific publications, specialized gardening books, and reputable horticultural society websites. These sources provide a solid foundation for creating well-referenced Wikipedia articles, ensuring that the information presented is accurate and reliable.
6. Educational Value: Wikipedia aims to provide a comprehensive knowledge base across various domains. Including information about plant cultivars expands the educational resources available to readers, offering insights into plant breeding, horticultural practices, and the diversity of plant species. It also encourages an appreciation for the natural world and promotes sustainable gardening practices.

I haven't had any issues with people saying that my endangered species or endemic species articles aren't notable. I think no matter the species, the page is seen as notable as long as it's a species of plant that is scientifically recognised. I have been told in the past that my cultivar pages aren't "notable", which is why I stopped making them. It doesn't seem fair to me that significant cultivars aren't permitted to be on Wikipedia, yet a stub for an extinct fly with no information available is permitted. It just doesn't seem fair. My articles have pictures, reliable citations, etc. I think the issue may lie with the fact the botanical people of Wikipedia don't respect cultivar validity. I suppose there are issues with allowing them to be made... Imagine if every single person started making cultivar pages for every single cultivar. It'd be a real mess... Just think about just how many cultivars exist for each different species of plant. It could potentially be quite challenging to moderate that. We'd no doubt require gardening field people from the plant section of Wikipedia. I have a strong suspicion a majority of the plant field on Wikipedia is made up of scientific / academic types people though. When cultivars naturally branch off from the Wikiproject Plants tree, there isn't really a way to stop the deletions unless attitudes within the Wikipedia community change.

Out of all the articles I've ever made Narcissus 'Tête-à-tête' seems to be one of my highest traffic pages. It's clear people find the article useful. I feel people would find it very difficult to obtain information on the history of the cultivar if it wasn't for me making it easily accessible on Wikipedia. If the page was ever deleted the information would be lost forever. One day the cultivar won't exist in cultivation anymore and it'll become extinct. When this occurs the page will remain detailing the species used in it's production, it's traits, history and detailing it's economic importance during the time period. Individual gardening websites won't outlive the test of time, I think Wikipedia is planned to be a long term encyclopaedia. The information we've both written on our cultivar pages are of great importance. I just hope that one day other Wikipedia users can see that too.

I'll check out your other pages thank you! JarroNevsbaru (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As both a plant editor here and a gardener, I very much appreciate the article on Narcissus 'Tête-à-tête'. Along with 'Jetfire' (which could do with an article), it seems to be among the top cultivars persisting from year to year in gardens around where I live in the English midlands. As one of the "botanical people of Wikipedia", I certainly do respect cultivar validity, but equally agree that all cultivars don't deserve an article. I think that the amount that can be written about a cultivar is a good indicator of whether it is sufficiently important to warrant an article. I don't think, for example, that Ulmus × hollandica 'Fjerrestad' deserves an article. But widely sold and planted rose or daffodil cultivars are a different matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JarroNevsbaru and Peter coxhead: Great discussion! Those are excellent arguments on supporting the significance of plant cultivars on Wikipedia. I also agree with your comment, "I have a strong suspicion a majority of the plant field on Wikipedia is made up of scientific / academic types people." I agree with Peter, " I think that the amount that can be written about a cultivar is a good indicator of whether it is sufficiently important to warrant an article." Do either of you have any interest in starting a Wikiproject that focuses solely on plant cultivars that are historically and culturally significant? Many of these old, important plant cultivars are disappearing every year. I would be happy to join, support and create articles! MauraWen (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A big difference between cultivars and species is that cultivars are human creations, and are potentially unlimited in number. I could breed and register a cultivar if I made an effort to do so. But if I was the only person growing it, it wouldn't be notable. I (or anybody else) could also write a book or create a painting, but if nobody else saw them, they wouldn't be notable. A large number of articles on Buddleja and bromeliad cultivars have been deleted, but those articles didn't really have any information beyond a single sentence; "X is a cultivar of Y". Maybe some of those were notable, but there wasn't sufficient information in the article to demonstrate that more than a couple of people had ever grown (or heard of) those cultivars. "X is a cultivar of Y" is a level of information that could be covered in a list of cultivars.

While species have been presumed notable throughout Wikipedia's history, there are editors who object to Wikipedia having species articles that only say "X is a species of Y". At some level, I agree with that. Creating a single sentence stub, with the assumption that somebody else would eventually expand it was generally accepted practice, in say 2005 and for many years after. Now there is more of an expectation that somebody creating an article should include more information than could be presented in a list (e.g. a list of species in a genus).

There are certainly notable cultivars that don't have articles. Fuerte avocado is the second most widely cultivated avocado; there was a redirect since 2010. I had it on my watchlist, hoping somebody would create an article, which finally happened in February 2023. Belgian endive doesn't have any article (although I'm not sure if it is really a cultivar rather than a cultivar group that has a particular cultivation technique). Helianthus annuus 'Russian Giant' is probably the most notable sunflower cultivar. It was recently created and is being discussed for deletion. The article for Russian Giant isn't very good and doesn't address what makes it notable (being the first widely available cultivar bred for oil production). I haven't !voted to keep it because: 1) I'm not sure what name should be used (it's also referred to as 'Mammoth Russian', 'Giant Russian' and 'Russian Mammoth') and 2) maybe there should an article about oilseed sunflowers as a cultivar group (I'm not sure that 140+ years later there is really a single 'Russian Giant' cultivar anymore (although Red Delicious#Sports (mutations) deals with another case where one cultivar has become many)). Plantdrew (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion! This is helpful to me as an editor who is interested in horticulture and makes contributions in this area, but has no science/botany background. MauraWen (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MauraWen I would be interested in a Wikiproject for plant cultivars as long as our efforts are not being deleted. I don't know if there would be enough people for a Wikiproject dedicated to cultivars though. I'll admit that I think making cultivar pages for Wikipedia may be dancing on thin ice. The fact a page we make could be deleted so easily doesn't make me too keen on the idea of making many more pages on the subject. I always do my best to include information on the cultivars history, parentage, breeder and the date of its introduction. I have my doubts if that sort of information is even considered enough to warrant the safety of many of the Narcissus cultivar pages I've made so far. Out of all of them I think Narcissus 'Tête-à-tête' is the safest. In regards to every other cultivar page I've made I can imagine them being sniped. I think it's a shame because documentation of these cultivars is all that will be left after they become extinct. I think serious consideration is needed before making an article for a cultivar as it'd suck to have your work deleted.

@Peter coxhead I agree. If a cultivar has barely any information written on it's page it probably should not have been made in the first place (Unless there are exceptional circumstances of course.) In the context of Ulmus × hollandica 'Fjerrestad' I feel it would have made more sense to place the information into the respective parent species articles under a hybridization section. I will do some research into Narcissus 'Jetfire' to see if I can make a good article for it. I was actually going to get around to making that article a while ago, before I stopped making Narcissus cultivar pages.

@Plantdrew I agree the Helianthus annuus 'Russian Giant' article isn't very good. I couldn't find any scientific studies talking about the cultivar in general as it seems all studies I could find refer to the species, but not the cultivar. The fact the cultivar has multiple names also makes naming the article challenging. Many of the citations used on that article are also seed selling websites, which isn't good at all. Reading the discussion of that pages deletion is giving me insight into the sorts of things people will be thinking. I think the cultivar is definitely among the most notable sunflowers due to its economical importance. Perhaps mention of the 'Russian Giant' cultivar could be implemented onto the species page somewhere. JarroNevsbaru (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! the idea of a Wikiproject devoted specifically to historically important plant cultivars is just wishful thinking on my part. I am heartened to see though, that there are other editors that are interesting in discussing this issue. MauraWen (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too pessimistic about cultivar articles. For example, Rosa Peace was created in June 2006, i.e. 17 years ago, and has been worked regularly. Whether all the other cultivars wikilinked in the Peace article and its gallery deserve articles is another matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 17 year old cultivar article is an amazing thing indeed! I'll admit I've been thinking a lot about my cultivar pages and the risk of deletion. Having a page of mine deleted is probably my biggest fear. I've never had it happen before, but I'm sure it's inevitable eventually. Seeing a cultivar page last for 17 years is something I feel I had to see. If it can survive for that long I'm sure some of my other pages will too. ^_^

I ended up making the Narcissus 'Jetfire' page btw. I feel it likely needs a lot more work, but it's a decent foundation to build upon. I hope somebody uploads a good portrait image of the cultivar onto Wikimedia commons eventually, or I might have to try and snap a photo next year for the speciesbox. I feel the images available on Wikimedia Commons don't do the cultivar justice. JarroNevsbaru (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! I uploaded and added a closeup image I have. I'm certainly not claiming it's the best that could be taken. In my experience images of yellow to orange flowers are difficult to get right with digital cameras; the yellow in particular is often exposed and/or too saturated and the detail is lost. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]