text:
Trade card

A trade card is a small card, similar to a visiting card, formerly distributed to advertise businesses. Larger than modern business cards, they could be rectangular or square, and often featured maps useful for locating a business in the days before house numbering. They first became popular at the end of the 17th century in Paris, Lyon and London.

Definition
The term, trade card, refers to a varied group of items made of paper or of card of varying sizes and shapes. Trade cards evolved in different ways in Britain, America and Europe, giving rise to wide variation in their format and design. The characteristic features of a trade card are that it is a small printed item, used by merchants and traders to give to their customers for their use as an aid to memory. Trade cards were sufficiently small so that they could be carried in the gentleman's pocket or lady's purse.

History
In its original sense, the "trade" in trade card refers to its use by the proprietor of a business to announce his trade, or line of business. Trade cards were widely used by retailers and tradesmen from around the late 17th century in Paris, Lyon and London. In the period before mass media, they functioned as advertising and also as maps, directing the public to the merchants' stores (no formal street address numbering system existed at the time). The trade card is an early example of the modern business card. The use of trade cards in America became widespread from the mid-19th century in the period following the Civil war.

The earliest trade cards were not cards at all, instead they were printed on paper and did not include illustrations. Later they were printed on the more substantial card and typically bore the tradesmen's name and address, and before street numbering was in common use, often included a long-winded set of directions on how to locate the store or premises. With the advent of commercial engraving and lithography, illustrations became a standard feature of even the most humble trade card. Eventually trade cards evolved into business cards, which are still in use today.

Eighteenth century traders wanted cards with impact and sophistication. Accordingly, they often hired notable designers and engravers to design their cards. In 1738, for instance, when leading Parisian art dealer Edme-François Gersaint changed the name of his business to A la Pagode, he hired the engraver, François Boucher to design his card. In 1767, the French painter, Gabriel de Saint-Aubin, designed a trade card for quincailler (ironmonger), Perier, whose premises were situated at the sign of the Moor's Head on the Quai de la Megisserie in Paris. Other artists who accepted commissions for trade cards included: Hogarth, Bartolozzi and Bewick. The demand for trade cards, and also for catalogs fuelled demand for creative services such as etching, engraving and print-making in the first half of the eighteenth century.

Examples of early trade cards

The interest in collecting trade cards has ensured that many examples have survived. Collections of rare trade cards, dating from the 17th century to the 19th century can be found at the British Library,  Bodleian Library, Oxford, and Waddesdon Manor, Buckinghamshire. Another important collection of medical trade cards is the Wellcome Collection.

title: Trade card


text:
Talk:Sieges of Stirling Castle

To me, this doesn't seem a good name for an article -- particularly since there's no link to it from Stirling Castle. Could we maybe give it some more thought?

 * Yes, I created the title because it was a bullet point in Wars of Scottish Independence. I would propose "Seige of Stirling Castle" Gmh04 09:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * That's better, but it implies there was only one - when infact there were many - see . We could have Sieges of Stirling Castle, with sections for each one (and link from Stirling Castle and Wars of Scottish Independence with the appropriate section using a # link).  I'm not saying we should have a page for each individual seige, as most of them aren't terribly interesting. -- Finlay McWalter 12:52, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I added the "Battlebox from the prior link. However, that highlights the fact that the page needs fitted into a timeline.  Does it need listed repeated times in the battlebox history with # links?  Does it need to be a disambiguation page?  As it stands this needs fleshed out a bit. Brianmc 20:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The date in the info-box can not be correct, or it is in conflict with the main text. --85.165.101.121 21:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * also, the box is about one siege, but obviously there were several, as implied by the box title "sieges"...dave souza 23:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've sought to address the above concerns by separating out the detail on the 1304 siege into a separate section, and the infobox with it. The remainder then becomes a lead section, and further detail on the other sieges can be added into new sections in future. Hope this arrangement suits. Can't beleive its taken 3 years for someone to think of this though..! Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Name
The name says “Sieges of Stirling Castle”, though only really gives detail on one of the sieges, with another of the sieges having its own article. I think it would be easier and better to simply change the name of this article to Siege of Stirling Castle (1304) and make this article about that specific siege. If anyone wants then they can create other articles for the other sieges SamMcDermott (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Sieges of Stirling Castle


text:
Visiting card

A visiting card, also called a calling card, was a small, decorative card that was carried by individuals to present themselves to others. It was a common practice in the 18th and 19th century, particularly among the upper classes, to leave a visiting card when calling on someone (which means to visit their house or workplace).

Before the 18th century, visitors making social calls left handwritten notes at the home of friends who were not at home. By the 1760s, the upper classes in France and Italy were leaving printed visiting cards decorated with images on one side and a blank space for hand-writing a note on the other. The style quickly spread across Europe and to the United States. As printing technology improved, elaborate color designs became increasingly popular. However, by the late 1800s, simpler styles became more common.

By the 19th century, men and women needed personalized calling or visiting cards to maintain their social status or to move up in society. These small cards, about the size of a modern-day business card, usually featured the name of the owner, and sometimes an address. Calling cards were left at homes, sent to individuals, or exchanged in person for various social purposes. Knowing and following calling card "rules" signalled one's status and intentions.

History
Visiting cards became an indispensable tool of etiquette, with sophisticated rules governing their use. The essential convention was that a first person would not expect to see a second person in the second's own home (unless invited or introduced) without having first left his visiting card at the second's home. Upon leaving the card, the first would not expect to be admitted initially but instead might receive a card at his own home in response from the second. This would serve as a signal that a personal visit and meeting at home would be welcome. On the other hand, if no card was forthcoming, or if a card was sent in an envelope, a personal visit was thereby discouraged.

As an adoption from France, they were called une carte d'adresse from 1615 to 1800 and then became carte de visite or visiteur with the advent of photography in the mid-19th century. Photographic cartes de visite or "CdVs" were not generally used as calling cards: they did not have the owner/sitter's name printed on them, since they were normally given to family and close friends, or were of celebrities.

Visiting cards became common among the aristocracy of Europe, and also in the United States. The whole procedure depended upon there being servants to open the door and receive the cards and it was, therefore, confined to the social classes which employed servants.

If a card was left with a turned corner it indicated that the card had been left in person rather than by a servant.

"Next day Paul found Stubbs' card on his table, the corner turned up. Paul went to Hertford to call on Stubbs but found him out. He left his card, the corner turned up."

Some visiting cards included refined engraved ornaments, embossed lettering, and fantastic coats of arms. However, the standard form of visiting card in the 19th century in the United Kingdom was a plain card with nothing more than the bearer's name on it. Sometimes the name of a gentlemen's club might be added, but addresses were not otherwise included. Visiting cards were kept in highly decorated card cases.

The visiting card is no longer the universal feature of upper-middle-class and upper-class life that it once was in Europe and North America. Much more common is the business card, in which contact details, including address and telephone number, are essential. This has led to the inclusion of such details even on modern domestic visiting cards: Debrett's New Etiquette in 2007 endorsed the inclusion of private and club addresses (at the bottom left and right respectively) but states the inclusion of a telephone or fax number would be "a solecism".

According to Debrett's Handbook in 2016, a gentleman's card would traditionally give his title, rank, private or service address (bottom left), and club (bottom right) in addition to his name. Titles of peers are given with no prefix (e.g. simply "Duke of Wellington"), courtesy titles are similarly given as "Lord John Smith", etc., but "Hon" (for "the Honourable") are not used (Mr, Ms, etc. being used instead). Those without titles of nobility or courtesy titles may use ecclesiastical titles, military ranks, "Professor" or "Dr", or Mr, Ms, etc. For archbishops, bishops, deans, and archdeacons, the territorial title is used (e.g. "The Bishop of London"). Men may use their forenames or initials, while a married or widowed woman may either use her husband's name (the traditional usage) or her own. The only post-nominal letters used are those indicating membership of the armed forces (e.g. "Captain J. Smith, RN"). The Social Card, which is a modern version of the visiting card, features a person's name, mobile phone number, and email address, with an optional residential address rarely included; family social cards include the names of parents and children.

For dating
As of 2010, Business-style cards called calling cards are also used by some for dating. These cards typically have the bearer's name, their contact information, and may also feature a humorous quote or piece of information about the individual.

title: Visiting card


text:
Talk:Mother Teresa/Groundrules

This is a proposed set of Groundrules for the editing of this article. I am proposing these as a possible way forward.

 * Editing needs to be consensual. It is waste of everybody's time for edits to be repeatedly reverted and text to be repeatedly deleted and reincluded. It also gets us all nowhere.

 * Many articles about religion and politics get very heated. This is normal. In our attempt to get a Neutral Point of View we need to listen to both praise and criticism and objectively include both in the article. This doesn't mean that the article has to be 50% criticism - the amount of space given to the criticism needs to be agreed.

Practically:

 * 1) Before you do a non-trivial edit to the article discuss it on the talk page. Major edits without discussion will be reverted.
 * 2) Do not insult your fellow wikipedians by name calling or breaking Godwin's Law. Be charitable. Both sides are acting out of belief and not malice. Assume good faith.
 * 3) Stay calm.

Secretlondon 18:01, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

It seems that much of the dispute is not so much about individual edits, but over the overall structure, and how much space should be given to positive vs negative opinions - is there a way to up-front this discussion separately from discussion about individual edits?2toise 22:15, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mother Teresa/Groundrules


text:
User:JessPKC

Jess LaFleur is a Canadian living around Toronto, Ontario.

About
For years he has been a webmaster for various sites, most notably, Pikachu's Pokéchow. While he continues to enjoy webdesign as well as pokemon, his time is limited and the site isn't as updated as much as he would like.

Most certainly a clever young man, LaFleur is a casual individual who enjoys humour as much as he enjoys critical discussion regarding just about anything. Politics and Technology just happen to be his strong suits. He is currently reading into Taoism following a critical insight into his views on religion and of course philosphy. This philosphy of Laozi fits very well with his views on the universe in their doctrine.

Likes and Dislikes
Political Favour: New Democratic Party I am left leaning by far. I could easily considered a socialist, but I just have a big social conscious.

 * Likes
 * Computers vintage and new
 * Video games vintage and new
 * But especially Atari consoles and computers
 * Pokémon series.
 * Star Trek
 * Poor quality Kung Fu movies
 * Anime
 * PDAs
 * Radio communication
 * Photography
 * Kittens

Apathetic people.
 * Dislikes

Wikipedia History
I no longer enjoy editing the Pokémon page, even pokemon becomes too political when people start to take it seriously.

I enjoy reading the sections on socialist states especially the former Soviet Union

I have been accused of a single count of pranksterism here. I have no further statement towards that.

I hate the scores of arrogant wikipedians who have started a cult of personality. You know what I'm talking about, you know what I mean.

~JessPKC

Things I am also taking credit for while not logged in

 * edits by: 206.172.139.10
 * edits by: 209.226.132.114
 * edits by: 209.226.138.24
 * edits by: --209.226.132.148 11:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * edits by: --209.226.132.174 20:36, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

title: User:JessPKC


text:
Talk:Trillium

Image
Discussion of the image previously on this page has moved to Image_talk:Trillium.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela (talk • contribs) 12:17, November 12, 2003 (UTC)

Stupid question, I know. But I just shot a better shot of a Trillium in Oakville, ON, Canada: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Trillium7099.jpg How do I link that into the article? I apologise in advance for asking a newbie question. But I have tried to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwillems (talk • contribs) 12:26, May 14, 2007(UTC)

Picking trilliums
Can the legality of picking trilliums be cited? I searched for any reference to it being illegal in Oregon and can find nothing in Oregon statutes or administrative rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcostley (talk • contribs) 09:35, April 21, 2008 (UTC)
 * see https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=2750 for Oregon which does not list Trillium, but many, if not most, states in the East do list them as protected. Hardyplants (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

 * British Columbia was listed as a place where picking trilliums is illegal; that law was repealed in 2002. Fbax (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 * This seems to be a widespread myth. As a child in Oregon, I heard that picking Trilliums would "kill the plant", but not that it was illegal. Picking trillium may harm them more than most other plants, but I doubt that trilliums are the only plant that can be seriously harmed by picking. The myth seems to be quite specific about trilliums though. The article currently lists (with "supporting" references) Minnesota, Michigan and New York as states where picking Trilliums is illegal. The reference for Minnesota reveals that there is a restriction on selling Trilliums and collecting plants on public lands or on private land without the landowner's permission; this law also applies to several other plants that are likely to be exploited commercially. However, private landowners in Minnesota are free to pick and sell Trilliums growing on their own land. The reference for Michigan is not available, but appears to only cover Trillium undulatum, which is a protected species there. The reference for New York discusses Trillium erectum, which is "exploitably vulnerable" there, along with at least one other Trillium species (T. grandiflorum). British Columbia's repealed law covered T. erectum (the only native species there), but still allowed private landowners to pick/kill their own trilliums.

 * There are some species of Trillium that are threatened and protected by legislation (and many non-Trillium plants are also threatened and protected); collecting plants on public lands without permission is often addressed by legislation. Laws protecting certain species of plants may still allow some leeway with what private landowners do with the Trilliums (or other protected plants) growing on their own land. I don't believe there are any jurisdictions where "picking trilliums is illegal" applies across all trillium species and to all land owners. The illegality of picking trilliums appears to be a myth, and I will be attempting to edit the article to reflect this in the near future.Plantdrew (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Trillium reliquum and some other species are listed as endangered by the Federal and state governments and are protected by the Endangered Species Act. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, this was my point. There is a widespread myth that picking ALL trillium species is illegal. Some species are in fact legally protected, but this information is being presented selectively in this article to reinforce the impression that (in at least Michigan and New York) ALL species are protected when it's only those that are specifically listed.Plantdrew (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I found a working link for the Michigan reference. The reference states "all species of Trillium are protected by state law"; however, it appears the author of this reference has fallen for the myth. There are 4 threatened/endangered species of Trillium, and 1 which is extirpated (which should be eligible for automatic protection if rediscovered, but is not actually on the MI T/E list). 4 other species are not listed. Elsewhere on the web, I see that all Trilliums are protected by Michigan's Christmas Greens Act of 1962 (which may have been repealed), but this law still allows (non T/E listed) Trilliums to be picked with the landowner's permission.  The situation in Michigan appears to be similar to the most restrictive laws in other states. T/E listed species are absolutely protected. Other species may enjoy some level of protection, but there are circumstances (e.g. on your own land) where picking trilliums is not illegal.Plantdrew (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I think the Christmas Greens Act was superseded by the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994 . So it's still illegal to pick most(if not all- the words suggest all trillium species) trilliums in Michigan. vanis314 (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And that still seems not to apply to trillium picked on land that you own or where the owner has granted you permission to pick. With a "bill of sale from the owner or other evidence of title", you CAN pick trilliums. Plantdrew (talk)

Propagating the common white trillium
My mom used to transplant her white trillium plants from place to place on our property (3 acres at the 1,100 foot level in the Willamette Valley) by digging them up with shovel and bucket, and physically moving the entire plant, watering them in the summer when it got really hot. Instead of dying, the trillium plants persisted. Our property has a lot of trillium plants growing naturally, even though the whole mountainside was the site of a forest fire 120 years ago.

But as interesting as that may be, are there any cases of people planting and growing trillium plants?

Can trillium plants that are grown in pots or vases be sold in the United States? 216.99.198.20 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not a forum. Please see WP:TALK for an explanation of how to use article discussion pages. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Trillium species in Asia
The following sentence is rightly questioned by @Hyperik: "Less than a dozen species are found in Asia." Although I believe the statement is true, I can not provide a proper reference. Should the sentence be tagged as "citation needed" or perhaps it should be removed altogether? Tom Scavo (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 * I moved the sentence to a subsection for convenience but the statement is true nonetheless for the following reason. The Plant List gives 50 accepted names, not counting lower taxa. Of these, 39 are known to correspond to North American species, which leaves 11 names, all of which have been shown to correspond to Asian species by including one or more suitable citations per species name. QED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trscavo (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Subgenus Sessilium nomenclature
The current description for the name-change of the subgenus Phyllantherum to Sessilium is wrong. Freeman didn't inadvertently validate Sessilium, he just accidentally ignored it, following the lead of other mid-century botanists. The cited paper explains this more fully. You might have conflated this with Freeman's incidental validation of Phyllantherum. The real reason for the change to Sessilium is simply that Rafinesque described Sessilium before he described Phyllantherum, even though, in characteristic Rafinesque fashion, he then proceeded to ignore his own prior work (as did pretty much everybody else). But regardless, I don't think we want to get too bogged down in the weeds in this encyclopedia article with the reasoning for the various recent name changes. None of the changes represented scientific disagreements, but rather mere corrections of historical errors in following a code of nomenclature. I'd propose that we consistently refer to the sessile-flowered subgenus, if we must refer to it with a name at all, with modern terminology (as subg. Sessilium), referring the reader to Phyllantherum once (since you occasionally still see this name used.) But given that separating out Sessilium results in a polyphyletic subg. Trillium, should we even be wading into this mess in the first place? And then what about subgenus Delostylis? Doppelbrau (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks for bringing this up. I may have misinterpreted Reveal et al. but in any case, I don't really have a strong opinion on which name to use. I do think there's value in using subgenus nomenclature to organize taxa so I would be averse to dumping it altogether. Tom Scavo (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Bad link
There is a bad link here. I don't know how to fix links, sorry! The type specimen T. cernuum described by Linnaeus was actually T. catesbaei,[9] This footnote 9 links you to the footnote section, but that footnote link goes nowhere (not bad link, just goes nowhere).

 * The link is not bad, you're just clicking on the wrong thing. When you hover over "Barksdale 1938," the actual link to the reference should appear. Works for me. Tom Scavo (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

New taxa
Documenting some edits to the taxa list so others can weigh in if necessary. T. delicatum and T. hibbersonii were added and removed. Neither of these taxa are recognized by even a single naming authority (TPL, WCSP, IPNI, or POWO) so there is no basis for inclusion. T. tennesseense was moved to a more prominent position in the taxa list. The IPNI recognizes this name but both WCSP and POWO list the name as a synonym. TPL does not list the name at all. I'm inclined to move the material on T. tennesseense back to where it was. Tom Scavo (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Since this topic covers multiple changes, I'll split them up in the talk page under separate headings. Doppelbrau (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of taxa
Are we really restricted to only mentioning taxa from semi-automatically generated databases, as the above comment seems to imply? I find that to be a very strange policy, and I can't find it mentioned anywhere. I can understand using these occasionally-curated databases for resolving synonymy arguments where the disagreement is between name usage for the same entity. This is well-documented on the Wikipedia:Plants project page. However, this is a distinct question from assessing the basis for the inclusion of a taxon. (And by the way, TPL is superseded by POWO - it makes no sense to list them separately. TPL is no longer updated. This has been the case for many years now.) Doppelbrau (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * If a specific name is accepted by an independent naming authority, it is mentioned in the main article. (Infraspecific names are treated in subordinate articles by convention.) T. tennesseense, T. delicatum, and T. hibbersonii are not accepted by an independent naming authority, so they require special consideration (which is what we're giving them now). The latter name is a good example why some sort of ground rules are necessary, otherwise we'll end up with more confusion than there already is.

 * I think we're talking past one another, assuming this comment was left by Tom Scavo. You're just re-stating my problem with the page, not addressing my concern. Also, the 'independent naming authorities' used to justify inclusion aren't even independent. They are literally maintained by a single institution, Kew (albeit with input from other institutions). Could you direct me to the Wikipedia policy page that states, "If a specific name is accepted by an independent naming authority, it is mentioned in the main article." The closest thing I can find, as I said earlier, is a thoughtful discussion on resolving heterotypic and homotypic synonyms, but this, of course, is distinct from establishing grounds for article inclusion. TIA. Doppelbrau (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, I made the previous comment (I simply forgot to include a timestamp). It was meant to be background information for the interested reader. I acknowledge the issues you've raised with respect to the inclusion process. That said, the process has worked perfectly well for the first 48 species of this genus, so it has served its purpose. I guess we'll just have to deal with each new species on a case-by-case basis. Tom Scavo (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Trillium tennesseense
I think we should include this species. Shouldn't the fine people of Tennessee be aware of a new and interesting discovery? I'm fine with noting that some databases regard it as a subset of T. lancifolium. As you noted, this is implied by POWO, for example, reducing it to synonymy within that species. We should trace that back to the source database that actually made the synonymy claim, though: USDA-NRCS. We should also note that the unknown editor of this database did not bother to give a reason for this reduction, or else we'd be dishonestly emphasizing one anonymous edit to a government database over other works. The other databases you list as rejecting T. tennesseense are either deprecated (TPL), or equivalent (WCSP, POWO, and IPNI are all Kew products that cross-reference one another; they are not independent works.) Additionally the Kew databases list the Melanthiaceae entries as "UR", meaning that they are "under review", and should not be taken as final naming decisions. Regional floristic works also accept the taxon (Weakley's Flora, for example), molecular databases (e.g. NCBI's taxonomy browser), and the USFS (they even wrote up a news article announcing its discovery). I don't understand why these focused secondary sources, authored by specialists and educators, should be discarded in favor of anonymous changes to a USDA database, which again, is ultimately the only source for the three claimed source-databases for the name's rejection (TPL, WCSP, POWO), which are actually just one source (Kew). Doppelbrau (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Let's be clear. An entry for T. tennesseense already existed in the main article prior to the edit. The only question is whether this content should be moved to section "North American taxa" or kept in section "Other taxa". There are two reasons for not moving this content. First, the name Trillium tennesseense E. E. Schill & Floden does not enjoy the same level of acceptance as the other names in section "North American taxa" (for whatever reasons). Second, the inserted footnote is a hack that disrupts the flow of the species list. OTOH, section "Other taxa" is explicitly designed to handle non-list content. I'm inclined to revert this edit (but include the newly added citation). Tom Scavo (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * After doing some more research, I think it's possible to write a decent standalone article on T. tennesseense, which would address the second concern in the latter paragraph. This tips the scales for me. I'm okay with leaving this entry in section "North American taxa" as long as the footnote hack is removed. Tom Scavo (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Okay great! I'll make the list more visually in-line with other lists. I assume this is what you mean by a footnote "hack"? I'm not trying to "hack" anything. Are you referring to the superscript markup tags? These markup tags are from Wikipedia's own help page resources. Doppelbrau (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I just created a stub for Trillium tennesseense. Please add content to the species-level article. Do not clutter the main article with details re T. tennesseense. Thanks. Tom Scavo (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm still confused, re: "hacking". Is this resolved? Am I being accused of something? The only detail I left on the Trillium page for T. tennesseense was a short note justifying its inclusion on the list, since that was previously in question. I've removed this note already (since that's been resolved). Thanks, and I suggest using a humble tone on Wikipedia talk pages rather than an imperious, commanding one. (I sometimes fall into this trap too, no worries). Doppelbrau (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * No, you are not being accused of anything. I carelessly used the word "hack" to refer to some wiki markup that has since been removed. The original issue regarding T. tennesseense has been fully resolved (at least from my point of view). Thanks. Tom Scavo (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Trillium hibbersonii
T. hibbersonii is a name regularly referenced in Trillium horticulture. I don't understand why my edit explaining that modern plant taxonomists regard it as a form of T. ovatum was removed. I could see horticulturalists looking to this page, which purports to list all the species, and being confused by its absence. Doppelbrau (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The citation provided for T. hibbersonii included a link but that page does not provide a description so I'm not sure what we're talking about here. I'll guess the name T. hibbersonii is used as a shortened version of T. ovatum f. hibbersonii, which is recognized by IPNI and accepted by WCSP and POWO. Forma hibbersonii is discussed in the article on T. ovatum. Recommendation: Do not include Trillium hibbersonii in the main article. Optionally redirect that search phrase and/or add a citation to the article on T. ovatum. Tom Scavo (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * My edit did not claim T. hibbersonii was a valid name. In fact, it did the exact opposite, so I don't understand the relevance of citing naming authorities, which, again, are not authorities, but rather mere databases. Your guess is incorrect about T. hibbersonii being an abbreviation. It's a nomen nudum that pre-dates the form designation. The citation that you removed showed, for example, that this name, despite it formally being incorrect, is in current use in the horticultural community. I'll go ahead and put it back in the article where it is more likely to be found, instead of on a page where you'd have to already know about it's synonymy to find it there. Doppelbrau (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Trillium delicatum
This is a newly discovered species, so it would be very strange to find it in the four redundant databases cited above. Since the only source for its description is a single primary source, I feel like we're stuck either (1) ignoring an exciting discovery or (2) relying on that source and being transparent in the article with respect to its newness. I'd go with (2), personally. Wikipedia is supposed to be up-to-date. Doppelbrau (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * T. delicatum already dominates the article on T. decumbens so it is not being ignored. The question is how to treat it in the main article. Despite its lack of acceptance by independent naming authorities, perhaps we could list it in section "Other taxa" and link to the article on T. decumbens. Tom Scavo (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * on the contrary, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable secondary sources say, not the latest primary research. Read WP:PSTS. We should be very cautious about including newly named species until its clear that they have general acceptance. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks for directly addressing my question, . That's very helpful advice and I'd agree with that cautionary principle in virtually every other case (including, for example, the recently published Trillium georgianum). But in the case of T. delicatum, though, doesn't it seem absurd to ignore such an obviously distinct new species? (have you checked the article?) It would be like finding a population of six-legged blue giraffes in a hidden valley on Papua New Guinea and pretending that they must just be typical African giraffes until a few decades go by and somebody finishes their review article on giraffes. The morphological distinctions, much less the genetic and ecological considerations, are just so glaring. Doesn't common sense factor into the decision for species-inclusion, especially in the absence of any published dissenting opinions? Doppelbrau (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * FWIW, I would support appending the following text (with a single citation) to section "Other taxa": "Trillium delicatum is the proposed name for a putative new species that resembles T. decumbens in general appearance." Tom Scavo (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

improper use of "sp. nov."
We're not coining new names in this Wikipedia entry. "sp. nov." should not be used - instead you should refer to the authors of those species. This otherwise gives the impression that you are trying to take credit for their work. Doppelbrau (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing this out. It is done. Tom Scavo (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: the etymology of "wakerobin." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that common name was first applied to T. erectum but I don't have a good reference. Tom Scavo (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Trillium


text:
Highgrove House

Highgrove House was the family residence of King Charles III and Queen Camilla. It lies southwest of Tetbury in Gloucestershire, England. Built in the late 18th century, Highgrove and its estate were owned by various families until it was purchased in 1980 by the Duchy of Cornwall from Maurice Macmillan. Charles III remodelled the Georgian house with neo-classical additions in 1987. The duchy manages the estate and the nearby Duchy Home Farm.

The gardens at Highgrove have been open to the public since 1996. The gardens of the late-18th-century home were overgrown and untended when Charles first moved in but have since flourished and now include rare trees, flowers and heirloom seeds. Current organic gardening and organic lawn management techniques have allowed the gardens to serve also as a sustainable habitat for birds and wildlife. The gardens were designed by Charles in consultation with highly regarded gardeners like Rosemary Verey and naturalist Miriam Rothschild.

The gardens receive more than 30,000 visitors a year. The house and gardens are run according to the King's environmental principles and have been the subject of several books and television programmes. The King frequently hosts charitable events at the house.

As the property is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, control of the House was transferred to William, Prince of Wales, when his father acceded to the throne and he became Duke of Cornwall on 8 September 2022. The King rents the house from the Duchy to use as a country residence.

Location
Highgrove House is in Doughton in the civil parish of Tetbury Upton, near Tetbury in the county of Gloucestershire in South West England. Gatcombe Park, the country residence of the King's sister, Anne, Princess Royal, is 6 miles away, between the villages of Minchinhampton and Avening. In addition, the King's cousin, Prince Michael of Kent, bought nearby Nether Lypiatt Manor shortly after the duchy purchased Highgrove, although he sold it in 2006.

As the country residence of the King, Highgrove House is well protected by security. The house is one of several sites designated under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 that are protected by law from criminal trespass, a high stone wall surrounds the estate, and in 1983 the duchy and the chief constable of Gloucestershire supported the moving, for security reasons, of two public footpaths that ran close to the house. Several people have been arrested near Highgrove since the King's occupation, including two French journalists and a photographer from The Sun. A 1.5 nmi aerial exclusion zone for civilian aircraft and microlights was imposed over Highgrove in 1991.

History
Highgrove House was built in 1796 to 1798 by John Paul Paul, and believed to have been designed by architect Anthony Keck. The estate itself came to the family through the marriage in 1771 of Josiah Paul Tippetts later Paul (his mother's family name, which he adopted under the terms of the will of his uncle, her brother) with Mary Clark, whose father Robert was the local squire. It belonged to Paul's descendants until 1860. In 1850 his granddaughter Mary Elizabeth Paul died after her gown caught fire during a soiree held for her brother in the ballroom. The house was sold again in 1864 to a barrister, William Yatman. During his time at Highgrove, Yatman was described as one of the "chief preservers of foxes" in an 1872 discussion on the Duke of Beaufort's hounds. Yatman rebuilt the medieval spire of Tetbury Church in memory of his son, and paid for the rehanging of the church bells in 1891. Yatman left Highgrove following a fire in 1893 which destroyed much of the interiors of the house. The house was rebuilt at a cost of £6,000 by Arthur Mitchell, whose son, Lt Col. Francis Mitchell, Commander of the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars, lived at nearby Doughton Manor. The Mitchells sold Highgrove after the Second World War to Lt Col. Gwyn Morgan.

The estate had been bought by the Macmillan family in 1956 for £89,000 and was put up for sale by the Conservative Party politician and businessman Maurice Macmillan, the son of former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, for £730,000 in 1980. Macmillan sold Highgrove so he could spend more time at Birch Grove, his father's West Sussex home. At the time of its sale Highgrove was described as a "distinguished Georgian house standing in superb parkland in the Duke of Beaufort's hunt" and possessing 347 acres, with nine bedrooms and six bathrooms.

In August 1980 the Highgrove estate was purchased by the Duchy of Cornwall for a figure believed to be between £800,000 and £1,000,000 with funds raised for its purchase by the sale of three properties from the duchy's holdings, including part of the village of Daglingworth. The Duke of Cornwall, now Charles III, was subsequently appointed a tenant for life of Highgrove by the duchy. Upon its purchase, essential repairs were carried out, the interior was stripped out, and the rooms were painted white, in preparation for their redecoration. The swimming pool at Highgrove was given to the Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales, as a wedding present from the British Army.

From 1974, the previous residence of the Prince of Wales was due to be Chevening House in Kent, a house intended for use by a Cabinet member or descendant of King George VI who has been nominated by the Prime Minister. However, the Prince never occupied the house and renounced his interest in Chevening in 1980. The Prince of Wales found the journey from Chevening to Buckingham Palace inconvenient as a result of traffic congestion in South London, and it was also far away from Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall. The estate was also run by a board of trustees, appointed by the government which was seen as a disadvantage to any future changes the Prince of Wales wished to make. As £1 million of renovations had been made to Chevening before the Prince of Wales's occupancy, the purchase of Highgrove was criticised by Labour MP Reg Race, who said that it was "...bloody outrageous on a day that the Government are cutting social security benefits for millions of people". A spokesperson for the duchy said, "It is coincidental that this estate has a house on it which is suitable for the Prince of Wales. The Royal Family are rather short of residences and the prince only has a set of rooms at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle that he can use...when you are 31 you want a place of your own".

The Prince of Wales had looked at a number of properties in different counties before the duchy purchased Highgrove. The Prince of Wales rejected houses at Stoke Climsland in Cornwall and Orchardleigh in Somerset. The Prince of Wales was attracted to Gloucestershire as it was equidistant between London and Cornwall, and he had known the locality around Badminton since his childhood, often hunting with the Duke of Beaufort's Hunt.

The duchy's local holdings were expanded after the purchase of Highgrove, with the addition of Broadfield Farm, a 420 acres farm on the opposite side of Tetbury and other holdings to a total of 1112 acres by 1993.

In 1981 model maker Rosalind Hudson made a scale model of Highgrove as a wedding present for the Prince and Princess of Wales. Hudson later altered the model as Highgrove was altered.

Highgrove was initially occupied at weekends by the Prince and Princess of Wales, after their 1981 marriage, and their two children, Prince William and Prince Harry, spent much of their childhoods at the house.

Two former members of Highgrove's staff, butler Paul Burrell and housekeeper Wendy Berry, have chronicled their time at the house. Burrell's book A Royal Duty was published in 2003 and covers his time at Highgrove from the purchase of the house until Burrell's departure with Diana in 1995. Berry's 1995 book, The Housekeeper's Diary, detailed her time at Highgrove from 1984 to 1993 and it was the subject of an injunction from the High Court. After publishing her book in the United States, Berry left the UK to avoid contempt-of-court charges.

In 2021, the then Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall spent the COVID-19 lockdown at Highgrove.

In January 2023, it was reported that the Orchard Tearooms at Highgrove House would be open to the public every Tuesday as a part of the Prince's Foundation Gloucestershire Winter Warmers initiative, which was set up to tackle loneliness and isolation in cold weather by providing warm spaces. On 6 May 2023 the newly crowned King and Queen returned to Highgrove House after their coronation.

Design
Highgrove House was built between 1796 and 1798; it was believed to have been designed by architect Anthony Keck. The house is a rectangular detached three-storey building made from ashlar blocks with a stone and slate roof. The exterior of the house features neo-classical decorations. In its 1985 listing for the house, English Heritage described its design as "Principal block, rectangular of five bays by three and of 3 storeys. Pilasters through the upper floors, cornice and parapet. The garden front (south-west) of 5 bays with a central canted bay of 2 storeys. Mid C19. 12-pane sashes. Sashes on south-east set in arched recesses." The house has four reception rooms, nine main bedrooms, with a nursery wing and staff quarters.

In 1893 a fire caused severe damage to the house, and it was rebuilt to its former appearance in 1894 by the Bristol architect John Hart. The fire gutted the interior and damaged the west façade, where a window collapsed onto the terrace, bringing down the wall above. A porch was added to the south-east front in 1894. An office wing to the north west of the house was demolished in 1966.

At the behest of the King, the artist Felix Kelly created an artist's impression of a remodelled Highgrove with neo-classical additions. Kelly had previously painted a vision of Henbury Hall in Henbury, Cheshire based on Andrea Palladio's Villa Rotonda. Kelly's artwork had formed the basis for the construction of Henbury Hall, and a similar painting of Highgrove subsequently formed the basis for a remodelling of the house in December 1987, undertaken by architect Peter Falconer. The remodelling saw the exterior embellished with a new balustrade, pediment, and classical pilasters. A new single-storey staff annexe was also added. The additions were praised by the Georgian Group.

Other buildings built by The King at Highgrove include beehive pavilions and a beef-yard designed by Willie Bertram, built in traditional Cotswold stone. Four semi-detached cottages dubbed 'the council houses' by The Prince of Wales were also renovated.

Highgrove House was given Grade II listed status in March 1985. In addition to the main house, the Coach House to the north west, and Lodge and Gate Piers to the east, were also given Grade II listed status.

After the marriage of The Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales in 1981 rooms at Highgrove were decorated by Dudley Poplak who regarded the commission as the "most important assignment I have ever had." Poplak's obituary in The Times later described his decorations for Highgrove as "...a youthful variant of the chintzy country-house look that was seen everywhere that year..." with a palette of clean fresh colours – plenty of lime green and aquamarine – he created a gentle relaxed mood with no flights of fancy other than the odd experiment with interesting textures". Following Diana's departure from Highgrove, Poplak's designs were replaced with those of Robert Kime at the behest of Camilla.

The King’s environmental beliefs have been reflected in changes to Highgrove. Solar panels have been installed on the farm and the house is heated by a wood chip boiler, in addition, waste from the house is filtered through a natural sewage system, and the use of aerosols was banned in the house in the 1980s. The lights at Highgrove were turned off for Earth Hour in 2008.

Gardens
The King has created a wild garden, a formal garden and a walled kitchen garden at Highgrove. He has also planted a large number of trees in the grounds, and holds the beech collection under the National Plant Collection scheme. Individual features in the gardens include the Carpet Garden, Southern Hemisphere Garden, Walled Garden, the Autumn Walk, Sundial Garden, and a Woodland Garden featuring two classical temples made from green oak and a stumpery created by Julian and Isabel Bannerman in 1996. The King has described his efforts as representing "...one very small attempt to heal the appalling short-sighted damage done to the soil, the landscape and our own souls" and has written that "Some may not like it, others may scoff that it is not in the 'real world' or it is merely an expensive indulgence. Whatever the case, my enduring hope is that those who visit the garden may find something to inspire, excite, fascinate or soothe them".

In 1980 The King was especially drawn to the 200-year-old Highgrove Cedar of Lebanon to the west of the house. After the diseased tree had to be felled in 2007 for safety reasons, a new oak pavilion with church-like spire was constructed over the base of the tree. The organic design by Mark Hoare has a rustic cruck frame on Cotswold staddle stones.

The Head Gardener is Debs Goodenough, who in July 2008 replaced David Howard. Charles was initially assisted in his creation of Highgrove's gardens by Miriam Rothschild. He was further assisted by Lady Salisbury, who had restored the gardens of Hatfield House, and Rosemary Verey.

In 1985, organic farming was introduced on three blocks of land as part of a move to what has been called biologically sustainable farming linked to conservation. The step to full organic status on the whole estate was completed in 1994.

Pre-booked tours of the gardens are available to individuals and groups, between April and mid-October. Over 30,000 people visit the gardens annually.

The gardens were the source of inspiration for the British composer Patrick Hawes when he was asked to write a piece of music for The King's 60th birthday in 2008. The resultant piece entitled Goddess of the Woods was first performed on the Prince's birthday in the Floral Hall of the Royal Opera House. Three further movements ensued to create the "Highgrove Suite" each depicting different areas of the gardens at Highgrove. The suite was premiered at Highgrove on 8 June 2010 with the royal harpist Claire Jones and the Philharmonia orchestra.

The Highgrove Florilegium is a two-volume book series containing 124 watercolours of plants from the gardens.

The Sundial Garden was the first garden at Highgrove to be created by The King and had formerly been known as the South Garden. It is named for the stone sundial at its centre, sculpted by Walter Crang, a wedding present to The King and Princess of Wales from the Duke of Beaufort and outside staff and gardeners. The garden faces south and its layout has remained largely unchanged since its creation. The Sundial Garden was originally planted with roses, and was briefly planted as a 'black-and-white garden'. The garden is presently planted with herbaceous plants in pinks, blues, and purples, and surrounded by a large yew hedge planted in the winter of 1982.

A section of the garden contains busts of people admired by The King, including Debo Devonshire, composer John Tavener, naturalist Dame Miriam Rothschild, poet Kathleen Raine, activist Vandana Shiva, and the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres. Other people honoured by busts in the garden include the former museum director and art historian who helped design the Highgrove gardens Sir Roy Strong, and Léon Krier, who created Poundbury, a village built to The Prince of Wales's architectural principles in Dorset. Busts of the former owner of Highgrove, Maurice Macmillan (sculpted by Angela Conner), the explorer and confidant of The Prince of Wales, Sir Laurens van der Post (sculptured by Frances Baruch), and pilot and psychiatrist Alan McGlashan are displayed in Highgrove's Cottage Garden, in recesses in a yew hedge. A path of stone cobbles leaves the Cottage Garden, before surrounding a stone obelisk inscribed with 'York, Weymouth and Bath', given to The King for his 60th birthday by stone-masonry colleges.

Highgrove House shops
In 1992, the then Prince of Wales opened the Highgrove retail shops which sell products, including Duchy Originals, for home and gardens. The shops are located in Tetbury and in London, where the products are available at Fortnum & Mason. A shop in Bath closed down in 2014. All profits from the sale of the products are paid to The Prince of Wales's Charitable Foundation. In 2014, the shops began selling products online.

title: Highgrove House


text:
User talk:Ly

If you have any questions this may serve as a communications platform. :-)

Your text here:

Hello "Ly", as no one seems to have officially welcomed you to Wikipedia yet, I'll do so now. You seem to have caught on to things, but for your information, some useful tips:

 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages.
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Sign talk page entries with ~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
 * Ask questions on Village pump.

Happy wikipediaing, -- Infrogmation 19:15, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Unverified image
Thanks for uploading the image I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 20:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Image:Klasse.jpg

Also:
 * Image:Grade10timetable-Gymnasium2003.png RedWolf 18:22, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

File:Map Ahrensburg in Germany.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Map Ahrensburg in Germany.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. εω (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Ly! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Herbert Pilch -

July 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Kudpung (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Ly! Thank you for your contributions. I am alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created   is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks! --Kudpung (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Gerd Dose -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ly