Talk:Field Guide/Wildflowers

The regions as I've defined them here are totally off the top of my ignorant head. Change at will. There's no reason there can't be broad guides and specific ones. If nothing else, a list of species present in Virginia would be useful for someone trying to identify Virginian wildflowers, and if the field guide entry for each species is on a different page, I don't see a problem with having that extra level of redundancy. There are surely specialized regions that should maybe be distinct in some way -- the Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades come to mind. TUF-KAT 22:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here's a blank template:

A few comments; judging by a look through what's been done so far, it doesn't look very well thought out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MPF 28 November 2004
 * 1) Use of common names can be very confusing; 'Twinflower' to many or most refers to Linnaea borealis, not (as given at Field Guide:Wildflowers - Western US and Canada) Dyschoriste oblongifolia. I've amended the template above to Scientific name.
 * 2) What is a 'wildflower'? Does it include: Woody plants (e.g. trees)? Plants other than Angiosperms (e.g. ferns, conifers)? Non-native naturalised plants? The title and coverage needs a lot more thinking.
 * 3) Scientific (metric) measurements should be the standard.
 * 4) The dark purple box color makes the type hard to read. A paler color would be better; I'd recommend following wikipedia's choice of light green (#90ee90) for plants.
 * Color changed