User talk:Michael Goodyear/Archive 9

2014

The article Hippeastrum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hippeastrum for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the page Eysteinn Erlendsson where I added {{ill2|Passio Olavi{{!}}''Passio Olavi''|no|Passio Olavi}}, it was not my edit per se that caused the gun image to appear, and I am not the source of the vandalism. Please refer to Wikipedia:Help desk#December 31 "Why does "File:Michigan state police.gif" (link to AR-15) appear at the top of Courtesy name?" which explains that that the template {{ill2}} had been vandalized by now blocked user SonicTheHedgeFan (talk · contribs). Thx. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wondered - so the template was vandalised after the edit? Anyway I found it, reported it and fixed it. Thanks. Actually I don't find that a very helpful exercise although simple - I just create a stub from the redlink which of course is then linked to the other language - will do for this. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now done - see Passio Olavi --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to leave you a note yesterday, but got distracted. I'm not sure about the table I added to Liliaceae. On the one hand, just writing text seems inevitably to imply that there are more differences between the different suprageneric classifications than in fact there are, because often they are classifications within different Liliaceae. On the other hand, the table could represent WP:OR since no source lays out the correspondence. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I thought it was a good idea, since it is much more readable - we will probably tweak it and the text with time. It is not OR since it is simply expressing my summary text in a more readable form. I don't think it is supposed to imply exact correspondence. Sometimes the OR in Wikipedia is over interpreted preventing any reasonable synthesis of the literature, which is counterproductive. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, glad you're happy with it. I'll do some work on tidying the citations to a standard format as I did with Hippeastrum – I've some tools I built to help myself with this task. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked it to include Tamura 1998 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. What do you think of the re-worked version at User:Peter_coxhead/Sandbox2? I think the internal darker rules are useful to separate the four systems. I also "collapsed" the table a bit by omitting some empty boxes – this makes it easier to view on something like an iPad (tablets are now widely used for looking at Wikipedia, it seems). Peter coxhead talk) 18:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of doing that too! Re OR - it is always a fine line - if someone else had made this table we would be accused of plagiarism.... --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we copy it into the page? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

have done so --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tweaked it a bit more --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Liliaceae , it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --Frze ^{> talk} 22:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about - naturally I always do - what led to this? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you created an editing conflict by deleting the reference in the text before I could complete the reference in the reference section - while my browser was frozen. I reverted your edit and the page now works --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Liliaceae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shoebox2 -- Shoebox2 (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Liliaceae you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Liliaceae for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shoebox2 -- Shoebox2 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Liliaceae, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when the tulip trade reached Antwerp in Belgium in 1562, they were mistaken as vegetables? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liliaceae. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks for this Victuallers (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Hippeastrum correiense, Mgoodyear!

Wikipedia editor HelicopterLlama just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The pagename template, I don't think should be used in the infobox, resulted in some taxonomy errors

To reply, leave a comment on HelicopterLlama's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Ah, it must have been a browser error. I was running an old version of IE earlier for accessibility reasons, and the PAGENAME template thingie spat out some red text and error jargon in the infobox. Must have been on my part, sorry, it seems to be working fine now ~Helicopter Llama~ 21:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the future when you create the Hippeastrum species pages, could you change your template so that the [[Category: entries are each on separate lines? Having them all on the same line causes the articles to show up in Check Wikipedia to be corrected. Keep up the good work!Naraht (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I didn't know that - I will look into it --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you want more info on where it is having issues. Still displays just fine though...

Yes there is no indication of any problems - just that it triggers Check Wikipedia, which didn't give me any hints either --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way you described its nomenclature ("[d]escribed by Hamilton Paul Traub in 1950, and formally named by Roy Emile Gereau and Lois Brako in 1993") isn't quite right. It was both described and formally named by Traub in 1950 as Amaryllis ferryrae – note that the specific epithet is still the correct one. What Gereau & Brako did in 1993 was to transfer the species from Amaryllis to Hippeastrum. Thus the year of the "Plants described in ..." category is 1950.

Yes, technically one could say that for each species within Hippeastrum --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A species transferred to another genus was formally described and named the first time; the transfer doesn't re-describe or even really re-name it. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another small point: your template produces small caps for "Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew". See WP:SMALLCAPS – small caps shouldn't be used in the English Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I copied that from another pre-existing species page, where someone else used it. That way one stylistic 'error' in Wikipedia gets copied over and over again. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking that down it is being generated by a template within the species box {{aut|Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew}} which produces Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew--Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use the "aut" template; it's just a redirect to the "smallcaps" template. Also there's a warning at Template:Aut not to use it in cite/citation templates since it messes up the metadata. (It is used in some other language Wikipedias, which may be why some editors use it, but it's strongly deprecated here.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it - it did come from another language version. There are lots of warnings on Wikipedia, but most of us don't see them unless we investigate a problem. It would be far better to disable templates that are no longer in accordance with current style. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Hippeastrum miniatum, Mgoodyear!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please use full sentences, rather than sentence fragments such as "Up to six flowers per stem."

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

It's a stub: work in progress, that's why --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template for the preferred order of sections, e.g. Distribution and habitat after Taxonomy. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know I just wanted to get something started (stub) for each of the species mentioned on the genus page, (i.e. get red of redlinks) and to fill in the details later --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand (I'm currently doing the same for Scadoxus species). I just wondered if your template for a species page had the "wrong" section order; in which case you could correct it. Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look. Yes that's quite possible - I will investigate. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doubtful about the bibliography items at Amaryllidaceae, including the two you added. These pre-APG II references are actually not about Amaryllidaceae sensu APG II/III but about Amaryllidoideae, i.e the older narrower sense of Amaryllidaceae. They should probably all be moved to the Amaryllidoideae article. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered at the time if you would raise that. Obviously this page does the subject little justice, much like the Liliaceae page was before I started on it. redoing it is on my radar. I was aware you had moved material from here to Amaryllidoideae. While it is fine to have those bibliographies on both pages, they are place holders here. I am not in favour of removing all earlier references to Amaryllidaceae, because this page deserves a thorough examination of the history of the term, back to Herbert at least. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I absolutely agree that the history of the taxon must be thoroughly covered. My concern is that less knowledgeable editors regularly add descriptive or circumscription information to articles where the APG family is notably different based on older sources; information which is now incorrect. So perhaps the bibliography should have a note added to the effect that these sources are using different family circumscriptions?

Yes I was thinking along those lines too --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that the Amaryllidoideae article had a lot more information relating to the older definitions of Amaryllidaceae, but it was savagely cut (c. 57,000 bytes removed) because of plagiarism. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I recall - that was the Spanish problem, wasn't it? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mgoodyear,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Margot Williams (botanist) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete! Botanists whose names are authorities are notable - see Wikiproject plants--Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This applies to infoboxes, too.

Thanks, and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be an ideal, but not commonly observed. As you comment elsewhere this is more commonly done on other language Wikipedias, and since many of these botanist biographies were started on those pages that is why nationalities and dates were linked in the template. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want anything translated from Swedish, Norwegian (either Bokmål or Nynorsk), or Danish: please feel free to ask me. (I understand all better than English). But, please, please don´t put all those (unsourced) words into the article again. You don´t have any idea about how huge the problem of trafficked/foreign prostitutes is in Scandinavia, do you? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do, having worked there, and that is not a good reason for deleting material from Wikipedia which does not accept censorship, and yes I am familiar with the language. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that does not change the fact that it is totally unsourced. Really, this is 2014: you cannot just insert your private knowledge on Wikipedia anymore with the battle cry: "Wikipedia does not accept censorship"! I will remove it as long as it is not sourced. That User:Mgoodyear knows this, and thinks it is important, and believe it is important: that is simply not good enough. You have to show that some other WP:RS finds these words relevant. That´s the rule of the game. (I edit mostly in the Israel/Palestine aera: there you cannot insert anything if it lacks WP:RS.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I take it you have changed your objection from trafficking to sourcing? What source did you want - a dictionary? I have researched and written on sex work in the nordic countries for many years, much of the source documents are in the original language - the lexicon was introduced to aid rresearchers perusing or searching original documents. This should have been discussed at the Sex Work Project, since you have blanked sections on two of our pages. have you done so on any other sex work by country pages. See Talk --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is now referred to the Task Force for further discussion --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:OWN and WP:AGF. The words "our pages" suggest that you or the Sex Work Project are claiming ownership of a subset of articles. As I'm sure you know, there is no rule on Wikipedia that says that an article can't be edited unless it has been discussed at a specific project. On the contrary, editors are encouraged to be bold. Sjö (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of ownership which does not exist in Wikipedia, but of familiarity. As it so happens I wrote about 95% of both those pages, but that is not the point. Boldness when inappropriate is counterproductive, and there are far too many editors whose enthusiasm outstrips their subject knowledge. The assumption of good faith does not provide assurance of either accuracy, or appropriateness, and works both ways. Editing discussions should enhance the knowledge of all parties, but unfortunately are too often confrontational and even hostile. Task Forces and Projects don't own pages either but they do coordinate, and set standards and guidelines, and provide a forum for expert opinion. The question here is whether the value of a page about a subject, where the bulk of the literature is not English is enhanced by providing a vocabulary. I suggest further discussion on this be on the Task Force page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Ghana, Prostitution in Switzerland and Prostitution in Morocco I think have enough sources to be split into separate articles what do think? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not Ghana, but possibly Switzerland. But that needs bringing up to date - the Zurich scheme went ahead and recently authorities claimed 'success' but sex workers disagreed. it is not so much the sources as the amount of material in the text. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To help you I have added material to all three. Try not to make these sections all about sex tourism and exploitation of children - there is far more to it than that, but media sensationalism concentrates on narrow areas. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your care and attention for this article. However, I'm not sure that adding links to individual pages is appropriate in 'External links' - if these pages are individually worth mentioning, then that would have to be in the main text. I suggest we have exactly one link to each edition. OK? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are direct links to the various books, the pagination is just for reference - this allows the user easier access to each book, if they are only interested in one book. It would take them ages to find the information otherwise. If you really don't like this here - put them in the text after each book. This took a lot of work - and was because I am working on Narcissus and wanted to ensure references to Dioscorides were correct, and could be verified. So I think they should be left in. Most people looking for original sources will go to Latin, I suspect, rather than Greek. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we need Latin as well, and yes, the page numbers did give the wrong impression, so it's at least possible other readers would be misled also. Links to books could go either in main text refs or here; I think I'll reformat them compactly to make it clear these are Book not page links, and not to give the appearance of an undue list. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder about the image that you added a link to, this one. It seems to me to be a longitudinal section, but I wonder which way up it is, i.e., where is the style? ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note of clarification to the file. It is a cross section with the placenta in the lower right hand corner.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks for that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I'm still a bit confused! So it's not a cross section of the whole ovary, but of one locule? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well one would need to ask the author, unfortunately he died. However I carefully compared it to microscopical depictions of Tulip ovaries in the literature and it certainly fits. I will clarify it further. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me it (now) looks like two ovules in the tricarpellate locule, and because the placenta is at the lower right (for both ovules) it must be a longitudinal section with the style towards the top left. Or is that completely wrong? Imagining it that way, I wonder whether, if one had the sections before and after this one, one might be able to make out the megaspore region or the developing megagametophyte. That could well be overly imaginative, however. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should just delete it as it does not seem to be fulfilling its purpose?

- Does this or this or this or this help? Or we could label it for additional clarity --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the third of your images above shows that the 'suspect' image actually is of a single locule/carpel. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that makes at least two of us that agree --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't know. Certainly two ovules in one locule could look like that in a transverse section. That neat line diagonally from the top left worries me, I just don't know what that would be. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael Goodyear. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Narcissus (plant) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Fredlyfish4 -- Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Taxonomy of Narcissus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Fredlyfish4 -- Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Narcissus (plant) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Narcissus (plant) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Fredlyfish4 -- Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Taxonomy of Narcissus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Taxonomy of Narcissus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Fredlyfish4 -- Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Narcissus horticultural divisions, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.shelter-island.org/garden_club/showing_daffodils/classification.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is confused - that list has been on the page for two years - both Wikipedia and Shelter island reproduced the RHS classification faithfully --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway the page has been modified to prevent further confusion--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I've just "been bold" (in the finest Wikipedian tradition) and waded into your epic work on Narcissus (plant) (for which you deserve a whole chestful of medals!) but I didn't want you to think I was being disrespectful in daring to edit your lede. That's all that I've had a chance to have a detailed look at so far, but I felt that (although I realise you are summarising a huge article there) there were some rather sweeping generalisations that misrepresented the more detailed picture you've scrupulously maintained further down the article. Cheers SiGarb | (Talk) 01:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC) PS I've just realised that you're in the US, and checked with Merriam-Webster, who do give "narcissi" as the preferred plural (my UK Chambers and Collins and OED give narcissuses first, then narcissi, and not narcissus at all, although I'd possibly use in speech). But that's the plural of the common name, not the scientific name, so it shouldn't be capitalised.SiGarb | (Talk) 01:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, its Canada which tends to use both UK and US languages--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And French, I believe… ;-) …but Wikipedia is written in English, of various kinds, and it's often unclear which version is being used.SiGarb | (Talk) 18:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look further down you will see reference to 'Lentern' in English literature, so I am restoring that, so that searches reference this. Also terms like 'jonquil' were only used to describe the species classified as such so I am restoring that too. There is actually a section discussing the problem of plurals, which I should probably revisit. I will place a link to OED. And incidentally that was not my contribution. However going back over several years there appears to have been quite some discussion on this. You are certainly correct that common names are not capitalised. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the ref further down to "Lentern" in English literature is also incorrect, as the word does not exist in any dictionary (as I've pointed out elsewhere). Presumably it is either a misprint or an invention of that editor, unless it can be provided with a proper reference. So I removed it there too, and if it's since been reinstated, it really should be re-removed.SiGarb | (Talk) 18:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I often find that people can be too easily slavishly devoted to dictionaries at the expense of usage. English has literary forms that depart from 'proper' grammar, and since it is being used, it should stay, but I think we can compromise with a footnote. If you exclude it someone else will add it.

I agree with you about dictionaries, and I've argued just that point myself, but it's often far easier to prove dictionary usage with Wiki-acceptable refs than it is to prove usage. It's possible that the use is "poetic", but my (paper) edition of Housman's Collected Poems (1939 edition; corrected 1953; type reset 1960; printed 1966) spells it as per all the dictionaries [1], as does every other full online version of the poem that I can find (I won't list them all here unless you want me to). I've been trying to track down an earlier edition but have failed so far. Housman would be your most reliable authority for the spelling, and I'd suggest it was perhaps either in an early edition of the poem, possibly a later-corrected misprint, or that he's just being misquoted elsewhere: one of your two refs quoting the poem is to a volunteer gardener's online note about what's in flower in Hereford Cathedral gardens, who doesn't even spell Housman's name correctly! Your other reference is to a perhaps unintentionally hilarious and judging by the first few pages, febrile "bodice-ripper" (thanks for leading me to it: the sea-bathing/voyeurism scene is very amusing!) by a contemporary historical novelist of doubtful literary standing, who is trying to write in a pseudo-Georgian rustic dialect. SiGarb | (Talk) 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your recent addition at Petal using Narcissus as an example of a hypanthium is a bit overly erudite, I think. What goes on with Narcissus has been puzzling for a long time, and the fact that there is a small hypanthium there from which the corona arises is a recent discovery. May I suggest a diagram such as this or this to represent a hypanthium? (The hypanthium page needs a lot of work, so that's not much help.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which goes for so many plant pages on Wikipedia. The problem was that Floral tube directs to Petal which actually never mentioned Hypanthium, let alone link to it, and barely mentioned tube. Petal is in need of a lot of work too. I considered those diagrams though there is no substitute for the real thing. In a way, Narcissus may not be so much a good model as a special case, and yes I was guided by the recent literature on Narcissus. The older literature is very inconsistent with regards to the use of terms to describe floral parts. Hypanthium does not mention floral tube either. I will link petal to Hypanthium, but we should consider changing the redirect for floral tube, and using the term on Hypanthium. What do you think? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes to both pages, and redirect --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To make matters worse, none of these pages were included in the {{botany}} template having all been developed in isolation. I have addresed that, considerably expanding and reorganising the template. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I've followed your lead in adding the botany template to pappus. No doubt there are a lot more such examples to be found by crawling wikipedia. I made some changes at hypanthium, but it needs more work. Neither the Kew Plant Glossary nor the Cambridge Illustrated Glossary has an entry for "floral tube", though both have an entry for "calyx tube". Beentje (Kew) says "the tube (as distinct from the calyx limb) in a gamosepalous calyx; sometimes used for hypanthium". The illustration shows a pea flower, which has petals very separate from the calyx. I've flagrantly copied that idea at Sepal. I guess we may be stuck with considering "floral tube" to be a synonym of "hypanthium", since is it not a technical term, but I've made some changes at Glossary of botanical terms to reduce the notion that it was a preferable term to hypanthium. By the way, Punica granatum might perhaps be a good species to illustrate hypanthium. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit preoccupied with Narcissus at the moment, but every time I link to a term I will check for the template. I don't consider glossaries to be the bible, but rather the scientific literature, which in this case is all about Narcissus at the moment!

I'm a bit confused about whether the template should be on pages that are not mentioned in the template: I added it to Phylloclade, Stipule, and Ligule. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes only serve a purpose if each page that is referenced has the template, enabling navigation between pages --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I should take the template off then, since it can't reasonably grow to list all the pages about parts of plants. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case we should delete the template, because there is no point in one that only lists half the items it is supposed to. On the other hand - just how many plant part pages are there? I think a better solution is grouping them in a hierarchical fashion, as do other navboxes and using collapsible lists. After all - we need to know how many plant part pages there are and maybe some should be merged. Anyway this conversation has now reached the point where it is best discussed by the group at the Plant Project.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the template could be useful without an entry for each of the gadzillion items. I like the way it links to the glossary. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on Narcissus. I am going to try to review your GANs, but have to say that standalone lists such as the list of Narcissus horticultural divisions cannot be good articles. See Wikipedia:Good article criteria#What cannot be a good article?. I would suggest that you nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Do you plan on eventually nominating either of the other articles for featured status? These three articles (and any others you do on the genus) have the potential to be a featured topic too. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed that if it can be Featured it can also be Good, so maybe I should renominate, and I have another Narcissus list (species) that will be ready soon. Yes, you would not be the first to suggest FA, but it seemed logical to aim for GA first then FA.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article that meets the FA criteria certainly would also meet the GA criteria, but they cannot simultaneously be both. That is just a technicality, similar to how lists can't be good articles (there is no such thing as a "good list"). In the future, if you have articles that are FA quality, I might suggest skipping the GA nomination as many articles get stalled in the queue for months without a review. With both featured list and featured article nominations you'll most likely reviews right away. I'll still review the two Narcissus articles for GA status and provide comments that will help for an FA review. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know that. I just saw there were F lists on the WikiProject page, and assumed they had originally been G lists! Anyway thanks for advice. Yes the queue can be quite long. I will look into the rest once we resolve GA for Narcissus. I had been told in other GA reviews that FA reviews can be very pedantic down to every comma. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]