2015

I'm not a great fan of barnstars, etc. so I'll restrict myself to words: you've done great work at Narcissus – it's far beyond GA status, in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly an obsessive personality! Coming from you, that is praise indeed. I agree, barnstars don't mean much, but rather we should remember Christopher Wren's epitaph - Si monumentum requieris....

It takes one obsessive to recognize another... :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. An incredible amount of work there. Well done. Herrick's finer work (in my opnion): [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Now the full throated daffodils,

Our trumpeters in gold,

Call resurrection from the ground

And bid the year be bold.

Today the almond tree turns pink,

The first flush of the spring;

Winds loll and gossip through the town

Her secret whispering."

-- Cecil Day-Lewis

Thanks. Odd the Dab bot didn't spot Pausanias. Yes, there are many good examples, but one has to be selective - might get it into a footnote. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not sure Shakespeare ever wrote a poem about daffodils? He references them twice in The Winter's Tale, but the verse:

"When daffodils begin to peer,

With heigh! The doxy over the dale,

Why, then comes in the sweet o’ the year;

For the red blood reigns in the winter’s pale."

is, in fact, a song by the comic thief Autolycus. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daffodils come before the swallow dares and take winds of March with beauty (Winter's Tale) - see Shakespeare garden. Maybe I should have been more explicit in my referencing? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the worst kind of literary pedant would ever raise any concerns, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that so much work was put into this article but this is too intimidating for a GA review - or else I would do one! The most obvious thing I noticed reading the lead was the total absense of wikilinks, it looks quite barren. Yes, overlinking is bad, but linking Amaryllidaceae, perianth, and others where they first appear when reading is a good idea. Anyway, thanks for all the work! Hekerui (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was deliberate - having gone through GA many times - I got told to remove all wikilinks and references from the lead! It is only supposed to be a summary. Of course every time I go for GA I get told something different! :( --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This prompted a review of the MOS lead page and of FA articles from this project. Clearly I have been misinformed, and will restore the wikilinks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Games for May - probably a little too tangential for Popular culture, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although this one's a bit more contemporary: [2] "Daffodil Lament” is a song by the Irish band The Cranberries. It appears on their second album No Need to Argue. Its subject is love and struggling with pain and rejection." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of that lovely car either. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word in endless - but I think we need some sort of association with the plant --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're all just New FADs really, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But also inspired by another poem, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We could add a statement that the word daffodil has become used in popular culture, with a few links to examples.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with trivia is that I never know when to stop. (quite obviously). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I meant: it's very good, one can tell that from reading bits, but the GA process is one of the few instances on Wikipedia where one gets a chance to have some extra eyes on something that one has put a lot of heart blood into, and I guess you would rather have someone go over the article and point out issues and suggest improvements for every section. Yes, one could simply do a quick read over and look at the criteria, but I would try a more detailed review and in that respect it's A LOT lol Best regards Hekerui (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I agree with everything you say - so you think I shot myself in the foot by trying too hard? better to aim low first?

Would it help if I spun off more daughter pages? I have created three so far. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is a good article, I have talked about splitting the article into three: The botanical info would go under the title Narcissus (genus), the horticultural and medicinal info would go under the title Daffodil, and the historical/cultural info would go under the title Daffodils in culture. Peter coxhead wanted your input on the split. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuneMan3 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had already responded over there. I have been considering moving further sections out for some time. I have already moved several so far. Culture was on my list. I think we should be very careful about using the term splitting. GA and FA pages use a lot of redirect hats to subpages, with a summary of that page underneath. I hope that is what we are talking about here. It is very easy to mess up a good page that has numerous internal cross references, to say nothing of the lead and references. I was going to leave the bibliography intact - this is the master page after all. So the process has to be done very carefully. I would strongly advise against anyone trying to create multiple subpages simultaneously. And anyway each subpage should preserve GA status and be separately reviewed. Do you want to leave it with me since I am very familiar with the structure of the page which I wrote pretty well from scratch? Assuming there is concensus on the necessity for this, and not just a make work project.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: About Amarylis which is not Amarylis, red flower in infobox was removed. Under flower was written Amarylis Hipeastrum. Could you say what flower is it if not that named ? --94.140.88.117 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a photograph of Hippeastrum, not Amaryllis, and was incorrectly labelled. If you read both articles you will understand why some people get confused between these two genera. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made my day, I would say the same to you having followed your Wikipedia career, but I see someone already has done so. So I award you the title of Kostbar ! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1095 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - Kostbar - a few received that on the German Wikipedia ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, if you received one of Gerda Arendt's precious messages, congrats are in order. She gives them only to deserving people. Speaking of deserving people, she won't give me one unless I give her $50 and a promise to stop harassing conversing with her.

Ah, I see you got one for biographies, which explains your interest. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is not the best, but it seems I've come across some of your new articles recently, including Klaus Kubitzki. You may want to take a look at the changes I did.

1. Could you not bunch up the infobox. It makes it hard to read for other editors.

   OK. I hadn't thought it was really a problem. That's because it comes from a 'boilerplate' I use for Botanist articles. If you copy the nowiki displayed version that's what you get. But would you not say the same for, say cite templates. The template dialogue produces the 'bunched up' parse.

2. Don't add a blank line between items in a list. This causes trouble with those who use screen readers (ie blind). Instead of one list, it becomes many lists made up of one item. It causes severe problems with navigation.

   I think you are referring to the Publications. That was imported fom another language version - they tend to use that style.

3. Don't put ISBN numbers inside links. It causes the wikimagic not to work.

   Ditto

4. Could you replace the {{PAGENAME}} with the actual name of the article. Most editors don't have a clue what that is and template programming shouldn't be in articles.

   Ditto. But I'm not sure what the rationale of the objection is. The PAGENAME template is a very useful device especially for long or complex pagenames, and for boilerplating. Surely all editors are supposed to learn the tools of the trade from studying each others work. Its pirpose is pretty evident and any template can be deciphered by going to its page. I didn't understand your comment about template programming should not be in articles - nearly every good article I look at is full of templates.

Bgwhite (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting how much style varies across language versions, and it can be quite laborious rewriting all the style formatting as well as content when doing translations. I notice you did not change smallcaps which some people seem to get upset about. I tend to prioritise content over format when getting pages started. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of blank lines between lists (2) and ISBN (3), it isn't about format over content. Screen reader users lose content as traversing lists of lists is very tedious. Most users don't traverse the list. Not having the wikimagic for ISBNs, readers loose the ability to look up the book via ISBN. We are supposed to use Wikipedia style, not some other site's style. It is also MOS.

For clarification I was referring to other language Wikipedias which I draw on a lot in drafting initial pages. In this case Spanish. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blank lines and ISBNs is universal on any Wikipedia language. You will find blank lines on English too. Just because it is used doesn't mean it is allowed. Bgwhite (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Infoboxes bunched up. Infoboxes are muuuuch bigger than cite templates. 99.9% of infoboxes are not bunched up, but 80% of cite templates are. It is really, really annoying. It is really, really hard to pick items when one is not used to that.

PAGENAME... there are no articles with PAGENAME in them. When creating articles from a script or other means, one is supposed to use substitution... {{subst:PAGENAME}}. When the article is saved, the substitution will replace {{subst:PAGENAME}} with the actual name. Articles have templates, but they do not have the coding that goes into programming them. If you use MS Word, you are not using the programming language that built Word.

Interesting - But I am not sure what you mean here. There are lots of pages that use PAGENAME, I know because I come across them frequently in WikiPlant Projects. Strictly it is a magicword, but I don't see anything there that says it should not be used. Nor could I find much on {{subst:PAGENAME}} except that {{subst|PAGENAME}} will produce the same result. (Template:subst).--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have seen it, but it is no longer there. It is not found in any articles. {{subst|PAGENAME}} does work too and can be used. Magicwords are not forbidden because some are required, such as defaultsort. The difference being is defaultsort is found in any biography article, pagename isn't found in any article. Bgwhite (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I am puzzled that WP creates templates/magic words that apparently cannot be used. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the smallcaps is annoying. I personally hate them because it is harder for me to read. Unlike the ones mentioned above, there is nothing that says one should or should not use smallcaps. Bgwhite (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:SMALLCAPS: "Avoid writing with all capitals, including small caps. Reduce them to one of the other title cases or normal case, as appropriate." Peter coxhead (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re the use of {{PAGENAME}}. I agree that it should be subst'ed, so that it's not visible to future editors and also because it may otherwise be wrong if the article is moved to a different title. However note that {{subst:PAGENAME}} doesn't work inside ref tags (and nor does {{safesubst:PAGENAME}}). If you really want to use PAGENAME, then you have to use {{Refn}} instead of ref tags. For example:

• {{refn|[http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000004623 JStor Global Plants: {{subst:PAGENAME}}]}} generates the following footnote.^[1]

Whether this is less trouble than explicitly typing out the page name I leave to you! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All this demonstrates that it may not really save time borrowing material from say Spanish or German Wikipedia, which have very different approaches to style. And yes I do find myself using {[refn}} more these days --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my experience is that if you use material from other wikis, you need to do a lot of editing apart from the translation. I've used both the Spanish and German Wikipedia, but, as you note, the referencing style is very different and needs completely re-doing. We also have a somewhat different approach to sections. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPNI2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a real treat to find it in the list of new Cheshire articles. There's a definite trend for articles on women to use the forename while those on men use the surname or surname with honorific. The issue can be difficult to handle where there is genuine potential for confusion if the surname alone were used, but I find putting in the full name once per section usually works. Happy International Women's Day to you too! Espresso Addict (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the other irritant is papers in learned journals where males are listed as initials and then surname, while females are listed as first name and then surname. No wonder some of my colleagues publish under gender ambiguous names. In this particular case I was following some feminist authors who had used the author's first name alone. Interesting. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says she died in 1780 but then was engaged in 1788? Either that's a misprint or she is a time traveler. Wgolf (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. Indeed there are considerable discrepancies between sources. One of the reasons why I wanted to gather all the material on this woman found on WP into a single page, so we could sort it all out.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allen3 ^talk 12:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Herbert Huber (botanist) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. †ããrøn95^® 04:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously an error - deceased person with references --Michael Goodyear (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an apology for my error... Here, my token of appreciation! †ããrøn95® 11:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was getting a little hungry. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources, like Herbert's account of Hippeastrum in the Botanical Register, can never be reliable sources for the correct authority for a botanical name, since they don't establish that the description has priority or that the name has been conserved. You need to use secondary sources. In the case of Hippeastrum, I would use WCSP at [3] (as per the synonym list).

You may also find that other plant editors remove the bibliographic references for the synonyms; we have agreed (somewhere!) in the past not to include them. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I realise we have had this discussion in various forms before. As far as Hippeastrum goes, we have plenty of secondary sources. However as a matter of principle it is not so much a matter of establishing authority by pointing to primary sources, as indicating what that authority actually is, assuming people are interested in actually reading that source. Authority is of course established in the formal taxonomic literature, such as when a botanical authority circumscribes and describes a taxon, and allocates that authority to the taxon. A lot of that literature is in journals like Taxon the official voice of the IAPT and Phytotaxa. I don't consider WCSP as the source for authorities, since they only report them, not make decisions on them.

No-one says that WCSP is the source, but it's a reliable source, which the primary reference is not. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems listing WCSP as a source. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as bibliographic references go, the discussion we had was about taxoboxes, on which I accepted the concensus, so I carefully avoided that and relegated them to references. If other editors remove them I would consider that extremely unconstructive, if not petty. As you are probably aware by now I go to enormous effort to track down and read primary sources and provide links so other people can too. Case in point - have you ever wondered why Carlotea (which eventually turned out to be Hippeastrum) is 'Arruda ex Koster', or for that mater who either of them was, or how it got its name? It took a lot of sleuthing in early nineteenth century Portuguese texts to unravel that and find out how Koster by translating Arruda and incorporating his work into his own better known Travels in Brazil got all the credit for work he did not do! I haven't finished that reference because I am writing a biography of Manuel Arruda Câmara, so the article can be linked to it. Wikipedia thrives on sources, indeed that is its only intrinsic merit - or so we tell our students. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very keen on using the original sources for what they should be used for, namely to expand the discussion in the Taxonomy section. However, by listing them against the name in the synonym list, the implication is that they are reliable sources for that name being a synonym of the target taxon, which they are not. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that my last sentence was not saved which was

"The correct reference in Taxon is Meerow 1997, which I have added, and to keep every else happy I also added WCSP as a ref. for authority. :) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but is it correct? In other words is it really the implication that the reference is the source for the authority - after all, a taxon is formally listed in databases such as WCSP with its botanical authority and where it was described, which is what I am trying to preserve. Now the situation with synonyms is clearly different, because that is the source that decides that a taxon is not a separate entity but actually a synonym for another taxon. In the case of Hippeastrum again, that is clearly indicated by a reference attached to the Synonym heading, in this case the list is taken directly from WCSP. As usual, interesting and informative discussion.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are trying to preserve the bibliographic details for the authorities, but it has been decided previously that we wouldn't include this information (I'm just a messenger here, as this was in place before I started serious editing.) Making it look like a reference, which it is not, seems wrong to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should revisit that, and the rationale for and against - I will see if I can find the discussion, and draft something. I only recall the recent discussion re what should and should not be in the taxoboxes, which I will take another look at. One reason why policies should be documented and easily retrieved, like MOS. Of course all policies should be dynamic not palaeolithic.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:I have performed an extensive search of the archives which go back to 2004. I found only three discussions on the topic of bibliographic references (2007, 2011, 2015) - but they all relate to taxoboxes - or was that what you meant - not a general policy. As far as my comments about palaeolithic go, I see many 'decisions' there which are now clearly archaic or irrelevant. if you just mean the taxobox - that's a simple matter, since taxoboxes are summaries of the text, and the information can be placed there - although in the case that sparked this - someone moved the synomyms from the text to the taxobox, creating the problem in the first place!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Michael. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Narcissus horticultural divisions – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 5. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 20:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made a mistaken revert ...

Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No - trying to remove vandalism --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Vancouver, Washington shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - BilCat (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not an edit war when one reverts an unexplained section blanking and refers it to the talk page for discussion. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Taxonomy of 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 Tylototriton -- Tylototriton (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. I made several fixes to your refs, but I will stop now since I see you editing. I may know someone with some experience in bringing botany articles to FA. That person may or may not be willing to do me a favor and look at your article. [I haven't spoken to him/her in years since I kinda disappeared from Wikipedia for about 3 years or more]. Would you like for me to ask my friend to take a look? • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take a closer look and leave refs alone for now. Can't do any harm, and I see you are involved with the FA process. But would not the usual process be to get GA status first? I have quite a few GA botany articles, and a FL, but have not attempted FA yet. Are you implying this could be FA? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry again that AWB hosed your table. No, I'm not implying anything. I found your system of refs very confusing, in fact. However, I wondered if that was just the way botany articles are formatted. The refs also had errors, plus several refs that are not cited in body text... I might suggest that you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to your common.js, to make it much easier to see references that are broken or are not matched to cites in the body text. Let me know if you want me to ask my friend (but I'm not making promises; he/she may be busy). • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. Theoretically all pages have FA potential. Although if you think there are that many errors, that might be premature. I'm not sure how that arose since this was a fork from the Liliaceae GA page. However since this page's inception my preferred style has shifted from in line refs, to reflist=, to sfn and bibliography, and ideally the referencing on a GA or FA page should be consistent. I will check all the refs again, and see if I can make that system you mention work. I don't think I currently have a common.js script, or if I do was not aware of it. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has one. Yours is here: User:Michael Goodyear/common.js, but no one can edit it except you (maybe an admin can; I'm not sure). Edit tht page and copy the importScript stuff (above). [Don't add nowiki tags.] • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Now bypass your browser's cache. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. That page appears to have been created in February, probably from making a change in Preferences. As one progresses through WP one gradually accumulates more tools. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you scroll down the article to look at your references? The tool highlights errors in a very obvious way. FA reviewers use it. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, I also figured out where the errors came from. As I was creating this page from the main Liliaceae page, an over eager bot tripped over me and started filling in the refs. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Honora Sneyd 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 BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Honora Sneyd you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Honora Sneyd for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Honora Sneyd you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Honora Sneyd 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 BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Micael, I uplodaded this swamp flower yesterday. After some checking I identified it as Nymphaea, is it correct ? Thanx --PetarM (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are asking me - you are in a better position to examine the plant and ask the staff at Tivoli Park, or look for signs. It probably is - but which one is hard to tell. I'm assuming it was at the fish pond, like this image which was taken there. Water lilies in ornamental gardens are often hybrids or cultivars --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its that one yes, will try to, haven't seen any table with description, nor employee. I will look further, its OK I didn't miss Family tree. --PetarM (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another issue that has been discussed in some detail at WP:PLANTS, but (as far as I can see) never made it into the guidance there. My understanding is that it's fine to store as much detail as you like in the taxon templates, but that automatically only the major ranks should be displayed except in special cases (e.g. the subfamilies are to be displayed for the very "lumped" APG III families, like Asparagaceae or Amaryllidaceae). The parameter |display_parents= can then be used in a particular taxobox to force more ranks to be displayed, if there is a good reason to do so.

I'll see if I can find the earlier discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, however then we have to specify exactly what a 'major' rank is. However in the last analysis it comes down to what purpose is served by any particular guidance and whether it facilitates or hinders usage --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps have written "main ranks" as defined at Taxonomic rank#Main ranks, although the guidance at the "Template:Taxonomy/TAXON" pages uses the term "major rank". I think that the sections about what an infobox should and should not contain at Help:Infobox are very relevant here. The taxobox is meant to provide a concise overview and navigation aid, not to give all the fine details of taxonomic placements. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, in principle, though I would contend that what is "major" is somewhat taxon dependent. I would stress "navigation" which is what drives what I tend to include in such boxes. May I inquire if a specific taxobox triggered this comment? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember now where I was surprised to see the tribe displayed, but the cause was that when you created Template:Taxonomy/Allieae you specified "Always displayed: yes", hence my comment to you (but I should have linked to this template – apologies). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes I see you changed the display parameter in the template. Now as you comment above, Amaryllidaceae is labrynthine enough both in its structure and history to justify more rank detail. Guidance is just that guidance, and other factors sometimes need to be taken into account. Personally I use navigation as a major deciding factor in choosing ranks to display. In this case I added the template because navigation was a problem without it. Another approach I have used, as you may have noticed, is to create a separate navbox. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think navboxes are the correct approach (to handling complex taxonomies), since their contents are normally hidden by default, and especially if constructed as a hierarchy, the reader can reveal only the information that interests them. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing or hidden features useful in taxboxes too!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I tend to agree that they are useful, but some MOS hawks will remove them, based on Help:Infobox#What should an infobox not contain?, the argument being that if the text is so long as to need hiding, it's too long to be there. MOS:DONTHIDE only allows hiding in "tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, and in navboxes". It also points out that the mobile site doesn't handle showing hidden text; I suspect that the figure of 30% for users accessing via mobile devices is rapidly becoming an underestimate. So be wary of collapsing features. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However they greatly improve the look of a page, but the solution lies more in improving the optimisation of the page parsing for mobile devices, rather than catering to the lowest common denominator. I was criticised recently in a GA review because the reviewer could not see a table on his laptop. It is difficult to format a page to appear optimum on all devices - it looked wonderful on my desktop. Then there is the problem of the blind etc.MOS:ACCESS Note that the reference is not merely to mobile devices but specifically to the browser platform.MOS:ACCESS#Users with limited CSS or JavaScript support. The inherent dilemma is expressed in MOS as "At the same time, it is recognised that it is impossible to provide the same quality of appearance to such users without unnecessarily avoiding features that would benefit users with more capable browsers...However, consideration for users without CSS or JavaScript should extend mainly to making sure that their reading experience is possible; it is recognised that it will inevitably be inferior.. ". I generally test my GAs across a variety of platforms. However achieving that solution lies beyond the resources available to you and I.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Goodyear, I noticed that you edited this review's entry directly on the WT:GAN page; since the page is built by a bot, your Note was removed a few minutes later.

I have just added the same note to the article's talk page in the GA nominee template's "note" parameter, so it will reappear shortly.

I do have a question: since the article was made an A-class article on September 20, why have you not withdrawn it from GA? A-class articles are held to higher standards than the GA standards; they're an intermediate step between GA and FA (Featured Articles). At this point, if the GA continues, you risk having the article downgraded should it be listed. If you'd like help in withdrawing the GA review before that occurs, I'm happy to be of assistance.

Can you please point me at the A-class review page? I'm curious to see what an A-class review looks like for the Plants WikiProject. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that was my fault due to a misunderstanding of the position of A with respect to GA. I think there may be a general misunderstanding about this and that is why there are so few A class articles. I rated it A since it had undergone peer review, but still has not been passed for GA for some reason. I have reverted this in view of your comments. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some WikiProjects have an A-class process, some don't; without the formal review process, the WikiProject just doesn't have any A-class articles. The A-class is a big deal in the Military History WikiProject, and the process is almost as rigorous as the Featured Article one, with multiple reviewers and requiring several of them to support the A-class rating. Peer review isn't the same thing; such reviews can be to suggest improvements generally, to make suggestions with a view to getting the article to the point that it meets the criteria for a GA nomination, or an A-class nomination, or even an FAC. Best of luck in finding a reviewer to take over. You might want to put in a request at the WT:GAN page; since the nomination is currently the second-oldest under review at 90 days, it definitely needs some reviewer attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to invite you to take a look at this weeks TAFI article Allegra Versace. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my area --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Taxonomy of Liliaceae you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Taxonomy of Liliaceae for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tylototriton -- Tylototriton (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taxonomic articles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 08:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]