Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
Non-notable journal, tagged for notability for 2 years without improvement. Not indexed in any selective databases (see MIAR), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
User:Eewilson/Spilosum and div-span-flip lint errors
Hi there. Please note that Template:Resize, as explained there, can't be used around multiple blocks, such as multiple paragraphs or multiple bullet points. Your page User:Eewilson/Spilosum generates a lint error for each use of {{Resize}} around {{Center}}, because {{Center}} emits block-level HTML. I would fix it myself, but you're busy editing the document and I don't want to mess you up. It's a real easy fix. Just change all occurrences of
Hey! I see you've recently added the {{nobots}} template to 16 mainspace pages. Per here, you should generally avoid placing nobots on a mainspace page unless definitely required, and even then, ideally only specific bots should be blocked. Looking through the history of each page, I don't see anything that would justify blocking all bots (no bots at all have touched any of the pages recently), so if I may ask, why have you blocked all bots from these pages? Thanks. Aidan9382(talk)06:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan9382: Hi! I completely missed that part on the page when I was studying about bots. Bots have made a few changes here and there that have seemed problematic to me since those are articles I’ve been in quite a bit, but I honestly just get the impression, and I could probably find some examples, but I don’t have the time to put into it. I forgot about Clue BOT and other helpers. I’m sorry! I can remove it today. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
FWIW, the fourth list in this series will be covering Asterales ... I know you're interested in that, and you're more than welcome to review it (or any of the others, of course). It may be a few months before I can nom a fourth list though ... sometimes FLC hums right along, sometimes things sit there for months. Anyway, I'll do my best and your input is welcome. Btw ... you might be wondering why I'm not covering details of leaves and flowers ... I'm saving that for the next series, if I get that far, which will have one row per tribe or subfamily instead of one row per family. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dank! Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look. Have you viewed this on mobile? I first looked at it on my phone (iPhone 8, so not the big screen phone) and it's difficult to follow. The image column is all out of whack, so look at that, and there may be other things. I'll move over to the review page. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually care a lot how it looks on mobile ... I had to redo the first list completely when I saw how it looked on mobile. I'll go look at the second list on an iPhone ... it may be that I need to set wider min-widths. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, things are going well at FLC. I need images for Asterales, if you still want to do that. I would have prefered to do FLC first and look for images later, but ... things didn't go as planned, and I don't think I'll make it through FLC without the images. The best I can tell, we're talking about 22 images for 11 families. (It's 11 in Plants of the World ... families #428 through 438 ... which syncs up with the 11 at Asterales.) Personally, I always pull from Commons because I have concerns that I might be asked to hunt for reliable sources to back up the claim that the image is a picture of what it says it is ... but you're welcome to pull from iNaturalist or anywhere else you like, as long as I can send people to you if they have any concerns. Thanks for your review and your help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC) (And you can do the other 18 campanulid families if you like, but it's not necessary, I'm happy to do them.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Okay, I'll get to work on the Asterales. Anything in Commons got there somehow, and ever since the iNat2Commons gadget was written, importing appropriately licensed photos from there can be a snap. There is also a fairly easy Flickr upload, but it's not so easy to find the photos there because you typically can't search for a scientific name. Do you have genera in mind for the eleven families? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any two images from one species of the type genus is best, but any genus will work in a pinch. No particular format is necessary; a list of filenames is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One caveat: whether I proceed on to FLC with this list will depend on whether my FLC for the lilioids is ultimately successful. I'm guessing right now that it will be, so I'll be starting work on the campanulids soon, but ... well, you never know. Still, it would be nice to have a page with pictures of pretty campanulids :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I've got some health problems and I'm stopping work on the campanulids. I probably won't resume until if and when the lilioid FLC passes. Thanks for your offer; hopefully I can work with you on this another time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that wasn't my intention ... I have some liver problems. I'm fine for the moment but I need to focus on my health. I hope to be back writing and reviewing soon. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your email, that cheered me up, you're a good person. I'll reply here. You asked about doing a list yourself (Asterales or campanulids, I guess) using a little or a lot of my current format ... and that would be great. The biggest problem with getting science-y lists through FLC is finding reviewers, and if you do the list instead of me, I can be your second reviewer and your image reviewer ... I think I can commit to that. Besides, I'm actually better at reviewing than writing. Feel free to run anything by me at any time. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, you were offering to review ... yes please, full review, image review, whatever you feel like. But, pro tip: wait till someone else supports first. FLC folks are pretty good about providing one support for pretty much anything that's supportable; it's the second and third support that can sometimes take months, at least for plant and animal lists. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing a partial image review ... for my own nom! The commelinids. I might or might not get away with it, but of course you can't review your own images so someone will have to, and I might grow old and gray waiting for an image reviewer. Going forward, it would probably be better for you to pick all the images in your nominations and for me (and my husband John) to pick all the images in my noms, so that it's possible for each of us to do a full image review on the other's nom (if you want to, that is). But you're welcome to crop any image in any of my future noms as you see fit, that won't hurt anything. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!! I thought I reviewed your images on the commelinids! I guess it doesn't quite count if I uploaded some, but they all came from iNat and I know they are free because that's automatically verified by a bot when uploaded through iNaturalist2Commons, which will not let them be uploaded to begin with if they are not free. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About double quote marks around alt text ... I've seen hundreds of editors over the years using them. If they don't work now, then that's a recent bug. But they also work fine without the quote marks, and there's no harm in removing them. I hope you'll be one of my reviewers going forward, so I'll remove them in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I noticed when they were loading slowly on my screen for some reason that they all showed up which means a screen reader would probably say "quotation mark" like it would with all punctuation, and that's not desired. BTW, sorry for not getting back with you yesterday. I got involved in doing some cleanup in Glossary of botanical terms, which is a mess. Taking a break from that, but every single thing in there needs a citation, and most don't have them as it was created in the days before... – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the volumes covering the lamiids for Kubitzki's Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, so I'm starting work (slowly) on all the lamiids. - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth, do you want to include an etymology column with your campanulids? I didn't look up page numbers for some sources in List of plant family names with etymologies. Do you have the sources? ... if the answers are "yes" and "no", I can create a table of the campanulid families and look up the etymology page numbers for you. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: We're calling it "with etymologies", right? I like the idea of a separate etymology column. I don't have any of the offline sources you used for List of plant family names with etymologies. So if you're up to doing the page numbers, go for it! I'll be wrapped up in a few cat-things IRL for a few hours before I get started doing much with anything on Wikipedia, then I have a GAN review to follow up. We'll se how long this all takes today. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's User:Dank/Sandbox/8, which was derived from List of plant family names with etymologies. My list of 29 families comes from the listing that POWO was using a year ago for the campanulid families; I haven't looked lately to see if they've changed that list. The two "original type genus" entries that have dashes are genera that were (and probably still are) labeled as synonyms at POWO. That doesn't mean that all the others are still considered the type genera of their families, but they probably are ... you may want to check on that at USDA or other sites. If there's anything I can help with, let me know. If I do too much, then they won't let me review the article at FLC, but I'm sure it's okay for me to review for now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... that deserves a more nuanced answer, here goes. The question is whether it's more important to attract interest from readers and the plants wikiproject (in which case, we want something like "List of campanulid families"), at the cost of inviting a little more conflict up front, or whether it's more important to pick an approach that has a successful track record at FLC (in which case, "List of campanulid family names with etymologies"). I'm going with the longer name for mine because: 1. "Summary style" is an accepted approach at FLC, and the name of the parent article is List of plant family names with etymologies, and 2. There's no reason people can't change the name of the list later on to something simpler if they want to. But that's just me ... if it's more important to you to pull people in, to be more inviting, then that's an argument for the shorter name. Just be aware that you might have to do battle to keep it :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: PresN just promoted the commelinids, and left a note there saying (among other things) that he prefers the shorter titles (i.e. List of campanulid families). There are only 3 people who have been taking lists of living things to FLC in the last few years: you, PresN, and me. So you two represent two-thirds of the electorate, and I'm happy to go with your vote ... do you have a preference for the shorter or longer names? Would you like to ask around first? Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not having “with etymologies” allows the flexibility to have a more flexible list. If I go to a list of plant-related names, what do I want to know? Order, type genus, type species of type genus, number of currently accepted genera in the family (if it changes later, that can be handled), etymology, distribution, habitat, and an image or two of the type species of the type genus for each family (or of another species in the genus if necessary). I want links to the family, order, type genus, species. And I want a citation for everything. I also want an explanation of the group involved (e.g. lilioids, campanulids, etc.). That’s what comes to mind as I sit here on my phone in a waiting room. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense ... I'm hearing a tentative vote for removing "names with etymologies", but I'll keep listening until it feels like I'm hearing something more definite. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you get both then. Shorter answer: the lists I want to write, for the moment, are overviews of the flowering plants for non-botanists and aspiring botanists (like me). The partial review I was getting at the lilioids FLC suggested that the reviewer wanted something that wouldn't be appropriate for the readers I'm trying to reach. I've had problems like these before at WP:FLC, and the approach that seemed to work (I'm not sure why) was to go with names such as "List of plant family names with etymologies". But if PresN is right and I don't need to worry about this latest reviewer too much, then I don't really have a preference, and I'm happy to go with whatever names you and PresN prefer.
Longer answer: I'm not sure that if I call something a "List of [whatever] plants" that all reviewers will be on board with leaving some things out, such as botanical authorities. But I think detailed lists are wrong for what I'm trying to do. Suppose I'm teaching intelligent students ... they want to learn about math, say, but they don't have much background. I start off by teaching them in detail about some obscure theorem from the 1700s, because I'm thinking: this won't overwhelm them, they'll learn something, they'll get some real math done, and they'll feel competent. But this is always the wrong approach if you're trying to get new students interested enough in a subject to pursue it further, because the subtext of teaching just bits and pieces in detail is: math is too big and you'll never understand it all. A better approach is to give them an overview of math's main directions, even if you have to drastically oversimplify to do it; if you're lucky, they will at least pick up the ability to classify new pieces of information they run across and fit that information into their (imperfect) overview. This approach is what's lacking (AFAIK) in en-Wikipedia's botany articles and lists ... there's nothing that tells new students, in a format that they might be able to read in one sitting: here are all the seed-plant families. Here's a very basic description of what they look like, where they grow, how they're used by humans. It might be oversimplified; it might even be rejected at WP:FLC if I'm not careful. (Downplaying what I'm doing as "oh don't mind me, this isn't really a list of plants, I'm just talking about some plant vocabulary" is one way of deflecting potential criticism.) But I think, I hope, it's worth doing. - Dank (push to talk) 01:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course: these are only my rough ideas. You might have different goals, and you're welcome to take your list(s) in any direction you like. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I never expect (and sometimes don't give) a quick response, and that seems to work here, it's one of the things I value about this community. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding. It’s sick cats and I’ve been sore and exhausted. Weather change for that part. I may be awake all night now. Which is fine. Let’s see how far I can get. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, feel better. I didn't expect this, but ... after lots of tossing and turning and arguing with myself, I'd really prefer to keep "with etymologies", but I think the feedback I'm getting is that the name is a little too long, so I'd like to change "family names" to "families", if that's okay with you. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I lean toward “List of X families”, with no qualifier. The question is whether there is or would be a list of plant families without etymologies and one with. Or, would there be separate lists for each group? Probably not. “List of X families [or family names] with images”, “…with distributions”, “…with whatevers” wouldn’t make sense. Include etymologies in the list, keep them as is, but my vote is “List of commelinid families”, etc. I may take campanulids to FLC with that name format when the time comes unless there is an overwhelming lean toward a more detailed name when I get there. These lists don’t have to have the same format name as their parent list. My assumption with that list is that only the items with etymologies are included. I have to verify that. But this leads to another question… are we including family names (or families) in our lists if the etymologies can’t be found or are not known? …? I haven’t asked that question, but if we exclude those (or would do so), then that would make for an entirely different problem. The implication of the article names “with etymologies” is that only those with etymologies are included, and that cannot be left blank for any of the families. I have not paid close enough attention to notice if this has happened. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your email, I'll reply here (without divulging anything from your emails) if that's okay. I know this is a bit formal and maybe distancing ... but there are processes on Wikipedia that occasionally get hairy, and WP:FLC is one of those places ... I've always been super-careful, and never once regretted that. Sorry about the stuff you're having to deal with ... I'd feel guilty heaping anything more on you right now, and I won't. With this list, I'll support whatever you want to do, including whatever name you want for your lists, and if reviewers have any problems with that, we'll deal with it when it comes up. You asked about table formatting ... I looked, and it seems fine. I have one pro tip: when you need to move a column, don't use VE's "move column" options ... they're too buggy for my taste. Instead, create a blank column where you want it (VE's "insert before", "insert after" work fine to create columns), then look at the column you want to move, click once in that column in the top row, then shift-click in the last row, then Ctrl-C, then paste the contents of that column in the first row of the new, blank column, and it will fill in all the rows for you. That has always worked for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't use the visual editor. I'm all about the code. Don't worry about putting things on me. That's not what I was getting at. I can take it and know when to step back. :) Just chatting and there to avoid divulging. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that's smart. As you suggested, I'll create a talk page for your table if I see any hiccups ... everything looks great so far. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "are we including family names (or families) in our lists if the etymologies can’t be found": all of them have etymologies in at least one of my sources, and my sources are all high-quality. (Though ... dictionaries are starting to do a better job with providing etymologies. But I haven't started including dictionaries as sources yet). I made a post already at WT:PLANTS ... I'll go add the point you're making now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually ... it sounds ambiguous to me too, now, I'll shorten the names of my lists unless there's an objection at WT:PLANTS. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help with campanulids. Also ... when I get up in the morning I'll be moving my userspace draft to List of lamiid families. John says that Commons was missing about six images ... would you mind hunting for blank spaces in the images at some point and either finding a few images or giving me some pointers on how to do that? No rush at all, I can put the list up at FLC even with a few blank spots. - Dank (push to talk) 05:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Campanulids are going well. I've taken a break from it in the past few days. My sick kitty died Christmas night. Another had dental cleaning and tooth removal this morning and came through well, but I was worried sick about it. I finally got some good sleep today and plan to do more of the sleep thing tonight.
I got into an issue with the botanical glossary/lack of references/cleaning up an article I was referred to. Ugh. We keep adding articles while others sit out there looking like crap either from the days when Wikipedia was lax on referencing or just because nobody notices (or cares). Makes me wonder if there should be at least a 12-month moratorium on article creation until things are cleaned up, referenced, POV removed. I'm sure that's not my original idea and I'm sure it would never happen. QPQ is required for DYK. Why not require some cleanup before a DYK or GA or FA? Probably all sorts of reasons. If new article creation is slowing down, then that's not a bad thing, IMO. At least temporarily. Wikipedia sloppiness has gotten out of hand, and probably has been since before my time or else we wouldn't have dozens of cleanup templates.
Essaying and lecturing in articles is awful in an encyclopedia. Ugh. How do these things get published and stay there?
Anyway... I have a GAN review to finish up (I'm optimistic saying "finish up"). I was kind to do it instead of just failing it outright because the article was not close to being ready for GAN when it got there, but the editor was willing and so was I. I think we're close!
I'll be glad to find or give tips on finding pictures in the near future. Gotta finish the GAN first.
I'm sorry. :( I've had cats my whole life and sometimes wish I could forget the hard times and only remember when they were healthy. We are their whole life.
I only kinda slept, but better than it has been. My boy who had tooth removal yesterday has been eating up a storm, making up for lost time. I hope he gains back the weight he has lost, or even some of it. He's currently high on pain medication. Lucky duck. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Machines are getting much better at drug discovery these days ... crossing my fingers for better pain meds sometime in the 2020s! - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, I remember what I need from you. I don't have a copy of Christenhusz, Maarten; Fay, Michael Francis; Chase, Mark Wayne (2017). Plants of the World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Vascular Plants. I've been using previews on Google and Amazon. Do you have a copy of this book? If so, I'll ask you some questions when I get to them. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And: if something looks like it is or might be wrong, don't hesitate to say so whenever you feel like reviewing. I'm only likely to push back (a little bit) if there are things I learned over the years at WP:TFA or WP:FLC that raise any Main Page or FLC concerns. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! iNaturalist2Commons was written and is maintained by Commons user Kaldari. The (short) instructions to install and use are here: c:User:Kaldari/iNaturalist2Commons. I have used it tons, so I should be able to either help you or direct you to find answers. On the talk page for that page, Kaldari answers some questions. The code is hosted at GitHub, and some questions have been answered there, too. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, when you get it installed and try it, you'll probably find, like I did, that the user interface icons for the images is a bit cumbersome. I have found that going to iNaturalist directly, finding images that I want, then going back and using a trick to filter to iNaturalist observation ID to show only the images for that observation is helpful. Also, the list of icons shown is limited by default to the most recent 100 photos uploaded to iNaturalist. This can be overridden, and I can help with that as well. Or, if you aren't interested in going into all of this, or if John isn't interested, then I can still do it. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, thanks ... if you can upload a few images to Commons, I can take it from there. Commons has been pretty good ... I was able to find reasonable images for 36 of 40 genera, but I still need 2 images (of the same species) for: Carlemannia, Oncotheca, Tetrachondra and Thomandersia. (Or, 1 image with nice resolution so that it can be cropped into 2 useable images might work.) For Gesneria pauciflora, Metteniusa tessmanniana and a few others, there was only one image of a suitable quality ... but I think cropping might be the solution, I'm going to go try to figure out how to use the cropping gadget on Commons. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was just looking at Lilioids again ... I never found an image for the type genus Triuris, so I settled for a different genus. If you happen to run across a couple of images for Triuris, that would be an improvement. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What an interesting genus! There are a whopping grand total of 3 observations for the genus Triuris on iNat at this link. They are all for T. hyalina. I'd be glad to ask for a license change for a photo or two. Never hurts to ask! There are a few photos on GBIF of live observations (several of T. hyalina and one of T. hexophthalma) from Missouri Botanical Garden Herbarium, but they are -NC- licensed and likely impossible to get changed, but I can look into it if you wish. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I just "retconned" my request above to 4 genera ... I thought I had something that would work for Tetrachondra, but I don't. For Triuris, it seems to me that no one would expect the list to have an image if there are currently no known free images available , so the current images of a different genus in the family work for me ... but if you'd prefer to ask for a license change for one of the images, that works for me too. (Whenever images are this hard to come by, I don't think we need 2 images.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I found some free images of Tetrachondra hamiltonii on iNat and imported them to c:Category:Tetrachondraceae. (I'm too tired to make the species have its own category. Maybe later.) About the same luck with Carlemannia,Oncotheca as with Triuris so far. I'll try to remember to look more later. There are several free images on iNat for the Thomandersia genus, but they have not been verified by another iNat member, so I would hesitate to use them because they may not be the species marked or in the genus (although from what I can see, they do appear to be in the genus). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sense I get is that if something has been put in a genus category on Commons, and if the image looks like other members of the genus, and if it's been on Commons for a month and no one has complained, then we're not likely to get complaints at FLC (or elsewhere, probably). So ... one good option, I think, would be to keep the Thomandersia image column blank for now, and I'll explain in my FLC intro that you've just moved several images to Commons and we're going to wait to see if anyone objects there first before we link them on en.wp.
@Dank: my bad on your question (on my sandbox talk page) about a Thomandersia image. It was Tetrachondra hamiltonii images I was thinking of (the "T" on both of them convoluted my memory), and they are in the family category c:Category:Tetrachondraceae. The problem with the current free Thomandersia images on iNat is that they are not yet in Research Grade, meaning they have not been verified by at least one other iNat user who is familiar with the species. I'll tag some folks to see if anyone can help. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: The identities of the observations on iNat for the Thomandersia species free pics have been confirmed, and I uploaded them to Commons. They can be found at c:Category:Thomandersiaceae. Their licenses have been verified by the iNat license bot. There are two species represented, Thomandersia butaye and Thomandersia hensii. Take your pick. You may have to do a bit of cropping to get what you want. If you haven't figured out CropTool yet, I'll be glad to do the cropping. Let me know. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. I've been using CropTool, I'm happy with the results so far. Btw ... appears at the moment that I may be picking up 3 supports for the lamiids ... it's feast or famine at FLC, heh. My last etymology list hung around for months. (Maybe that was too "niche" for FLC, I don't know.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, since things are going well, I'm going to dive into List of basal asterid families (currently at User:Dank/Basal asterids). Feel free to make any edits you like, or make any reviewer-like comments you like. I want to make sure I'm not giving you a mixed message: I welcome any reviewer-like comments you want to make for my lists, at any stage of the game ... I'm just saying (above) that, after I get two supports (or even after one support, if it was a detailed review), then I prefer not to make extensive changes, because that can annoy reviewers and give me a bad reputation. So, bottom line: anything you feel like saying, say it, but say it early in the process, please. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We were talking about quote marks around alt text earlier, you had doubts ... I recently found out that VisualEditor needs the quote marks ... without them, it has a tendency to delete the alt text entirely! - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per your suggestion, I've just finished converting all the table images over at List of lamiid families to use the "multiple images" template. See what you think. (I've already got my 3 supports for this one, but no image review yet ... that seems to be the hardest review to come by at FLC, even though it's the easiest! If it's something you feel like doing, go for it.) - Dank (push to talk) 06:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another update, I can't keep up! Both of my nominations now have 3 supports. The image review situation is murky ... let's hold off for now and only do the image reviews if we feel like it or if we're asked ... Reading other successful nominations, I'm getting very mixed messages on what's required. When I have better info I'll pass it along. And: my next list will probably be a shorter one, on just the two orders of basal asterids. Again, edits and comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dan! Sorry for the delay. You are zooming right along, aren't you! I'll catch up. That GA review I was working on is finished, and the other one I'm failing because the nominator can't finish it because of time contraints, so I'll be able to get back to my list this week. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good review. Regarding images: many nominations are getting passed without ever having an image review; so I can't promise that energy put into an image review won't wind up being a waste of time. OTOH, my lists have more than the usual number of images, so ... I don't know. I guess I'll know what's needed when my lists either do or don't get promoted. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Asteraceae genera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pterochaeta.
@Volcanoguy: good to hear from you! I'm on Wikibreak, so that's where I've been. I can't predict when I'll be back, but feel free to let me know if you do bring it to GA and nominate it. I may be in a position to take a look. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I probably won't bring the article to GA anytime soon; I haven't done much editing on Wikipedia since October. A Wikibreak is probably all I need but I couldn't find the right template to place on my talk page so that's why the semi-retirement one was used. Volcanoguy21:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a good story on coronation day: the Te Deum we sang that day. And the following day we sang it for the composer ;)
I heard pleasant music today - did you know a string quartet with two cellos (and no article yet in English? - I nominated Soňa Červená for GA just to give her a bit more exposure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Running from June 1 to 30, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – another Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female climate scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning book or film by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
Vandalism from your part, a blatant attempt to devaluate Goth subculture
You transformed the title of a source titled "The FACE of Punk Gothic" in ---- > "the ACE !!! of Punk Gothique". [1] ! You devaluated the article. You should be reported at ANI and you should be banned with an indefinite block. Don't spare me the excuse, this is a mistake. No this can't be. You did that on purpose. Woovee (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great music (in June, I'm behind: three great RMF concerts)! - Last Saturday, a friend played for us at her birthday party, on four instruments including baryton, with family (granddaughters!) and colleagues, from Renaissance to Haydn. - My story today is very personal: the DYK appeared on Wikipedia's 15th birthday, and describes a concert I sang. I was requested to translate the bio into German for a memorial concert ... - see background, and we talked about life and death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 20 centuries by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.
Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
Hi! Thank you! Yes it is. I'm back and trying to get back into the swing of things. Thank you for the comment on the post about stubs. I look forward to seeing if there are additional thoughts on this. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Eewilson! First, thank you for inviting me to contribute to this project. I'm still new to a lot of wiki protocols, though, and I don't yet feel confident removing the Stub tags from articles I've been working on. I'd really appreciate it if you could look at Digitalis isabelliana for me, and tell me if (and what) I've missed. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ArthurTheGardener. Thank you for your message and for being a part of the plants community! The article is at start class. It meets all of the criteria. I changed the Habitat header to Distribution and habitat, and I split off the Conservation information into its own section at the end. Headers are not required for start class, as long as the information is there. The only reason I broke them up into sections is to be consistent among other plant articles, but for start class, not even that is necessary.
As the article then is later developed, either by you or someone else, additional sections will be added and more will be filled out.
I removed the stub class tag from the bottom of the article page. And then on the talk page, I simply edited it and removed the word stub from the "shell" template and replaced it with start.
Good job here! Good picture, a nice bonus. Keep up the good work. Don't be afraid to follow Wikipedia advice of "being bold" with your changes; you can't break Wikipedia. Any changes that we make that aren't good changes can be undone. And, although nobody is really going through and reviewing these during this drive, and we count on the honor system, clearly you have honor because you contacted me just to make sure.
So with your future articles, you need not worry whether you are going to be editing that talk page qualifier. As soon as you know the article meets the criteria, which are in the instructions on the Stub-to-Start Drive page, it can be done. Then you can move on to the next article in your list!
Hi @Eewilson! Me again, sorry! I know we're not meant to create any more stub-class articles during the stub-to-start drive: I already had an article in my sandbox when I joined, which I think may be start-class by now, but if you have time, I'd appreciate your looking at it before I move it anywhere else. If it's not up to standard I'll fix it, or just leave it where it is. Thanks again for your help, ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Eewilson, would you mind clarifying something for me please? The stub-to-start instructions on short descriptions seem to suggest that something on the lines of: "X is a flowering plant in the family Y" is a suitable short description. Another editor, however (details on my Talk page) has been reverting these descriptions on the basis that they shouldn't be over 40 characters. But looking at the Wiki page for short descriptions, it only says that 80% of these are over 40 characters. Have I misunderstood something? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see it as complaining, ArthurTheGardener. You are right to be confused. The link the editor referenced is not a policy, nor is the instruction on the project page, which I used in the STS drive instructions. Short description length is not a new topic. I do not believe there is a policy on this, and we probably don't need one. There are some situations where the length exceeds the norm. Plant short descriptions often do. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Hi @Eewilson, this may be a stupid question, but would you mind explaining the difference between a homotypic and a heretotypic synonym, please? Should they be included in the same section in the species box? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ArthurTheGardener, I don't mind at all. I asked these exact two questions about 4.5 years ago when I began my self-taught botanical education. I still have much to learn.
To answer your second question first, the homotypic and heterotypic synonyms are usually combined from the source into one alphabetical list in the Speciesbox. It's not, to my knowledge, a hard and fast rule, but it's a bit simpler that way. It was only about 2–3 years ago that POWO began separating the two lists on the page for a taxon. I believe most secondary taxonomic sources still list them together, although some may separate out the basionym.
What does need to be included in the Speciesbox when listing synonyms is a separation of lists for the synonyms of the infraspecies. See article Symphyotrichum tenuifolium, for example.
The difference between the two types of synonyms is given succinctly in the Wikipedia article called Synonym (taxonomy) in section Botany. You don't have to read the entire article to learn the basic concepts of a botanical taxonomic synonym.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Elizabeth, I am about to merge the subject article into the pre-existing article at Cephalotaxus wilsoniana. As neither name is accepted by PoWO (WFO recognizes the variety), I am considering re-naming the combined article to Taiwan plum yew. Perhaps, it is best to hold off on any new edits in the meantime.
This WikiEd article was not really ready for mainspace yet and prior research on naming does not appear to have been conducted.
'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a student editor of a new article, and it was clearly not verified. Probably best to check at WT:PLANTS. I have been planning to post there about this article, but haven't gotten to it yet yesterday or today. I don't think it's a good idea to create a new article as you suggested. It's a very rare occasion that we use common names for plant articles. If anything, it should be merged into the parent species. The multiple spellings of the species epithet need to be explained in that article, if they aren't already. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the project members will suggest we go with POWO, but it needs to be brought up on the talk page at WT:PLANTS. Are you familiar enough with all the moving parts here to make the post? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can start a thread at WT:PLANTS on the subject. While infra-species articles are generally discouraged unless popularly known, this taxon may not even be a recognized taxon to start with. Leaving the article at the scientific name would be inconsistent with the parent taxon article which does not mention any accepted infraspecies for that species other than as synonyms. My first inclination was to blank and redirect to the species article, but two things stood out: it is recognised by WFO and the IUCN, and enough was written on it that it appeared notable as a distinct taxon. When I later found that there was a pre-existing article at Cephalotaxus wilsoniana, a name that no-one seems to still recognize, it seemed best to merge the two and place the article at the common name. This would not run afoul of PoWO, and could still be linked from the parent species article without introducing any inconsistencies. At the very least, there is a "population" of yews on Taiwan that are referred to as "Taiwan plum yew". Regardless of the accepted scientific classification of this population, the common name referring to it is not in dispute.
I would have hoped that when the article was moved from a draft to the scientific name, that the parent species article (and its references) would have at least been checked to verify the inclusion of this variety. Loopy30 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have hoped that when the article was moved from a draft to the scientific name, that the parent species article (and its references) would have at least been checked to verify the inclusion of this variety. You and me, both!! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today it's another great woman, soprano Sigrid Kehl, and I found a 1963 Christmas Oratorio detail. 10 years earlier than that cycle, Bach wrote seven cantatas for the 1724 season, based on seven songs, - my focus this year. Expect three stories for the three days they celebrated in Leipzig ;) - Enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 has wrapped up, and what a full year it was for WikiProject Women in Green! Over the past year, we hosted two edit-a-thons, one themed around women's history and another on women around the world. We also managed to achieve most of our 2024 annual goals, nominating 75 articles for GA, reviewing 64 GA nominations, nominating 8 articles for FAC, peer reviewing 3 articles and reviewing 10 FAC nominations. Excellent work, and thank you to everyone involved!
For 2025 we have a new set of goals for nominations and reviews. In particular, we would like to see more articles on our Hot 100 list being improved and nominated for GA this year. If you take a look at the list and see an article you are interested in contributing to, feel free to add it and yourself to our Hot 100 project discussion. You might even find someone interested in collaborating with you!
This year, as with every year, we hope you will join us in helping improve our coverage of women and women's works on this encyclopedia. Every contribution helps. We'll see you around!
2025 opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) - How are you? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
