French
DeutschUser talk:Michael Goodyear
Personal and Contact Information[edit]
Michael Goodyear, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
email[edit]
Edit Count: English[edit]
- 2014
Outcrossing and allogamy[edit]
Hi, I saw your linking together of the outcrossing and allogamy pages. Those terms are certainly synonyms, but the outcrossing page is almost exclusively about a particular technique. I don't know what page title would be considered appropriate, perhaps it wouldn't change, but rather than merging the pages, I think it would be good to disambiguate that sense of the term. Perhaps it could start with a hatnote that says something like "This page is about a technique used in animal and plant breeding. For naturally occurring outcrossing see allogamy". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Good point - actually I also included Self-incompatibility - they all overlap. Another solution would be an overarching page with hats to various subtopics.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- What would you call such a page? (My imagination seems to be at a low ebb today.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Another good question and one which I anticipated you would ask. as you may have gathered too many people create free standing pages without any thought of where they are positioned in the overall hierarchy of a discipline. In contrast I look for unifying concepts and hierarchical order. So I have gone back to the top, Biology and am working my way down, and have been dismayed by the mess. So potential parent pages might include sexual reproduction and fertilisation. This is where WP falls down compared to a planned work like EB--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more with this view. There are far too many biology articles about individual terms which can only be understood in the context of the overall topic in which the terms are used. I've tried before to get some of them merged, with no success. Part of the problem seems to be that editors dislike linking to a section, so the norm has become "one link, one article", regardless of the duplication of explanation this causes. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well I will have a go at this particular glitch, but the issue in general should be taken upstairs. Otherwise we have a Tower of Babel--Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, but that's the point of the comparison with the EB: there is no "upstairs" here, just editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not totally convinced of that, but have no direct experience. Another project to explore. 'Editor' is a misnomer here anyway, which suggests an executive position, users might be better. The first level are the project and task forces, then one can contact administrators, and there are fora for general topics. Anyway this extreme democracy or laissez-faire, promotes anarchy! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well I will have a go at this particular glitch, but the issue in general should be taken upstairs. Otherwise we have a Tower of Babel--Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more with this view. There are far too many biology articles about individual terms which can only be understood in the context of the overall topic in which the terms are used. I've tried before to get some of them merged, with no success. Part of the problem seems to be that editors dislike linking to a section, so the norm has become "one link, one article", regardless of the duplication of explanation this causes. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Another good question and one which I anticipated you would ask. as you may have gathered too many people create free standing pages without any thought of where they are positioned in the overall hierarchy of a discipline. In contrast I look for unifying concepts and hierarchical order. So I have gone back to the top, Biology and am working my way down, and have been dismayed by the mess. So potential parent pages might include sexual reproduction and fertilisation. This is where WP falls down compared to a planned work like EB--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- What would you call such a page? (My imagination seems to be at a low ebb today.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
So I've made some changes at Outcrossing, to reduce the overlap with Allogamy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- 2016
APG IV[edit]
Globe-trotting over? I've done some work on updating to the APG IV system, including using "Asphodelaceae" rather than "Xanthorrhoeaceae" (hooray!) as APG IV does, in anticipation of its conservation in 2017. I haven't properly dealt with articles like Asparagales, so do please have a look when you have time. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- To revise all relevant pages would be Herculean. I think each person should address their own area of experise. I have staerted by revising the APG page, which you started doing. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, not quite as "Herculean" as some of the earlier revisions, but still quite a large task. Unfortunately, there seem very few active plant editors around at present.
- The APG poster in Cole & Hilger (2016) is nice. I created the cladogram from the APG IV paper; did you check whether the poster is exactly the same? There are some uncertainties noted in the paper.
- I'm currently working on the list of orders and families, so we don't duplicate work. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- It looks ok to me and they have been a reliable source to date - but no I did not check every single line! As we get further into this some of these issues can be tackled in more detail. The revisions fall into two general groups - those pages refering to APG to ensure they reference the latest version, and the taxonomic pages affected by recent changes. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Looked at APG, APG IV, Angiosperms, Monocots and now working through monocot orders --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- As you've probably seen, I've added the short and full lists to the APG IV system article in the style of the APG III system one. I need to check them and the cladogram – very easy to make a mistake (indeed there's a typo in line 2 of the abstract of the APG IV paper!). Peter coxhead (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I missed that! I did wonder if the cladograms could be simplified. The published literature often breaks them up into sections. Even where there are no changes, eg Dioscoreales it is important to document why. I added the list in Word format to the bibliography as suggested by Byng. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- As you've probably seen, I've added the short and full lists to the APG IV system article in the style of the APG III system one. I need to check them and the cladogram – very easy to make a mistake (indeed there's a typo in line 2 of the abstract of the APG IV paper!). Peter coxhead (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate[edit]
Hi
Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.
We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.
You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
- Publish an article to the journal.
- Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
- Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
- Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
- Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
- Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
- Join the editorial board.
- Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
- Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
- Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
- Technical work like template designing for the journal.
- Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updates
wijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org. - Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.
The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reach
wikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.
DiptanshuTalk 14:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.
William T. Stearn scheduled for TFA[edit]
This is to let you know that the William T. Stearn article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 16, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 16, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I knew it was in the works and have been keeping a close eye on the article - see the Talk page. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 15:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the "distinguished British botanist" (who even looks distinguished), your close eye, and your ambition for Virginia Woolf! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- There is however a downside, as I just discovered. Dozens of people trying to rewrite the article and fighting over it with edits and reverts. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 12:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- And thank you for the nomination! Ah, yes, Virginia - that's a challenging task :) --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 12:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban[edit]
Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:
"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."
As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
April 2018 at Women in Red[edit]
| ||
| To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
I want to thank you for the work you did on Woolf's page. It pained me to see how disorganized it was, but every time I tried something, there were always issue. Is Woolf your only interested? also Vita Sackville-West needs work according to me. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Elisa, I felt the same way. I had brought Virginia's mother, Julia Stephen up to GA, and on Virginia's birthday this year, and found it embarrassing, particularly since German WP had it as a GA. However cleaning it up is an enormous task. And no it is not my only interest! But I am interested in Bloomsbury, as I suspect you are. Interestingly you are the second person who has contacted me about Vita recently, but I fear that is a task for another day! And thank you, for your enormous contribution on women, here.
- Michael --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]
- please help translate this message into your local language via meta
 | The 2017 Cure Award |
| In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation
May 2018 at Women in Red[edit]
  
| ||
| (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Wiki Loves Food[edit]
Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Women in Red June Editathons[edit]
| ||
| (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Invitation to participate in study[edit]
Hello,
I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at [email protected] in order to schedule an interview.
Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
July 2018 at Women in Red[edit]
| ||
| (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
File:Pye Beaulieu 1910.jpeg listed for discussion[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pye Beaulieu 1910.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
August 2018 at Women in Red[edit]
| ||
| Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Eichmann in Jerusalem article video link same as on Hannah Arendt[edit]
Before:
- *[http://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/video-lectures/arendt-eichmann Hannah Arendt, Adolf Eichmann, and how Evil Isn't Banal] online lecture by Dr. [[Yaacov Lozowick]] former Director of the [[Yad Vashem]] Archives
Update (User:Alexf decided he did not want me to fix linkrot, and reverted this):
- *[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv824mDn5X0<!-- http://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/video-lectures/arendt-eichmann link-rot--> Hannah Arendt, Adolf Eichmann, and how Evil Isn't Banal] by [[Yaacov Lozowick]], former Director of the [[Yad Vashem]] Archives, video lecture, [[youtube]]<!-- https://www.youtube.com/user/YadVashem -->
from Hannah Arendt:
- *{{cite AV media|last= Lozowick|first=Yaacov|authorlink=Yaacov Lozowick|title=Hannah Arendt, Adolf Eichmann, and how Evil Isn't Banal|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv824mDn5X0|medium=video|date=Apr 5, 2011|website=The Holocaust Resource Center|publisher=[[Yad Vashem]]. The World Holocaust Remembrance Center|location=Jerusalem|ref=harv}}
- is a better citation. would you update Eichmann in Jerusalem with this version?
69.181.23.220 (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I cant imagine why - fixed. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Hannah Arendt[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hannah Arendt 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
September 2018 at Women in Red[edit]
| ||
| Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Orphaned non-free image File:Hannah Arendt.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Hannah Arendt.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
October 2018 at Women in Red[edit]
| ||
| (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Get ready for November with Women in Red![edit]
Continuing: | ||
| Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Better source request for File:Honora Sneyd by Flaxman.jpg[edit]
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- It was all in the File description line and comment - file edited to clarify this --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 21:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
File source problem with File:RHSAGM.png[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:RHSAGM.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- As stated in file description - file edited to clarify this --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 21:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Michael Goodyear. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
December 2018 at Women in Red[edit]
Continuing: | ||
| Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
January 2019 at Women in Red[edit]
 January events: |
2019[edit]
 |
Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 | |
| Four years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Liebe Gerda, you are truly amazing. Thank you for the belated introduction and for sharing memories. No, I did not know about the episode you mention in 2012. Schöne Grüße, Michael
--Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 00:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
February 2019 at Women in Red[edit]
 February events:
|
March 2019 at Women in Red[edit]
   Please join us for these virtual events: | ||
|
|
Your GA nomination of Hannah Arendt[edit]
The article Hannah Arendt 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:Hannah Arendt for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Hannah Arendt[edit]
The article Hannah Arendt you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Hannah Arendt 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 | |
| ... with thanks from QAI |
That's excellent, thank you so much for all you put in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! It is starting to look like Spring! So I can add photography to all your other talents :) Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 22:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
April editathons at Women in Red[edit]
April 2019[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)
May you join this month's editathons from WiR![edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June events with WIR[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Thank you so much for improving the article and adding so much depth! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! A familiar story - listening to a performance of Salvatoris hodie, I wondered what WP said about it - not mentioned! Then I realised the page had major issues, and so ....--Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 20:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Brynhild Olivier[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brynhild Olivier 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 Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Brynhild Olivier[edit]
The article Brynhild Olivier 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:Brynhild Olivier for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
July events from Women in Red![edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your GA nomination of Brynhild Olivier[edit]
The article Brynhild Olivier you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Brynhild Olivier for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ornithogalum umbellatum[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ornithogalum umbellatum 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ornithogalum umbellatum[edit]
The article Ornithogalum umbellatum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ornithogalum umbellatum 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Habsburg Empire/Habsburg Monarchy[edit]
We have a HUGE problem on the page Habsburg Monarchy. It seems to be a page about Habsburg control of Hungary and Croatia. As far as I know Austria was Habsburg Monarchy since 1282, way before Hungary and Croatia.
But worst of all, Habsburg Empire redirects to that page. So the empire of Charles V and Austria-Hungary do not currently count as Habsburg Empires, when literally all books and encyclopedias define such empires as Habsburg empire.
Barjimoa (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. I will take a look at it. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 02:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind[edit]
It seems that I solved the issue above with another user. Barjimoa (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Telephieae[edit]
Hello Thanks for your input on WS and WP regarding Crassulaceae and I somewhat agree with your approach. I am trying to match it with WS, but this taxonomy and classification largely. I have a major query regarding the tribal classification of Sempervivoideae. Telephieae is circumscribed in Caryophyllaceae, by Rabeler & Bittrich 1993. Suprageneric nomenclature in the Caryophyllaceae. PDF, as Telephieae DC., Prodr. 3: 366. (1828) with the type genus Telephium L. (1753). It is therefore unavailable for use in Crassulaceae, as a tribe in Sempervivoideae, as cited by yourself as Telephiae 't Hart, Ohba and Thied ed ined. I have a few ideas where this error may have come from, but can not read Russian and Plants of the World is very odd. I assume it is a clade based upon Sedum telephium Hope you can help. Andyboorman (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I’m on the road and don’t have access to usual resources. Finding invalid names is not uncommon and people like James Reveal were expert in tracking them down. Then it comes down to priority. See for instance Ohba’s discussion as to how Hyelotelphium came about. You are right, the tribe was named from the clade which in turn was named from S. telephium. I will look into it further when I’m back. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 02:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are correct Reveal (2012) notes that Telephieae is equivalent to Caryophyllaceae -- Andyboorman (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I believe it originated with the use by Hart (1995) of Telephiinae as a subtribe, and consequently elevated to the tribe Telephieae by Thiede and Eggli (2007). --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 02:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, it which case Telephieae Thiede & Eggli (2007) is nom. illeg. hom. Also IPNI lodge this tribe as Telephieae Bartl., Beitr. Bot. [Bartling & H. L. Wendland] 2: 157 (1825), with Telephium L. (1753) noted under Molluginaceae, but this genus has most definitely been transferred to Corrigioleae Caryophyllaceae! However, you should be OK on WP, as you can use the clade name in its place. WS is not happy with clade names when applied below the level of order preferring a strictly Linnean approach. Telephieae Thiede & Eggli (2007) could be available, but it would need an application for nom. cons. before hand.
- In addition, you use Aeonieae Thiede ined., as opposed to Aeonieae Thiede ex Reveal, Phytoneuron 2012-37: 215. (2012), is this correctable error on WP? Andyboorman (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate the difference between WS and WP, but citing an authoritative source on WP is not an error, otherwise one veers into OR. At the moment, Kubitzky's The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants is like the bible in systematics, and Thiede and Eggli's treatment of Crassulaceae is the most recent complete treatment of the family (previously it was Berger 1930), and that is what is cited on WP. I have not found a reliable source to date that directly corrects it, but when I get home, I will take a closer look. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 14:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I can find, all subsequent authors have either simply accepted the Thiede & Eggli nomenclature, or ignored any reference to nomenclature, since it is not necessarily a priority for phylogeneticists. For the reasons given above I have not corrected the "errors" but added a note on the issues you raise, including Caryophyllaceae. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 03:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate the difference between WS and WP, but citing an authoritative source on WP is not an error, otherwise one veers into OR. At the moment, Kubitzky's The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants is like the bible in systematics, and Thiede and Eggli's treatment of Crassulaceae is the most recent complete treatment of the family (previously it was Berger 1930), and that is what is cited on WP. I have not found a reliable source to date that directly corrects it, but when I get home, I will take a closer look. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 14:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I believe it originated with the use by Hart (1995) of Telephiinae as a subtribe, and consequently elevated to the tribe Telephieae by Thiede and Eggli (2007). --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 02:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are correct Reveal (2012) notes that Telephieae is equivalent to Caryophyllaceae -- Andyboorman (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I have made an attempt to follow Kubitzky on WS. All will be fine until I get to Telephieae and as WS is primarily a taxonomic database we hit a problem with ined. I will edit Sedeae to more or less follow Kubitzky and those that have followed. I will omit the clades, but add a note explaining they are being worked on - it looks like the outcome could be an eventual single Sedum s.l. for this tribe. I will use his definition of Umbiliceae Meisn. and get rid of Umbilicinae and Sedinae as subtribes on WS. To be consistent Telephieae ('t Hart) Ohba and Thiede ined. will then have to be added as a tribe with a note that taxonomically this definition is provisional only. That is the best I can do and hope fellow WS editors are not too annoyed. Seem OK with you? Andyboorman (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have decided to omit Telephieae ('t Hart) Ohba and Thiede ined. for now and incorporate the genera in Umbiliceae Meisn. (Reveal, 2012). Do have a look WS Crassulaceae and comment here and/or on WS Pump. I will leave it for now. Andyboorman (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Opinions are sharply divided on the status of Sedum. There is not really enough evidence to support either s.s. or s.l.. However the genus is being progressively reduced. At present species outside of Sedeae are being reallocated, but within Sedeae it is still an artificial paraphyletic genus. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 15:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
September 2019 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your GA nomination of Fritillaria[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fritillaria 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Goodness, that was fast, I was thinking in months. We are under a hurricane watch, so it is possible I may be out of contact for a while if we have a prolonged power outage. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Fritillaria[edit]
The article Fritillaria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fritillaria 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
October Events from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
November 2019 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Fern classification[edit]
The Schuettpelz et al. (2018) Taxon article doi:10.12705/673.1 and the subsequent reply by Christenhusz & Chase (2018) doi:10.12705/673.2 make entertaining reading for those enjoying academic spats, but leave us with a problem here. Instinctively, I would prefer to follow Christenhusz & Chase's "lumped" system for article titles and taxoboxes, since it causes least changes to article titles based on early systems of classification. However, the only taxonomic database that has a fully consistent system down to the level of species, which is necessary here to make the species names and articles consistent, is the Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World which uses PPG I. Plants of the World Online currently doesn't use any consistent system, and as of 22 November 2019, has errors like listing Sphenomeris as an accepted genus but then placing all its species in Odontosoria. It's definitely the case that fern classification is a total mess! I regret starting on trying to sort out our articles, because I just keep finding more problems. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've attempted to summarize the argument over the number of fern genera at Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group#Number of genera. There's a lot more that could be said, but this may be enough for now given that these are primary sources. Feel free to add/edit, as always. It will be interesting to see which way PoWO goes. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is part of a larger issue that effects classification. The phylogeny may be clear but translating it into taxonomic revision is more philosophical. Actually it is less of a mess than when we had to learn Cronquist and Thorne and Dahlgren etc etc! Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 13:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
It does seem important to refer to both the PPG I and the Christenhusz & Chase systems in articles. If it's of any use to you, I've drawn up a comparison table for my own use at User:Peter coxhead/Work/PPG#Comparison. The √ marks in the end column show the (few) articles I've checked/changed so far. Thyrsopteris is an example of the minimum I think is needed in a stub article. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
December events with WIR[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
January 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
|
Your GA nomination of Saxifragales[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saxifragales 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 Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Saxifragales[edit]
The article Saxifragales you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saxifragales 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 Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
February with Women in Red[edit]
.jpg)
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
March 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
  Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi Michael, I'm Dan. I'm quite impressed by your list of botanical GAs. Your Coronariae is up at GAN, and I'll be happy to review it, if we can find another reviewer to spotcheck the Latin sources (I can spotcheck the German ones), and if you're amenable to adding some text to the article. Some reviewers would look at this article and say that it's too list-y for GAN ... I don't agree, I think the most impressive thing about the article is the sourcing, and a GA is perfectly acceptable scaffolding for that sourcing. OTOH, there's not a lot of text below the lead that isn't list-y. It's not a fatal flaw, but it's a concern, for me anyway. There are several options for what to add ... what do you think of adding some images and text descriptions that will help the general reader get up to speed on what species we're talking about here? I think most readers will need some help understanding what Liliales covers. - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I look forward to working with you. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 23:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Coronariae[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coronariae 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 Dank -- Dank (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Coronariae[edit]
The article Coronariae you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Coronariae 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 Dank -- Dank (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for merging of Template:Late Anatolian Roman provinces[edit]
Template:Late Anatolian Roman provinces has been nominated for merging with Template:Late Roman provinces. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for merging of Template:Provinces of Roman Anatolia[edit]
Template:Provinces of Roman Anatolia has been nominated for merging with Template:Roman provinces AD 117. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
May 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169 Online events:
|