Jump to content

Talk:Asparagales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

I was jumping around with Random Page and I found something that might be edible!?

'Translation' from the Spanish version

[edit]

I have added a section on Diversity, obtained from the Spanish version, as suggested earlier. The 'translation' varies from quite close to somewhat different. I have altered the organization to correspond to APG III, and removed some of the technical botanical language. I intend to use more sections from the Spanish version, but:

  • A lot is very heavily technical botany
  • It seems to be very much derived from (i.e. translated from) APweb, which partly explains its use of jargon
  • It is based on the APG II system and needs some updating to APG III.

Hence I don't think that as much of it should be re-used as might first appear. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added other sections based on en:Asparagales, and removed the template suggesting that additions should be made based on this article. The only part not yet used is the large section in the Spanish version on Phylogeny. However, this appears to be taken more-or-less verbatim from APWeb. There may be a point in providing an English translation in the Spanish Wikipedia, but I see no point in the English Wikipedia. It's very technical, and botanists can just read APWeb. I will work on a simplified summary. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogeny section now in place. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm. True, those articles are basically spanish translations from the english bibliography citated at the end of the article, reordered and "wikificated". Articles about orders like this one are principally from APWeb and Soltis & Soltis (2005), those having more information about orders than the other citations. Probably there is no use to have something like this in the english version of wikipedia. Thanks for the corrections, and suggestions are welcomed. RoRo (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for NOT making Wikipedia too technical! WikiP is supposed to be for everybody!

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use the Spanish (or other) version as a guide to whether the content is sufficiently comprehensive, on the road to GA, rather than following it slavishly. We could tick off the sections to ensure that field has been covered. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the article seems to be that the current lead basically was the article at one time. It needs to be completely re-written as a summary of the article. Over to you, Michael! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! Thanks. Aded to list. I took a shot at this as part of a a general upgrade of lilioid orders to support the lilioid monocot page. I think the whole thing could do with a rewrite, but of course leads tend to get left to last when the sections they are supposed to summarise are reasonably stable. Another translation point is that the the source is frequently dynamic so that much has happened since the original attempt at translation. I also tagged some problems I saw on the Spanish version which has some nonsensical statements. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

author of Asparagales

[edit]

it might need to revise the statements:"It was first put forward by Huber in 1977[2] and later taken up in the Dahlgren system of 1985.[3] Before this, many of its families were assigned to the old order Liliales..." (third line in first paragraph) yes, traditionally the taxa in Asparagales now were included in the Liliales. But there still some taxonomists considered it as a distinct order. on APW, the name is authorized to Link rather than Bromhead. arthur Silva 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthursilva (talk • contribs)

I will change the author to Link; this also agrees with [1].
For the other point ("some taxonomists considered it as a distinct order"), it would be good to have a reference which support it. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not something different

[edit]

"Most species of Asparagales are herbaceous perennials, although some are climbers..." does not follow. A herbaceous perennial can be a climber, such as perennial sweet peas, if you mean woody climber, you need to say so.

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

[edit]

I suspect that the numerous comments in the Bibliography of the form <!--<ref name="Dahlgren_Clifford_Yeo_1985"> are a leftover from when these were placed in reflist= which no longer exists. In which case they can be safely removed? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I should have cleaned this up before. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expand from Spanish article

[edit]

I think this tag should now be removed. Our article is very good; there have been serious plagiarism problems in the past when using articles from the Spanish Wikipedia to which EnCASF/CASF has contributed substantially. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Asparagales. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there numbers next to the family names in the families drop down box?

[edit]

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickwilso (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asparagales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asparagales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Asparagales/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 13:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi @Lewoniewski: I will take this on now. Before I start, may I ask you to provide inline citations for all information? You have an impressive bibliography, but that doesn't help when one wants to verify a given information. Many paragraphs and sentences are without a source directly associated with them. Verifiability is a basic requirement for reaching GA. Please let me know if there are any questions! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it has a fixed pronunciation could the pronunciation be added for those of us who are not biologists? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack, this was a drive-by nomination by someone who has very few Wikipedia edits, none of them on the article in question, did not check with the significant contributors (as they were supposed to be), and whose most recent edits were on December 15 and September 15 of last year. Given the verifiability problems, you may want to close this as unsuccessful, since it seems unlikely that anyone will come along and do the necessary inline sourcing. (The other GAN they made the same day they nominated this article was subsequently reverted because they had made no edits to the article and hadn't consulted before nominating.) Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asparagales&oldid=1193949848"