Archives

Archive 1

You may not know, but n=7 is thought to be the basal chromosome number for all the angiosperms. Abductive (reasoning) 21:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Morus notabilis and others, please be sure that your additions are cited. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the sources in the taxonbar. Abductive (reasoning) 07:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonbar is a useful tool, but isn't part of the references. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 13:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) The {{taxonbar}} isn't shown in mobile view so cannot be used for references.   Jts1882 | talk  14:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say even beyond that; if it were displayed in mobile view (and I think it should be!), various links listed in an infobox aren't part of an articles sources, just as External links or sister projects might be listed for learning more elsewhere, they aren't the citations for the article itself. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hyperik, just wanted to ask if we could have some discussion with some other editors on the Triadenum redirect. POWO doesn't accept it but GBIF, the USDA, and IPNI do. I'm not great with figuring out synonyms and which one is accurate, but I don't think that a complete blanking of the page without discussion is appropriate. Thanks, Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 14:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GBIF is not great at taxonomy, USDA is out-of-date, and IPNI is just a list of names (they don't list which names are accepted, just all the names that have been published). It'd probably be better off as Hypericum sect. Elodea if you want to undo and move the content to that name? See Robson's 2016 paper.[1] —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. It seems that paper also would consolidate Thornea and Lianthus into Hypericum as their own sections. Obviously Mr. Robson is better versed in the family than I, my concern is just in keeping the info and species articles coherent, since there are several species articles in Triadenum that I assume would need to be moved into Hypericum? It seems like the best course of action is to create Hypericum sect. Elodea, Hypericum sect. Lianthus, and Hypericum sect. Thornea and then move the articles into those sections. I'll defer to you on this one though, just let me know if there is anything you need me to do to help. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 14:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the paper add those three sections to Hypericum, Robson also proposes that the genus be broken into two subgenera: subgenus Hypericum and subgenus Brathys instead of four general clades as it is now. It looks like the entire taxonomy of the genus and family needs to be updated. I had no idea about this paper, I guess I should probably follow Mr. Robson's work more closely. I'm going to do some more research and maybe start trying to move articles to their updated positions. I'm also going to put a link to this conversation over at WP:Plants in case any of those guys want to throw in their two cents. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 16:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hope you and yours are well. The page Terminalia buceras already existed as a redirect page, therefore I could not move Bucida buceras to that page. As I could not move the page, I changed the Tb page to text (adding some more myself) and the Bb page as a redirect. Is there another way? Brunswicknic (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(replied here) Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hyperik,

Please do not empty categories "out of process". If you believe categories should be deleted, renamed or merged, please propose this at Categories for Discussion or use the Speedy Rename option. This is especially important for categories that have existed for years, other editors might have an opinion about their future and they shouldn't just be deleted for being empty after having all of their contents removed. Thank you for your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure which categories you're referring to; I was using PetScan to look at articles with taxoboxes falling under the umbrella of Category:Invasive species (per several CfDs). I did propose one CfD here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 2. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 02:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'm popping by because I see you've made several edits to the Dutch Bros Coffee article over the past few years, and I thought you might be interested in improving the page further. To be totally transparent: I'm a Dutch Bros employee, so I know I shouldn't make edits to the company page myself. I have been trying, for the past few months, to get an editor to take a look at what I think is a neutral and well-sourced new History section, but unfortunately, no one has been able to help me with it yet. You can see my edit request for this History section on the Dutch Bros talk page and the full draft of it is available on my user page. I would really appreciate it if you could review this draft and, if it's up to your standards, assist me in getting it posted. Thanks! Hillaryjbrown (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hyperik, been a while since we've talked! I'm reaching out to see if you'd be interested in helping me tackle improving an article I've had my eyes on for a long time. Hypericum is apparently a level-4 Vital Article, and it is in really rough shape right now. I'm wrapping up my second species Good Article Nomination in the genus, and really want to move on to trying to bring Hypericum itself to GA status. It's a bit daunting though, and I know you have quite a bit of experience with the subject and with taxonomic articles in general, so I wanted to see if you'd be interested in collaborating with myself (and hopefully a few other editors) on overhauling the article? Please let me know your thoughts! Very respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 03:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did you generate your "most iNatted plants without articles" list? I have an account there but don't see how to get a list with just the number of observations. This article Ruellia blechum that I expanded was clearly created by someone (who may be getting impatient) using the iNaturalist template so I'd like to find species with lots of observations to avoid people making substubs like Salvia pichinchensis. Abductive (reasoning) 08:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is an ongoing Featured Article Candidacy for Hypericum sechmenii at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hypericum sechmenii/archive1. If you're interested in commenting I would love to have your knowledgeable input! Fritzmann (message me) 20:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]