Talk:Asparagales

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

'Translation' from the Spanish version
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: 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)
 * 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.


 * I have now added other sections based on 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)


 * Phylogeny section now in place. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Thank you for NOT making Wikipedia too technical! WikiP is supposed to be for everybody!

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

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)
 * Infobox ok
 * Lead ok
 * Description - the problem here is that the lead is identical, not a summary! (or worse, the lead is the more detailed account).
 * Added the citations --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

author of Asparagales
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.
 * 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)

Not something different
"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)

Citation style
I suspect that the numerous comments in the Bibliography of the form — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickwilso (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added tag to http://w3.ufsm.br/herb/An%20update%20of%20the%20Angiosperm%20Phylogeny%20Group.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150914163722/http://www.kew.org/science/directory/teams/MonocotsI/index.html to http://www.kew.org/science/directory/teams/MonocotsI/index.html

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

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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719130206/http://www.ninaronsted.dk/page1/files/page1_5.pdf to http://www.ninaronsted.dk/page1/files/page1_5.pdf

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

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