Talk:Iridaceae

Isn't Hypoxis now in Hypoxidaceae? --N. Harris NaySay
 * Yes it is. But the family Hypoxidaceae hasn't been treated yet in Wikipedia. Anyway, I'll remove Hypoxis from Iridaceae. JoJan 09:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo donation
I have a photo of a similar (?) flower I am willing to donate to the wikimedia commons to be used in an article.

http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/show/img17.jpg

If you are interested, let me know: elf at ee.ryerson.ca

-Luis Fernandes Jul, 19, 2006

Starting over
I've changed the GA status to On Hold and restored it at GAN. Ultimately there is no obvious need to fully fail it ATM.

I'm also restarting the discussion on this Ixioideae/Croicoideae issue:
 * Clearly the Crocoideae/Ixioideae article, as you point out, do not reflect any scientific consensus, so I'm merging them as Crocoideae.
 * In this article, the confusion comes from the fact that when discussing taxonomy, youn simply cannot switch back and forth between two names, especially if they are taxonomic synonyms because then one by definition has priority and should be used exclusively. In this case, this is Crocoideae, so I'll be fixing this too.

Another small, unrelated issue I see with the text is in the "Phylogeny and evolution" section. Is it possible to add a bit of context to explain the significance of x= 10 as a chromosome number? Circeus (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Think that the Ixioideae/Crocoideae issue is over. The significance of x=10 was explained in the text, together with the concept of "complex translocation heterocigote" (I think that the given explanation is enough, but tell me what do you think). I take advantage of his opportunity to acknowledge you your efforts to improve the article. Think that it has now a better structure (i.e: evolution, origin and phylogeny inside the taxonomic section). I will read it again and will search information about Larentia, an orphan genus in the list. thanks again! --EnCASF (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Larentia is done. One thing I forgot to explain: I use to put the characters that unambigously define the family in the introduction together with the characters that differentiate it from its closest relatives. I think that it is part of the "definition" of the family and not a part of the description of it, but -again- I do not know the common structure here. --EnCASF (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:chromosome number, no, it's not explained. There is a lot of discussion of reduced numbers lower than 10, bit nothing to explain why it is so significant that many species have base numbers higher than 10 (rather than, say, 11 or 9). As far as I can tell, removing the second part ("and many genera have basic chromosome numbers higher than x = 10, which are derived from ancestors with fewer chromosomes") would not result in much loss.
 * Re:"Definition" it's an interesting question. I think an alternative approach to the issue is considering that we usually write the introduction as a global summary of the article. In this perspective, the "differential" does not fit well in the introduction, and if it is to be moved, the obvious location (well, to me anyway) is the description section. In any case, I think it is a great bit in the article: I've more than once deplored the difficulty of even finding the information necessary to write such material. Circeus (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Circeus: the short paragraph in the description is not good. It mix "liliaceae" with "Liliales" and states that Liliaceae and Iridaceae belongs to Asparagales, and that is not true. Think that it does not sum to the article. If you have doubts to include the "definition" in the intro, I can move this paragraph to the description and edit another intro. The other possibility is leave both sections as they are edited now. I would prefer ths last possibility, but tell me your opinion. Regards!, --EnCASF (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, major brain fart on my part there o_O Circeus (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists at end
How about moving Subfamilies and Genera to the end of the article, so that running, readable text comes before the lists? --Ettrig (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ettrig: thank you for taking your time for reading and commenting the article. The order of the sections follows the standard of the wikiproject. I will consult about your suggestion. Thanks again. --EnCASF (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would not be opposed to moving the section to a separate list of Iridaceae genera, but mileage may vary. If it included less details (personally, I'm not 100% convinced about putting the species number and range information), an option to consider would be to put it on two or three columns. However, I certainly do not like the idea of relegating the list elsewhere only to avoid "breaking the article" with a list. Circeus (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the number of species and species range give important information about the diversity of the family and how this diversity is distributed, specially when many of the genera don't have their own page. With respect to moving the list to another page, when I consulted this issue I was informed that when the taxon has a great number of subtaxa (said 100) it is the norm, but I think that it is not the case. --EnCASF (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Unfortunately, this article was heavily edited by EnCASF who has displayed a history of copy-pasting content into articles and who seems to have done so here.

For instance, he added the following text:

This is what we find in the source - - a copyrighted book:

If you compare, you will see that - aside from a brief passage towards the middle - this differs from the source in superficial detail only. It is a blatant infringement of Copyrights.

This is one randomly sampled paragraph from the content EnCASF added to this article. His history shows copying from multiple sources.

The article has had to be blanked because of this. All content added by this user needs to be rewritten or removed or the article restored to this version. (The Argentinian IP whose edits immediately precede EnCASF is likely EnCASF prior to log in.)

I'm extremely sorry for this complication and recognize that this is an enormous setback to the article and likely to be a great disappointed to other editors who have worked on the content that EnCASF pasted in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive
Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.

Thank you!  Rema goxer  (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)