Talk:Lilioid monocots

APG
It is a nuanced question as to whether Chase and Reveal 2009 is APG or not. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC) I have added a note at the project to that end. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And I've responded there. I think that "APG" should only be applied to classifications that were published with the author explicitly given as "Angiosperm Phylogeny Group", which means (so far) only the three papers setting out the APG system, the APG II system and the APG III system. A subset of APG members can't be said to speak for the APG as a whole. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

CS
Changes to dates - it is not immediately obvious that an article is CS1 or CS2 - on editing the category list says it is actually CS1. I find CS2 dates clumsy and ambiguous, so maybe the best thing is to remove them. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The YYYY-MM-DD style for access dates is quite independent of CS1 and CS2 (which are essentially full stops versus commas between items); it can be used with either citation style (see MOS:DATEUNIFY under "Access and archive dates"). I prefer CS2 for citations with YYYY-MM-DD for access/archive dates (and, yes, I know I'm in the minority); as per WP:CITEVAR, the article should be kept in the style I used when I created and expanded it. "Clumsiness" is a matter of taste; I find YYYY-MM-DD elegant; they are not ambiguous in Wikipedia since only this precise format is allowed. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have checked to see who created the page! The ambiguity depends on whether the reader knows which is month and which is day. Maybe its just a matter of aesthetics that I prefer 21 January 2016 to 2016-01-21. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It probably is just aesthetics, although one advantage in Wikipedia is that YYYY-MM-DD is allowed for access/archive dates in both dmy and md,y articles, so if you cut-and-paste you only have to check whether to change to  or vice versa and don't have to check whether "21 January 2016" should be changed to "January 21, 2016" or vice versa. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Origins
Does anyone have any idea of how far back the terms "Lilioid monocots" and "Petaloid monocots" go? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

 * 1) . Figure and text got separated in cladogram - fixed
 * 2) . Edits to citation style left a whole lot of orphan references - any changes need to be made to both sfn and target. Due to intermediate edits they will all need to be repaired manually --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I see the problem - citations placed in bibliography but not yet cited in text got changed from cite web etc to citation which automatically generates a cite error message. If there is a cite without ref=harv that means it has not yet been used, so cannot be changed to citation. Given that the bibliography is now indexed, citation does not represent a major data loss. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any error messages, but I know that it depends on how your preferences are set, so maybe mine aren't sufficiently inclusive. Un-cited citations don't normally cause errors – I use them all the time – so I don't understand. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I recall a similar discussion earlier. In fact you had to revert a pedantic edit that tagged citations not yet incorporated into the text. As you have noticed, I do that all the time, in some ways like placeholders. It is not really a problem, it was just that I revisited the page to see a sea of red ink that was not there earlier in the day, and it took a long time to work out what triggered it and fix it. You see there are other editors who alas, have that preference set, and delight in deleting any reference with a cite error attached! I think we probably have different standards when it comes to style - given limited time resources I tend to stick with what works for me, such as the "In...". As far as I can see that comes down to what is italicised, and similarly the ps= which translates into use of terminal full stops. Cheers! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What I still don't understsnd is why it's an error to have a bibliographic item not used as an inline reference; this shouldn't be the case. I don't think it used to be. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Now changed to "warning"--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Mothballing image gallery
Original (vertical) gallery, for reference

Some thoughts for improvement
Circéus (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There should be a statement to specify at which point in research the Lilioids were explicitly found to be paraphyletic with regards to the commelinids.
 * The "Phylogenetic Era" and APG sections could probably be greatly clarified with a couple small trees showing the evolution of understanding.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lilioid monocots. 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/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) 07:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)