Talk:Petunia integrifolia

Redirects needed? and cruft
I created Redirect pages for the other two main alternative names, including another one for a possible misspelling (integrefolia), plus one for capitalization (Integrifolia -vs- integrifolia).

Question: Does the article need Redirects for all the synonyms listed in the Infobox?

Also, I see link cruft in the Infobox but I don't know the source of it. Checkingfax (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is link cruft the same re-lined links, or red letters themsekes  --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 03:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ideally there would be redirects for all the synonyms, but keep in mind that they are often very obscure, so creating redirects for all synonyms needn't be a high priority. Searching for "Nierembergia punicea", it pretty much only ever occurs in lists of synonyms for this plant; a reader is highly unlikely to encounter this term outside of a context where it's not clear that another name for the plant is preferred (so a redirect for this synonym has very little utility). On the other hand, search engines return many documents about "Petunia violacea" which don't make it clear that it's the same plant as P. integrifolia. A redirect for P. violacea is helpful. Creating redirects for capitalization probably isn't necessary; technically, capitalizing the species is an error, so links from other articles ought to use the lowercase form (and be corrected if capitalized). Search engines are case insensitive, and Wikipedia's internal search is effectively case insensitive; people searching for the capitalized form will find the lower case form just fine without a redirect.


 * I'm not sure which link cruft you're referring to. There is a reference for the synonyms, and a reference for the binomial authority (the authority reference in the taxobox is a little unusual, but not unheard of, and there's not really a better to place to reference the authority) which I see you tried to edit. The redlink to the subfamily is unneccessary though (usually this link would appear in an infobox for a genus, but not a species). Plantdrew (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Got it. After going nuts trying to find the errant wikicode in the infobox I surmised that the external link I see is created on the backend by the magic of the infobox template and is therefore not user editable. In my Blackberry Browser I see this data:


 * but the external link title line overlaps the botanists names line. Congratulations on your first stub article . Checkingfax (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the compliment, it took quite a while even for a short article, and co-authors would have to be User:Fuhghettaboutit, User:Sminthopsis84, with User:DESiegel as well.

My question is what does the word "cruft" mean? --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 08:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've written a few stub articles and they do take a long time. Cruft. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , While Cruft explains the origins of the term, in wikipedia-jargon it has come to mean irrelevant detail insisted on by a specialist or particular sort of user. Fancruft is obsessive detail inisisted on by a fan but not of encyclopedia value, say a separate description of each brick in the wall of a castle in a fantasy novel. DES (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

So the cruft would be a display problem on a mobile device. Generally, we don't add citations for the author list for a name, though it would be good to do that because otherwise the absolutely vital database, the International Plant Names index gets no acknowledgement. Sorry, I don't know how to improve a template. I wonder if someone can give it an authority-ref parameter similar to the synonyms_ref parameter. I'll ask at WT:PLANTS. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do always try to add citations for the authority in the taxobox, either to IPNI, WCSP, TPL, or some other such source.
 * I've put the sections of the article in the correct order according to WP:Manual of Style/Layout. Does the problem now occur? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)