Talk:Taxonomy of Liliaceae

Orphaned references in Taxonomy of Liliaceae
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Taxonomy of Liliaceae's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Williams": From Hippeastrum:  From Liliaceae:  

Reference named "Mabberley": From Liliaceae:  From Bromeliaceae:  

Reference named "Givnish 2005": From NdhF:  From Liliaceae: </li> </ul>

Reference named "Givnish 2006":<ul> <li>From NdhF: In </li> <li>From Liliaceae: In </li> </ul>

Reference named "crf2009":<ul> <li>From Brodiaeoideae: </li> <li>From Liliaceae: </li> <li>From Agapanthus: Mark W. Chase, James L. Reveal, and Michael F. Fay. "A subfamilial classification for the expanded asparagalean families Amaryllidaceae, Asparagaceae and Xanthorrhoeaceae". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 161(2):132–136.</li> <li>From Allioideae: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for trying - but as a result you made a right mess of it - because we collided - the refs were supposed to be at the end not the text too --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Taxoboxes and taxonomy pages
An article about the taxonomy of a taxon, is not a list. Surely the one place where a taxobox is most useful is on the taxonomy page. I'm leaving it in untill we can determine if a general rule has been written around this. It could also be discussed at the Plant Project, for future guidance.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been with the plants projects for about a decade and I can tell you the consensus has always been that a taxobox should only be used on page whose topic is the taxon, not a fork article about the taxonomy. No other "taxonomy of" article has one. Any of the long-time PLANTS editors can back me up on this. To avoid confusion, a taxobox for a particular taxon should only be on one article, the primary article. Before you began improving this article, there was no taxobox; I've reverted that particular change back to what it was before. It should remain thus unless consensus changes -- WP:BRD. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well actually there are, probably because they are the forks I have created when working up taxon pages for GA, which is what I am trying to do here. Anyway this seems to me to be an important principle, even if only for determing GA standards, and is worth revisiting. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's certainly worth revisiting. I'm also uncertain if it was ever written down somewhere. WP:TX seems like the natural place for usage guidelines. There are also many new editors in the various projects since it was last discussed. Would WT:TOL be the place to discuss it, with notifications to the major related projects involved (plants, animals, etc.)? I'll see if I can find links to old discussions. Give me a few days to track down archived links. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not find any really relevant discussion on those pages so I started one here WT:PLANTS. To clarify a point you made above - I did not start improving this page, I created it and 98% of the edits are mine, so the status quo is actually to include the taxobox. I just did not get around to adding the taxobox till I put it up for GA, which had been my intention from the start. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Taxonomy of Liliaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Conc.converg.Liliales2002.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 10:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)