Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (D–J)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC).

List of plant genera named for people (D–J)

 * Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Plant list #8 (see my user page for links to the others). WP:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (A–C)/archive1 has discussion on a bunch of relevant points. Happy to take questions and comments, any time. Enjoy! - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Per your suggestion on my Bogart review, I went through this with amazement. Formatting, sourcing and detailing lists takes a lot of close scrutiny and nitpicking of one's own product. If there's any flaw in this, I sure can't find it. This is an admirable work, and it looks good to me. — Maile  (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever inspired "amazement" before, thanks! Let me know if there's anything I can help with. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * regarding the "site links" mentioned below, it's not something I've seen used before. But following the links, it seems to be a really good idea to use these.  I'm all for anything that provides direction or information to the reader.  Keep 'em. — Maile  (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They don't provide any information or direction to the reader. They are an unreferenced database dump.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maile66, so far the vote is: several people don't care, TRM cares a lot. This has forced me to re-examine ... and I've decided I made a mistake. Not with creating the site links ... I still think it was a good idea to do the work to create them, provided that we delete them now and link that version of the page on the talk page, so that article writers can make use of the links. My mistake was in arguing in favor ... knowing that Wikidata issues can be very troublesome, I should have presented it more neutrally and let the reviewers decide. Also, as a Wikipedian, I know that links on Wikidata don't imply any level of recommendation or vetting ... but most readers don't know that, and wouldn't assume that, they'd assume that if I'm pointing them to something, that means there's some level of vetting or recommendation going on. So, I'd prefer now to delete the site links, if you're okay with that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Wikipedia is all a work in progress.  Delete what your instincts dictate here, and think about the rest for another time.  Good luck. — Maile  (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not seen that "site links" thing before, is that new?
 * I haven't seen anyone else use the phrase "site links", but otherwise, it's identical in appearance and function to the ill template with the Wikidata parameter (when the named page doesn't exist on the English Wikipedia), for instance: Nils Dalberg. [Wikidata] seems to me to be an obvious WP:SELFREF violation; we're not supposed to be mentioning Wikipedia or any other WMF site, except in end sections and on pages that specifically discuss that site. Instead, I use the name of the section on Wikidata (#sitelinks) that the ill template would send the reader to, which is an apt description. I don't use for instance Nils Dalberg because I'd rather send a reader of the English Wikipedia to a page in English than in Swedish, and because there are many links I want the reader to see, not just one, so that they can choose; Wikisource, Wikispecies and/or Wikicommons have pages on quite a few of these authors, and for some reason, there are more pages on botanists in other Wikipedias than in the English Wikipedia; sometimes it's a long list. And finally: even if I wanted to, I can't use ill frequently on a list that's about as long as it can get before images stop loading for some viewers, because ill is one of the more resource-hungry templates. - Dank (push to talk)
 * That makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "John F. Kingston [site links] English botanist" - needs a comma to match other rows
 * "José Antonio Picanço Diniz (1870–1934) lawyer and amateur entomologist" - same here
 * "who worked in part in Vatican City" => "who worked in part in the Vatican City"
 * "Phillip Hancorn (18th and 19th centuries) English seafarer" - think this needs a comma too
 * That's it from me - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Did all of these. Thanks for your tireless work as a reviewer, Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, I have no new points to raise after the additions of the Js and reiterate my support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose
 * A shame the opening sentence has to use the word "species" four times.
 * Thanks for reviewing. Can't think of how to subtract any of them, but open to your ideas. Btw, for such a short intro, it was surprisingly hard to write. - Dank (push to talk) Figured out a way to subtract one "species". - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "rulers and politicians" why "and" suddenly midway through the list?
 * Done.
 * "genera (genuses) have been named ... who named the genera." mildly repetitive within a single sentence.
 * All I could think of (to deal with this concern) was to remove "and the colleagues, relatives and friends of the botanists who named the genera" ... that's fine with me if that's what you want. I don't think I can just make a simple change to "who named them" at the end ... many readers will have lost the thread and be thinking, "Them who?". Open to suggestions.
 * "1853 and 1856" in two volumes?
 * Added "in two editions".
 * Might be worth a note at the top of the A to Z which says that anything other than D to J will navigate away from this page.
 * I'll add something, check to see if it's what you want.
 * Albert Ulrich Daeniker has a Wikidata entry, is there a reason you're not including this "site links" thing for him?
 * "ä" vs. "ae" (I blame the search engine). Added. I've just checked: there are no other cases of "ae", "ue" or "oe" in red links on this page that might trigger the same bug.
 * Just a general observation, the Wikidata entries are usually garbage and include nothing more than the name of someone, usually no references. Are we really benefitting the reader by suggesting [site links] to them in most cases?
 * I'm going to need you to tell me, specifically, what would work for you. I'll explain why I think it would be better if the information appears somewhere (for most of these), but I'm flexible on where it should appear, and in what form. IMO, the problem isn't a lack of consensus on how to handle problems like these (The [Wikidata] parameter is an accepted parameter for ill ... see the above discussion). I do think there's a problem here ... but the problem isn't that I've got the format wrong, it's that there's an unpleasant reality I'm exposing the reader to ... that much of the information they may want to see is scattered around Wikidata, Commons, Wikispecies, Wikisource, and the German, French and Spanish Wikipedias, among others. Not only is the information not on the English Wikipedia, but when people try to add the information, it's sometimes deleted over notability concerns. Obviously, there are various minefields here, completely above my pay grade ... including the role of notability and the proper and improper use of Wikidata on Wikipedia. If we were talking about a few pages, I could fix the problem by writing a few articles, but it's not a few pages.
 * I'm struggling to see anything in any of the Wikidata links that is of any genuine use to our readers. Linking to other Wikipedias is just fine for me, articles there will ordinarily have an encyclopedic structure, some prose, some introduction, some detail and possibly even some references.  The terrible Wikidata "articles" really show what's happening to this project in its very worst light right now.  I believe that Wikidata might serve a purpose in a few years, but not to link our readers directly to, just as literally a database from which we can extract information to be placed into a context-rich encyclopedic article.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, if it's useful to writers, then add it to the talk page, the article page is for the reader. And why is it called "site links"?  What does that mean to our readers?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be far more preferable to see a context for each name, not just their name if they have an article. A few words on each individual would suffice. I shouldn't have to click away from the article (which takes an age to load) to discover which of these people were rulers or botanists or whatever.
 * I struggled with this. I'd prefer to say something, personally, but it feels like a minefield to me ... a lot of potential arguing over not-very-important things, like whether someone was more French or more German, or whether they're better known as a botanist or something else, or, or, or ... If I invite conflict on Wikipedia, I'm certainly going to get it. How important is this to you? Wouldn't it be better to let people argue about these things somewhere else?
 * I think since you've made a point of noting in the lead the types of people these genera are named after, there should be an idea in these lists as to those types on a case by case basis. I don't see it creating conflict, I've created several FLs with "vocation summaries" for individuals over the years and can't remember a single instance of "conflict" caused by them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "384 BC – 322 BC" doesn't 384–322 BC work?
 * I'll search for "BC" throughout.
 * On my wide screen, the images pass the end of the list by about 11 images which is highly undesirable.
 * I have no preference on how many images to use, I'm just trying to get it right for the zooms and screens people are most likely to be using. I'll delete a few ... let me know if that works. This feels like a WMF rendering problem to me ... before deleting any images, at 110% zoom, on my 14-inch screen, the images stop at the end of the I's. We might need some help from WP:VPT on this one.
 * I'll take a closer look at the entrants on the next pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've moved to oppose for now because I don't think [site links] are appropriate for Wikipedia's finest work (if you want to link to another language Wikipedia article, fine) and I don't think leaving most entries without explanation as to who they were/are is acceptable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, much better, I've struck my oppose. Hope that approach can be rolled out across all such similar lists. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That's all I got. Best to you. ~ HAL  333  20:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments from HAL
 * What's the criteria here for redlinking some people, but not others?
 * Before this FLC nom, I redlinked things if and only if there was a Wikidata link. Now that the Wikidata links are gone, it wouldn't bother me if the reviewers here want to set new criteria. If you guys can agree, great, I'll probably go with your criteria. If you guys don't like the red links and can't agree on new criteria, then I'll delink all the red links. I don't see any other options. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Could the lede be expanded at all?
 * There's been a lot of support so far for intros roughly this size, but I doubt that anyone will object if there's something specific you'd like to see added.
 * Can The Names of Plants be used to support anything (or more) in this article?
 * You asked that in the previous review; I said "Gledhill is an excellent source, but in all my previous lists, I haven't made specific reference to him except in special cases ... and, generally, I found that those special cases don't occur in these lists. There are better sources for these things. I can remove him from the Further Reading if you prefer." You wanted me to keep him in Further Reading.
 * After another lookover, I agree with TRM about the biographical information provided. Why give weight to some and not others?
 * Thanks much for reviewing, I know you're busy. Please look at this version of the page ... just the D's ... and read the footnote to the second column. Does that work for you? There are many constraints here; I can be a little bit flexible, but not a lot. (Repinging User:HAL333 since I've made changes.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC) (Also pinging Maile66 and ChrisTheDude ... apologies, but we're running into some flak here. Same question: please follow the link to that version of the list and let me know if the footnote at the top of the second column works for you, along with my occasional descriptions, such as "scientist", "educator", etc. ... I've only done the D's so far.) I can change descriptions, I can add a little text, but I can't add a lot of text. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That footnote would work great. Assuming you do it, I support this nomination. ~ HAL  333  19:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Working on adding descriptions for E through J now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done with everything now, D to J. Thanks for looking at this. - Dank (push to talk) 04:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PresN, I've got some relevant information for you ... but this isn't a request, do whatever works best for you, I'm easy. Since Hal recently said "I am incredibly busy in real life", and given what he said above, he might not have time to verify whether the changes I made yesterday deal with the last point he raised. I asked the other two supporters, Maile and Chris, if they'd be kind enough to look at the changes. Maile did, and was satisfied. Please let me know if you need anything else from me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * TRM, likewise, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Chris just said "Looks good to me!" on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I added specific professions to the note on naturalists. - Dank (push to talk) 10:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PresN, Monday will be the two-week point since you archived the other nomination at my request ... I'm caught up now, and will be ready to re-nom on Monday, with your permission. Is there anything I can do for the current nomination that I haven't done already? I can ping Aza24 for a source review if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think with the changes made I'm good for you to restart that nomination; pinging since his two major points were addressed (wikidata links and adding small descriptions for blue-linked namesakes) to see if his oppose still stands. -- Pres  N  19:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll go restart it., let me know if you need something more; I'd prefer that we create sublists if you need more extensive descriptions, but I'm open to your suggestions. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Formatting
 * Looks good. Thanks for the note b especially.


 * Reliability
 * First class sourcing, per usual


 * Verifiability
 * No issues here
 * Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. -- Pres N  22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.