User talk:Mgoodyear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In the office

My Wikiguide

Personal and Contact Information[edit]

Michael Goodyear, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

email[edit]

mgoodyear@dal.ca

Special:Emailuser/Mgoodyear

Website[edit]

Michael Goodyear (Dalhousie University)

Edit count[edit]

Edit Count


Projects[edit]

Womanpower logo.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Feminism.
Male and female sign.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Gender Studies.
Sex worker statue Oudekerksplein Amsterdam.jpg This editor is a member of Sex work task force.

Barnstars[edit]

Barnstars

Other websites[edit]

Sex in the Public Square

Wikipedia projects[edit]

Major[edit]

Ethics[edit]

History of medicine[edit]

Feminism[edit]

Women's health[edit]

Botany[edit]

Minor[edit]

(under construction August 4 2006 - August 12 2008)

Feminists[edit]

Related biographies[edit]

Women's health[edit]

Health care[edit]

Sex work[edit]

Ethics[edit]

Awards[edit]

I, hereby give you this Exceptional Newcomer Award for your wonderful contributions, so soon after joining! Congratulations. Esperanza. 22 November 2006


Barnstar-stone2-noback.png The Epic Barnstar
For your work on the History of feminism The Mighty Quill. 30 November 2006
HumanSexualityBarnstar.png The Human Sexuality Barnstar
for Female ejaculation article. Whatever404 23 August 2008.
HumanSexualityBarnstar.png The Human Sexuality Barnstar
for contributions to Sexology and Sexuality. Atomaton 24 August 2008

The Copyeditor's Barnstar[edit]

CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you for all the copy-editing you do to maintain the high quality of articles. Moxy (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiThanks[edit]

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.36 (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you[edit]

A Barnstar!
Golden Wiki Award

Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions to History of Anatolia! Cavann (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I have noticed your edits to the History of Iceland article and other Iceland-related articles. Keep up the good work. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi,[edit]

If you want anything translated from Swedish, Norwegian (either Bokmål or Nynorsk), or Danish: please feel free to ask me. (I understand all better than English). But, please, please don´t put all those (unsourced) words into the article again. You don´t have any idea about how huge the problem of trafficked/foreign prostitutes is in Scandinavia, do you? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I do, having worked there, and that is not a good reason for deleting material from Wikipedia which does not accept censorship, and yes I am familiar with the language. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but that does not change the fact that it is totally unsourced. Really, this is 2014: you cannot just insert your private knowledge on Wikipedia anymore with the battle cry: "Wikipedia does not accept censorship"! I will remove it as long as it is not sourced. That User:Mgoodyear knows this, and thinks it is important, and believe it is important: that is simply not good enough. You have to show that some other WP:RS finds these words relevant. That´s the rule of the game. (I edit mostly in the Israel/Palestine aera: there you cannot insert anything if it lacks WP:RS.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Do I take it you have changed your objection from trafficking to sourcing? What source did you want - a dictionary? I have researched and written on sex work in the nordic countries for many years, much of the source documents are in the original language - the lexicon was introduced to aid rresearchers perusing or searching original documents. This should have been discussed at the Sex Work Project, since you have blanked sections on two of our pages. have you done so on any other sex work by country pages. See Talk --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The matter is now referred to the Task Force for further discussion --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Please remember WP:OWN and WP:AGF. The words "our pages" suggest that you or the Sex Work Project are claiming ownership of a subset of articles. As I'm sure you know, there is no rule on Wikipedia that says that an article can't be edited unless it has been discussed at a specific project. On the contrary, editors are encouraged to be bold. Sjö (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not a question of ownership which does not exist in Wikipedia, but of familiarity. As it so happens I wrote about 95% of both those pages, but that is not the point. Boldness when inappropriate is counterproductive, and there are far too many editors whose enthusiasm outstrips their subject knowledge. The assumption of good faith does not provide assurance of either accuracy, or appropriateness, and works both ways. Editing discussions should enhance the knowledge of all parties, but unfortunately are too often confrontational and even hostile. Task Forces and Projects don't own pages either but they do coordinate, and set standards and guidelines, and provide a forum for expert opinion. The question here is whether the value of a page about a subject, where the bulk of the literature is not English is enhanced by providing a vocabulary. I suggest further discussion on this be on the Task Force page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Prostitution in Ghana[edit]

Prostitution in Ghana, Prostitution in Switzerland and Prostitution in Morocco I think have enough sources to be split into separate articles what do think? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not Ghana, but possibly Switzerland. But that needs bringing up to date - the Zurich scheme went ahead and recently authorities claimed 'success' but sex workers disagreed. it is not so much the sources as the amount of material in the text. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
To help you I have added material to all three. Try not to make these sections all about sex tourism and exploitation of children - there is far more to it than that, but media sensationalism concentrates on narrow areas. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Outcrossing and allogamy[edit]

Hi, I saw your linking together of the outcrossing and allogamy pages. Those terms are certainly synonyms, but the outcrossing page is almost exclusively about a particular technique. I don't know what page title would be considered appropriate, perhaps it wouldn't change, but rather than merging the pages, I think it would be good to disambiguate that sense of the term. Perhaps it could start with a hatnote that says something like "This page is about a technique used in animal and plant breeding. For naturally occurring outcrossing see allogamy". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point - actually I also included Self-incompatibility - they all overlap. Another solution would be an overarching page with hats to various subtopics.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
What would you call such a page? (My imagination seems to be at a low ebb today.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Another good question and one which I anticipated you would ask. as you may have gathered too many people create free standing pages without any thought of where they are positioned in the overall hierarchy of a discipline. In contrast I look for unifying concepts and hierarchical order. So I have gone back to the top, Biology and am working my way down, and have been dismayed by the mess. So potential parent pages might include sexual reproduction and fertilisation. This is where WP falls down compared to a planned work like EB--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with this view. There are far too many biology articles about individual terms which can only be understood in the context of the overall topic in which the terms are used. I've tried before to get some of them merged, with no success. Part of the problem seems to be that editors dislike linking to a section, so the norm has become "one link, one article", regardless of the duplication of explanation this causes. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I will have a go at this particular glitch, but the issue in general should be taken upstairs. Otherwise we have a Tower of Babel--Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but that's the point of the comparison with the EB: there is no "upstairs" here, just editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not totally convinced of that, but have no direct experience. Another project to explore. 'Editor' is a misnomer here anyway, which suggests an executive position, users might be better. The first level are the project and task forces, then one can contact administrators, and there are fora for general topics. Anyway this extreme democracy or laissez-faire, promotes anarchy! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

So I've made some changes at Outcrossing, to reduce the overlap with Allogamy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Undue external links at De Materia Medica?[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your care and attention for this article. However, I'm not sure that adding links to individual pages is appropriate in 'External links' - if these pages are individually worth mentioning, then that would have to be in the main text. I suggest we have exactly one link to each edition. OK? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they are direct links to the various books, the pagination is just for reference - this allows the user easier access to each book, if they are only interested in one book. It would take them ages to find the information otherwise. If you really don't like this here - put them in the text after each book. This took a lot of work - and was because I am working on Narcissus and wanted to ensure references to Dioscorides were correct, and could be verified. So I think they should be left in. Most people looking for original sources will go to Latin, I suspect, rather than Greek. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Clearly we need Latin as well, and yes, the page numbers did give the wrong impression, so it's at least possible other readers would be misled also. Links to books could go either in main text refs or here; I think I'll reformat them compactly to make it clear these are Book not page links, and not to give the appearance of an undue list. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Great work at Narcissus[edit]

I'm not a great fan of barnstars, etc. so I'll restrict myself to words: you've done great work at Narcissus – it's far beyond GA status, in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly an obsessive personality! Coming from you, that is praise indeed. I agree, barnstars don't mean much, but rather we should remember Christopher Wren's epitaph - Si monumentum requieris....
It takes one obsessive to recognize another... :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hear, hear. An incredible amount of work there. Well done. Herrick's finer work (in my opnion): [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
"Now the full throated daffodils,
Our trumpeters in gold,
Call resurrection from the ground
And bid the year be bold.
Today the almond tree turns pink,
The first flush of the spring;
Winds loll and gossip through the town
Her secret whispering."
-- Cecil Day-Lewis
Thanks. Odd the Dab bot didn't spot Pausanias. Yes, there are many good examples, but one has to be selective - might get it into a footnote. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Although I'm not sure Shakespeare ever wrote a poem about daffodils? He references them twice in The Winter's Tale, but the verse:
"When daffodils begin to peer,
With heigh! The doxy over the dale,
Why, then comes in the sweet o’ the year;
For the red blood reigns in the winter’s pale."
is, in fact, a song by the comic thief Autolycus. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Daffodils come before the swallow dares and take winds of March with beauty (Winter's Tale) - see Shakespeare garden. Maybe I should have been more explicit in my referencing? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Only the worst kind of literary pedant would ever raise any concerns, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's great that so much work was put into this article but this is too intimidating for a GA review - or else I would do one! The most obvious thing I noticed reading the lead was the total absense of wikilinks, it looks quite barren. Yes, overlinking is bad, but linking Amaryllidaceae, perianth, and others where they first appear when reading is a good idea. Anyway, thanks for all the work! Hekerui (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That was deliberate - having gone through GA many times - I got told to remove all wikilinks and references from the lead! It is only supposed to be a summary. Of course every time I go for GA I get told something different! :( --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This prompted a review of the MOS lead page and of FA articles from this project. Clearly I have been misinformed, and will restore the wikilinks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Games for May - probably a little too tangential for Popular culture, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Um, yes! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Although this one's a bit more contemporary: [2] "Daffodil Lament” is a song by the Irish band The Cranberries. It appears on their second album No Need to Argue. Its subject is love and struggling with pain and rejection." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
No mention of that lovely car either. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The use of the word in endless - but I think we need some sort of association with the plant --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they're all just New FADs really, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
But also inspired by another poem, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. We could add a statement that the word daffodil has become used in popular culture, with a few links to examples.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My problem with trivia is that I never know when to stop. (quite obviously). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I meant: it's very good, one can tell that from reading bits, but the GA process is one of the few instances on Wikipedia where one gets a chance to have some extra eyes on something that one has put a lot of heart blood into, and I guess you would rather have someone go over the article and point out issues and suggest improvements for every section. Yes, one could simply do a quick read over and look at the criteria, but I would try a more detailed review and in that respect it's A LOT lol Best regards Hekerui (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Naturally, I agree with everything you say - so you think I shot myself in the foot by trying too hard? better to aim low first?
Would it help if I spun off more daughter pages? I have created three so far. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Narcissus horticultural divisions[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Narcissus horticultural divisions, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.shelter-island.org/garden_club/showing_daffodils/classification.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bot is confused - that list has been on the page for two years - both Wikipedia and Shelter island reproduced the RHS classification faithfully --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyway the page has been modified to prevent further confusion--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tulip ovary[edit]

Hi, I wonder about the image that you added a link to, this one. It seems to me to be a longitudinal section, but I wonder which way up it is, i.e., where is the style? ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a note of clarification to the file. It is a cross section with the placenta in the lower right hand corner.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks for that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm still a bit confused! So it's not a cross section of the whole ovary, but of one locule? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Well one would need to ask the author, unfortunately he died. However I carefully compared it to microscopical depictions of Tulip ovaries in the literature and it certainly fits. I will clarify it further. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
To me it (now) looks like two ovules in the tricarpellate locule, and because the placenta is at the lower right (for both ovules) it must be a longitudinal section with the style towards the top left. Or is that completely wrong? Imagining it that way, I wonder whether, if one had the sections before and after this one, one might be able to make out the megaspore region or the developing megagametophyte. That could well be overly imaginative, however. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I should just delete it as it does not seem to be fulfilling its purpose?
- Does this or this or this or this help? Or we could label it for additional clarity --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the third of your images above shows that the 'suspect' image actually is of a single locule/carpel. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Well then that makes at least two of us that agree --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I don't know. Certainly two ovules in one locule could look like that in a transverse section. That neat line diagonally from the top left worries me, I just don't know what that would be. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Narcissus edit[edit]

Hi Michael, I've just "been bold" (in the finest Wikipedian tradition) and waded into your epic work on Narcissus (plant) (for which you deserve a whole chestful of medals!) but I didn't want you to think I was being disrespectful in daring to edit your lede. That's all that I've had a chance to have a detailed look at so far, but I felt that (although I realise you are summarising a huge article there) there were some rather sweeping generalisations that misrepresented the more detailed picture you've scrupulously maintained further down the article. Cheers SiGarb | (Talk) 01:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC) PS I've just realised that you're in the US, and checked with Merriam-Webster, who do give "narcissi" as the preferred plural (my UK Chambers and Collins and OED give narcissuses first, then narcissi, and not narcissus at all, although I'd possibly use in speech). But that's the plural of the common name, not the scientific name, so it shouldn't be capitalised.SiGarb | (Talk) 01:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, its Canada which tends to use both UK and US languages--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
And French, I believe… ;-) …but Wikipedia is written in English, of various kinds, and it's often unclear which version is being used.SiGarb | (Talk) 18:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If you look further down you will see reference to 'Lentern' in English literature, so I am restoring that, so that searches reference this. Also terms like 'jonquil' were only used to describe the species classified as such so I am restoring that too. There is actually a section discussing the problem of plurals, which I should probably revisit. I will place a link to OED. And incidentally that was not my contribution. However going back over several years there appears to have been quite some discussion on this. You are certainly correct that common names are not capitalised. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the ref further down to "Lentern" in English literature is also incorrect, as the word does not exist in any dictionary (as I've pointed out elsewhere). Presumably it is either a misprint or an invention of that editor, unless it can be provided with a proper reference. So I removed it there too, and if it's since been reinstated, it really should be re-removed.SiGarb | (Talk) 18:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I often find that people can be too easily slavishly devoted to dictionaries at the expense of usage. English has literary forms that depart from 'proper' grammar, and since it is being used, it should stay, but I think we can compromise with a footnote. If you exclude it someone else will add it.

I agree with you about dictionaries, and I've argued just that point myself, but it's often far easier to prove dictionary usage with Wiki-acceptable refs than it is to prove usage. It's possible that the use is "poetic", but my (paper) edition of Housman's Collected Poems (1939 edition; corrected 1953; type reset 1960; printed 1966) spells it as per all the dictionaries [3], as does every other full online version of the poem that I can find (I won't list them all here unless you want me to). I've been trying to track down an earlier edition but have failed so far. Housman would be your most reliable authority for the spelling, and I'd suggest it was perhaps either in an early edition of the poem, possibly a later-corrected misprint, or that he's just being misquoted elsewhere: one of your two refs quoting the poem is to a volunteer gardener's online note about what's in flower in Hereford Cathedral gardens, who doesn't even spell Housman's name correctly! Your other reference is to a perhaps unintentionally hilarious and judging by the first few pages, febrile "bodice-ripper" (thanks for leading me to it: the sea-bathing/voyeurism scene is very amusing!) by a contemporary historical novelist of doubtful literary standing, who is trying to write in a pseudo-Georgian rustic dialect. SiGarb | (Talk) 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Mgoodyear. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hypanthium[edit]

Hi, your recent addition at Petal using Narcissus as an example of a hypanthium is a bit overly erudite, I think. What goes on with Narcissus has been puzzling for a long time, and the fact that there is a small hypanthium there from which the corona arises is a recent discovery. May I suggest a diagram such as this or this to represent a hypanthium? (The hypanthium page needs a lot of work, so that's not much help.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Which goes for so many plant pages on Wikipedia. The problem was that Floral tube directs to Petal which actually never mentioned Hypanthium, let alone link to it, and barely mentioned tube. Petal is in need of a lot of work too. I considered those diagrams though there is no substitute for the real thing. In a way, Narcissus may not be so much a good model as a special case, and yes I was guided by the recent literature on Narcissus. The older literature is very inconsistent with regards to the use of terms to describe floral parts. Hypanthium does not mention floral tube either. I will link petal to Hypanthium, but we should consider changing the redirect for floral tube, and using the term on Hypanthium. What do you think? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Made some changes to both pages, and redirect --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
To make matters worse, none of these pages were included in the {{botany}} template having all been developed in isolation. I have addresed that, considerably expanding and reorganising the template. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Much better. I've followed your lead in adding the botany template to pappus. No doubt there are a lot more such examples to be found by crawling wikipedia. I made some changes at hypanthium, but it needs more work. Neither the Kew Plant Glossary nor the Cambridge Illustrated Glossary has an entry for "floral tube", though both have an entry for "calyx tube". Beentje (Kew) says "the tube (as distinct from the calyx limb) in a gamosepalous calyx; sometimes used for hypanthium". The illustration shows a pea flower, which has petals very separate from the calyx. I've flagrantly copied that idea at Sepal. I guess we may be stuck with considering "floral tube" to be a synonym of "hypanthium", since is it not a technical term, but I've made some changes at Glossary of botanical terms to reduce the notion that it was a preferable term to hypanthium. By the way, Punica granatum might perhaps be a good species to illustrate hypanthium. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit preoccupied with Narcissus at the moment, but every time I link to a term I will check for the template. I don't consider glossaries to be the bible, but rather the scientific literature, which in this case is all about Narcissus at the moment!

I'm a bit confused about whether the template should be on pages that are not mentioned in the template: I added it to Phylloclade, Stipule, and Ligule. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Navboxes only serve a purpose if each page that is referenced has the template, enabling navigation between pages --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems that I should take the template off then, since it can't reasonably grow to list all the pages about parts of plants. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Well in that case we should delete the template, because there is no point in one that only lists half the items it is supposed to. On the other hand - just how many plant part pages are there? I think a better solution is grouping them in a hierarchical fashion, as do other navboxes and using collapsible lists. After all - we need to know how many plant part pages there are and maybe some should be merged. Anyway this conversation has now reached the point where it is best discussed by the group at the Plant Project.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think the template could be useful without an entry for each of the gadzillion items. I like the way it links to the glossary. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the function of a hatnote *really* to help a reader discover that the link they've just followed is a dud?[edit]

[4] Do you really think that hatnotes are for editors rather than for readers? IMO, if incorrect links are being created by editors, the place to fix that is at the link. Besides, an editor that links to an article that is so clearly unrelated to the subject matter is clearly not looking at what he/she has linked to, and will not see the hatnote. So you are really saying that it is worth having a hatnote to help a reader understand that the link was misleading? —Quondum 16:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Best discusssed on the talk page I think, which see --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Magdalenenkirche[edit]

The name of the article is Magdalenenkirche, Hildesheim. No problem to fix, but I prefer direct links, and I prefer no link to Hildesheim in the Narcissus article. People curious about the town can certainly find it in the church article. Misunderstanding? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, which I fixed, but I don't understand the second point. Not everyone knows where Hildesheim is, and there are dozens of links to other towns in the page elsewhere. Wikipedia thrives on interlinking. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Interlinking fine, overlinking ("sea of blue") to be avoided. When I mention a work by a composer, I link only the work if it has an article. The reader can expect a link to the composer in the work's article, if information about the composer is needed. Same here for Hildesheim. To be able to link to building and place together may be the reason for article names with a comma, see Category:Buildings and structures in Hildesheim. The normal reader of Narcissus may not be interested in details about the town, - and IF, it can certainly be found in the church article. - Other editors handle this differently, and if my way is reverted, I don't object ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it is a question of balance. Everyone has their style preferences and those evolve over time, and we are both involved in the GA process. My experience with people who visit the page is that they are interested and it has a large cultural section, and these are likely to be two unfamiliar words. A small matter in the scheme of things. Thanks for your input.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)