Email this user

User talk:Michael Goodyear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Mgoodyear)
Jump to: navigation, search
User Talk Page   Wikiguide   Botany resources   Projects   Wikipedia awards    
In the office

Contents

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: English[edit]

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.

Other websites[edit]

Sex in the Public Square

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)



Taxonomy[edit]

Hi Micael, I uplodaded this swamp flower yesterday. After some checking I identified it as Nymphaea, is it correct ? Thanx --PetarM (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are asking me - you are in a better position to examine the plant and ask the staff at Tivoli Park, or look for signs. It probably is - but which one is hard to tell. I'm assuming it was at the fish pond, like this image which was taken there. Water lilies in ornamental gardens are often hybrids or cultivars --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Its that one yes, will try to, haven't seen any table with description, nor employee. I will look further, its OK I didn't miss Family tree. --PetarM (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ranks to be displayed in plant taxoboxes[edit]

This is yet another issue that has been discussed in some detail at WP:PLANTS, but (as far as I can see) never made it into the guidance there. My understanding is that it's fine to store as much detail as you like in the taxon templates, but that automatically only the major ranks should be displayed except in special cases (e.g. the subfamilies are to be displayed for the very "lumped" APG III families, like Asparagaceae or Amaryllidaceae). The parameter |display_parents= can then be used in a particular taxobox to force more ranks to be displayed, if there is a good reason to do so.

I'll see if I can find the earlier discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, however then we have to specify exactly what a 'major' rank is. However in the last analysis it comes down to what purpose is served by any particular guidance and whether it facilitates or hinders usage --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I should perhaps have written "main ranks" as defined at Taxonomic rank#Main ranks, although the guidance at the "Template:Taxonomy/TAXON" pages uses the term "major rank". I think that the sections about what an infobox should and should not contain at Help:Infobox are very relevant here. The taxobox is meant to provide a concise overview and navigation aid, not to give all the fine details of taxonomic placements. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
True, in principle, though I would contend that what is "major" is somewhat taxon dependent. I would stress "navigation" which is what drives what I tend to include in such boxes. May I inquire if a specific taxobox triggered this comment? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't remember now where I was surprised to see the tribe displayed, but the cause was that when you created Template:Taxonomy/Allieae you specified "Always displayed: yes", hence my comment to you (but I should have linked to this template – apologies). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes I see you changed the display parameter in the template. Now as you comment above, Amaryllidaceae is labrynthine enough both in its structure and history to justify more rank detail. Guidance is just that guidance, and other factors sometimes need to be taken into account. Personally I use navigation as a major deciding factor in choosing ranks to display. In this case I added the template because navigation was a problem without it. Another approach I have used, as you may have noticed, is to create a separate navbox. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I think navboxes are the correct approach (to handling complex taxonomies), since their contents are normally hidden by default, and especially if constructed as a hierarchy, the reader can reveal only the information that interests them. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing or hidden features useful in taxboxes too!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Um... I tend to agree that they are useful, but some MOS hawks will remove them, based on Help:Infobox#What should an infobox not contain?, the argument being that if the text is so long as to need hiding, it's too long to be there. MOS:DONTHIDE only allows hiding in "tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, and in navboxes". It also points out that the mobile site doesn't handle showing hidden text; I suspect that the figure of 30% for users accessing via mobile devices is rapidly becoming an underestimate. So be wary of collapsing features. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
However they greatly improve the look of a page, but the solution lies more in improving the optimisation of the page parsing for mobile devices, rather than catering to the lowest common denominator. I was criticised recently in a GA review because the reviewer could not see a table on his laptop. It is difficult to format a page to appear optimum on all devices - it looked wonderful on my desktop. Then there is the problem of the blind etc.MOS:ACCESS Note that the reference is not merely to mobile devices but specifically to the browser platform.MOS:ACCESS#Users with limited CSS or JavaScript support. The inherent dilemma is expressed in MOS as "At the same time, it is recognised that it is impossible to provide the same quality of appearance to such users without unnecessarily avoiding features that would benefit users with more capable browsers...However, consideration for users without CSS or JavaScript should extend mainly to making sure that their reading experience is possible; it is recognised that it will inevitably be inferior.. ". I generally test my GAs across a variety of platforms. However achieving that solution lies beyond the resources available to you and I.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Taxonomy of Liliaceae/GA1[edit]

Michael Goodyear, I noticed that you edited this review's entry directly on the WT:GAN page; since the page is built by a bot, your Note was removed a few minutes later.

I have just added the same note to the article's talk page in the GA nominee template's "note" parameter, so it will reappear shortly.

I do have a question: since the article was made an A-class article on September 20, why have you not withdrawn it from GA? A-class articles are held to higher standards than the GA standards; they're an intermediate step between GA and FA (Featured Articles). At this point, if the GA continues, you risk having the article downgraded should it be listed. If you'd like help in withdrawing the GA review before that occurs, I'm happy to be of assistance.

Can you please point me at the A-class review page? I'm curious to see what an A-class review looks like for the Plants WikiProject. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was my fault due to a misunderstanding of the position of A with respect to GA. I think there may be a general misunderstanding about this and that is why there are so few A class articles. I rated it A since it had undergone peer review, but still has not been passed for GA for some reason. I have reverted this in view of your comments. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Some WikiProjects have an A-class process, some don't; without the formal review process, the WikiProject just doesn't have any A-class articles. The A-class is a big deal in the Military History WikiProject, and the process is almost as rigorous as the Featured Article one, with multiple reviewers and requiring several of them to support the A-class rating. Peer review isn't the same thing; such reviews can be to suggest improvements generally, to make suggestions with a view to getting the article to the point that it meets the criteria for a GA nomination, or an A-class nomination, or even an FAC. Best of luck in finding a reviewer to take over. You might want to put in a request at the WT:GAN page; since the nomination is currently the second-oldest under review at 90 days, it definitely needs some reviewer attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace[edit]

Just wanted to invite you to take a look at this weeks TAFI article Allegra Versace. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really my area --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Taxonomy of Liliaceae[edit]

The article Taxonomy of Liliaceae you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Taxonomy of Liliaceae for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tylototriton -- Tylototriton (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Taxonomic articles[edit]

Category:Taxonomic articles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Taxonomy of Liliaceae[edit]

The article Taxonomy of Liliaceae you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Taxonomy of Liliaceae for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tylototriton -- Tylototriton (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Maculation listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Maculation. Since you had some involvement with the Maculation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Harvc again[edit]

To get the completely correct formatting of the "in" citations at Lilioid monocots, as we've discussed before, the {{harvc}} template would have to be used, because of the refusal to allow |contribution= without |title= in any of the cite/citation templates. I don't have the energy (at present anyway). Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I know you are a great stickler for style - more than I, but unfortunately your changes as before left a sea of problems that will take a huge effort to fix. I will investigate your point further but it seemed to work fine before you changed it. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Botanist template[edit]

I had to return to the earlier version because the live one wasn't working correctly when used inline. My experience is that it can be very tricky to stop templates adding newlines; I think that somewhere among your added comments one slipped in. I suggest only updating the sandbox version and checking the testcases before going live. Have a look at Template:Botanist/testcases now, including the generated references. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I assure you I spent a lot of time testing before going live! Curious - I will take a peek. Yes i knew about the new line problem, but as you say, they can slip in. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js[edit]

Although User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js flags any use of {{citation ...}} or {{cite .. |mode=CS2 ..}} as an error if there is nothing actually using the generated id, this is not an error. There's no policy or guidance that requires these ids to be used; indeed, any such requirement would be against policy, since it would prevent CS2 formats in bibliographies, further reading, general sources, etc., whereas it's policy to be neutral on consistent citation style. Only the first of the checks in User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js is actually an error check. The second check could be a warning note, perhaps, but certainly not an error.

This has already been raised at User talk:Ucucha/HarvErrors#Unused anchors. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for tip off - responded there. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Amaryllidaceae Barnstar[edit]

Amaryllis Red.JPG Amaryllidoideae Barnstar
For your amazing work on Amaryllidaceae and related articles. Your passion is very inspiring! MCEllis (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Emonocot.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Emonocot.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Emonocot.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Emonocot.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Taxon bar[edit]

I find it very odd that the most important source for monocots, namely WCSP, isn't included in the taxon bar template when it's added to articles like Habranthus. Can you explain the value of this template to me? I really can't see it. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought he said he was working on that - for the time being I am adding it to taxon pages if I am editing them, as a placeholder. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Unlike taxonids the others= function is not working at the moment. I added it as an external link. The problem presumab;y is that Wikidata does not use it. I sent a request to Wikidata. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, that seems the best that you can do for now. There's also eMonocot, of course, which has the potential to be even more useful. I continue to be bothered by the lack of botanical input to the decisions made at Wikidata.
On the subject of eMonocot, I'm glad to see that commonsense seems to have prevailed over the logo. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I put my name forward at Wikidata. Yes eMonocot has the potential to be quite useful (see links I placed on page) and continues to grow. What a kerfuffle! And they are a collaborative scientific organisation devoted to disseminating information. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
OK: emonocot and wcsp can now be added manually, e.g. {{taxonbar|emonocot=8637|wcsp=305346}} for Eithea --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Good! Hopefully this will be automatic at some time. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lilioid monocots[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lilioid monocots you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I truly like your friendly demeanor and cooperative nature. I have collaborated with you quite a while ago on an article I find difficult to recall, but your nature is the same as it was - one of those sunshiny, tireless Wikipedians! Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow! yes - I recall it. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you recall which article it was? I would love to know. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hippeastrum, my first GA, which I hope to take to FA one day - still tweaking it --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes! Don't wait to nominate it, it is in a great shape! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Well let's get Lilioids done first - I have high (obsessive) standards !
Ping me any time you like once you get it ready, I have much FAC experience to get it through! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Generally when working up an article, I like to make sure all the articles in which it fits contextually are up to date - so I am doing a general upgrade of all the Amaryllidaceae pages at present, before zeroing in. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
That is a new idea! I believe you should move on with it. Meanwhile, let me see if I can repair any issues with Hippeastrum... Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

Rather than add to what's supposed to be a side issue in the MOS talk, I thought I'd comment here. I was very enthusiastic about {{sfn}} and similar templates when I first found them, and gave up my earlier practice of

  • putting <ref name=...>{{Harv ...}}</ref> in the text
  • having a Bibliography for at least the main citations.

I'm wondering now if in a long article it might be better to:

  • put <ref name=[id for ref + page/at]/> in the wikitext
  • expand these to <ref name=...>{{Harv ...}}</ref> in list-defined references in a {{reflist}}
  • have the full citations in a Bibliography.

This would seem to avoid the creation of long sfn's once there's a need for URLs, which is generally the case with pages of old documents at the BHL, for example.

I often get caught by old journal articles; these were regularly much longer than today, so I want to give a URL to a section, but {{cite journal}} doesn't allow any level below title – you can't have a contribution as in a book. I'm still not sure of the best way to handle such cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes perhaps better not to add to that! I am always experimenting but there currently is no "best way" unless one of us designs one. I recall at one stage you were enthusiastic about putting everything into a tided alphabetised reflinks= format. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it depends on the article length and complexity. For short articles where a reference isn't re-used many times at different pages/sections, I think that alphabetically ordered list-defined references work well. They don't work well for long articles with multiple use of the same source, as in the current version of Lilioid monocots. But then neither does {{sfn}}.
All this is, of course, secondary; writing a great article is the most important! I'm sure that Lilioid monocots is now at least GA. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Apparently it is well on its way - will keep you posted --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I tried that in Gethyllis (ref 1) - it has to be harvnb --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Now Gethyllidinae is the first complete page written from scratch using this compromise style - but it is more work. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lilioid monocots[edit]

The article Lilioid monocots you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Lilioid monocots for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hippeastrinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fimbriate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Centralized ENGVAR, DATEVAR, CITEVAR discussion[edit]

This may be of interest, since you were involved in previous discussions about these guidelines and their impact: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Cleaning up and normalizing MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to our April event[edit]

Mary Wollstonecraft by John Opie (c. 1797).jpg
You are invited...
Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Sent by Rosiestep (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC) via WP:MassMessage

Orphaned non-free image File:Aloysandmarieliechstenstein.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aloysandmarieliechstenstein.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science[edit]

Join us!

Women Scientists - worldwide online edit-a-thon -
a Year of Science initiative

Year of Science Logo.svg
Women Science.png
Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

"Women are everywhere"[edit]

Hi Michael Goodyear. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Shhh! Invitation to Women in Espionage[edit]

Hitchcock secret agent.jpg
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

Women in Espionage worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Rosiestep (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Photography[edit]

'Prove it with a Kodak'-crop.jpg
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

Women in Photography
worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Rosiestep (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Women artists of Middle East / North Africa... a WiR & Guggenheim collaboration[edit]

Monir Portrait-exh ph021.jpg
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

Women artists of Middle East / North Africa
worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Spotlight on women entertainers![edit]

Female singer silhouette.png
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Celebrating Pride @ Women in Red[edit]

Pride-female.svg
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

LGBTQ worldwide online edit-a-thon

Delivered by Rosiestep (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage. (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

APG IV[edit]

Globe-trotting over? I've done some work on updating to the APG IV system, including using "Asphodelaceae" rather than "Xanthorrhoeaceae" (hooray!) as APG IV does, in anticipation of its conservation in 2017. I haven't properly dealt with articles like Asparagales, so do please have a look when you have time. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

To revise all relevant pages would be Herculean. I think each person should address their own area of experise. I have staerted by revising the APG page, which you started doing. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, not quite as "Herculean" as some of the earlier revisions, but still quite a large task. Unfortunately, there seem very few active plant editors around at present.
The APG poster in Cole & Hilger (2016) is nice. I created the cladogram from the APG IV paper; did you check whether the poster is exactly the same? There are some uncertainties noted in the paper.
I'm currently working on the list of orders and families, so we don't duplicate work. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks ok to me and they have been a reliable source to date - but no I did not check every single line! As we get further into this some of these issues can be tackled in more detail. The revisions fall into two general groups - those pages refering to APG to ensure they reference the latest version, and the taxonomic pages affected by recent changes. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Looked at APG, APG IV, Angiosperms, Monocots and now working through monocot orders --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As you've probably seen, I've added the short and full lists to the APG IV system article in the style of the APG III system one. I need to check them and the cladogram – very easy to make a mistake (indeed there's a typo in line 2 of the abstract of the APG IV paper!). Peter coxhead (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I missed that! I did wonder if the cladograms could be simplified. The published literature often breaks them up into sections. Even where there are no changes, eg Dioscoreales it is important to document why. I added the list in Word format to the bibliography as suggested by Byng. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Hall of Fame![edit]

Joska bodenmais pokale referenzen womens world award pokale.jpg
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Women's health[edit]

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been directly copied from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs110/en/, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I may have made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I assure it most certainly was not copied! It was written as a distillate of numerous related sources. In fact I have not looked at your alleged source for some time, or it would have been cited. Please revert ASAP. The article is the subject of a telephone conference next week. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Accidental incorporation of text from source during browser crash detected and removed! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for your patience and for quickly helping to get this sorted out. Best, — Diannaa (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project[edit]

Bertha Lutz 1925.jpg
Please join us...
Women in Red logo.svg

Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project
A Women in Red worldwide, online editathon - 12 July till 12 August 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) Delivered by Rosiestep (talk) via MassMessage 04:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous women & Polar women editathons[edit]

Inuit women 1907 crop.jpg
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

Indigenous women editathon & Polar women editathon
Hosted by Women in Red - August 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Your GA nomination of Women's health[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Women's health you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bluerasberry -- Bluerasberry (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow - I'm used to waiting several months! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
First instincts were correct - this was an error! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for all the work you're doing on women's health :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Women's health[edit]

I am eager to help edit this article in such a way that it could become a good article. I am completely unfamiliar with this type of referencing and have never used it at all. I don't know where to go from here. Is it possible to get up to speed on this style of referencing to improve this article in a timely manner? Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hullo Barbara, which particular part of the referencing style are you referring to? At the moment I am changing some of the referencing because there are just so many pages within the websites of groups like WHO and CDC that it starts to look a little clumsy in the bibliography. Those additional web pages are being gradually replaced with <ref name=name> to simplify them. Otherwise it uses a classified bibliography linked to short footnotes (sfn). The aim is to avoid cluttering the wikitext with complicated reference tags, particularly urls.
Also what parts of the article are you particularly interested in? At present I am working on child marriage. Where possible I am trying to tie the next into UN MDGs and SDGs, since I have a background in international and sustainable health.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Berger (Politiker) Litho.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Berger (Politiker) Litho.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate[edit]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reach@wikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

DiptanshuTalk 14:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

Upcoming editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists[edit]

Florence Nightingale headshot.png
Rose Winslow of New York 158010v.jpg
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

Women in Nursing editathon & Women Labor Activists editathon
Hosted by Women in Red - September 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage