User talk:Mitality
Help me!
[edit]This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
The link associated with 'Miquelia' on the 'Icacinaceae' page leads to the page 'Garnotia', not 'Miquelia' (it appears that a page for Miquelia doesn't exist). Garnotia is a genus not even in the same order as Miquelia and so a link to it is clearly inappropriate. How do I delete this link?
Mitality (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is really a discussion that should happen either at Talk:Icacinaceae or WP:RFD, but for the moment I've redirected Miquelia to Icacinaceae. Primefac (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Update. I've reverted my decision; this source says it's a valid synonym. Further discussion really should take place at the Icacinaceae talk page. Primefac (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Help me!
[edit]This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with...
The link associated with 'Miquelia' on the 'Icacinaceae' page leads to the page 'Garnotia', not 'Miquelia' (it appears that a page for Miquelia doesn't exist). Garnotia is a genus not even in the same order as Miquelia and so a link to it is clearly inappropriate. When I requested help to change this link, the person responding refused to change it, citing the following source:
Viewing this source suggests to me that the term 'Miquelia' has been used to name two different genera, one in Poaceae (Gramineae), and one in Icacinaceae. In addition to the Wikipedia Icacinaceae page, two sources indicating acceptance of the genus Miquelia in Icacinaceae are:
and
Thus it appears that (1) a disambiguation page for 'Miquelia' is required to distinguish between the two identically-named genera, (2) one link on this page needs to point to the Garnotia page, and (3) the second link needs to point either to a newly-created stub-page for Miquelia (Icacinaceae), or to the Icacinaceae page itself.
How does one accomplish these changes?
The person originally responding to this issue said my message really belonged on a 'Icacinaceae talk page' (as I recall). I'm sorry, but I assiduously attempted to put this message there without success.
Mitality (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants - you will find more like-minded people there. Ronhjones (Talk) 02:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that a disambiguation page is the way to go and have created one at Miquelia. The "Icacinaceae talk page" is at Talk:Icacinaceae; I have left a note there, too. Huon (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Help me!
[edit]This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... I want to create an article on a chemical not now in Wikipedia. Do I first need to create the scratch area "[Username]:sandbox"? I think it's most efficient to (1) copy an existing article such as Psoralen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psoralen) to the scratch area ("[Username]:sandbox"?), then (2) replace data, text, image, links, and references with those for the new chemical, and (3) publish the new article. Is this the most appropriate, efficient process? If so, where are instructions for copying an article page to a scratch area? If not, what are the appropriate process steps? Mitality (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I recommend using a userspace draft - that way your draft always has a sensible name rather than 'sandbox'.
- You may start by copying an existing article into your draft - be sure to acknowledge where it comes from. See COPYWITHIN for the exact rules.
- Chances are, though, that for a new article, you're going to start with just a few sources and copying an existing article is just going to make your job harder Definitely look at existing articles, but your draft is going to be built according to what your sources say. Start small, with just the essentials. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your very helpful and super-quick response. I now feel I have a path to proceed. Mitality (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)