Talk:List of Hypericum species

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former FLCList of Hypericum species is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 30, 2016Featured list candidateNot promoted
August 11, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
May 11, 2019Featured list candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured list candidate

Incorporating taxonomic sections

Rather than have an individual list of species for every section, I would like to divide this list up by section rather than in alphabetic order. This way, if someone searches for a specific section, they will be redirected to the respective, ahem, section of this list. If there are no objections I will begin this project tomorrow. Fritzmann2002 13:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this plan. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finished! All sections are now fully sorted! The list must have been incomplete, as I've found species that weren't included. Some single-species sections are even empty. I'll sort through some other sites to try and find them, but that could also take some time. Fritzmann2002 15:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: Not quite finished – section names, like all names at the level of genus and below, should be set in italics, and they are not. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion - reasons for retention - needs expert input

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because plant list is acknowledged as the source. However this list re-orders and groups the list. There is always a difficulty in producing any taxonomic list from any source since, no matter how it is formatted, it is nevertheless going to be similar or nearly identical to any other alphabetical list produced by any author. A glance at any group of Floras by different authors will show the same species arranged in the same alphabetical way yet nobody claims copyright on such a list. There are very few alternative ways of representing such information. This is a general taxonomic conundrum and, rather than deleting, I would suggest a referral to the appropriate Project group to consider how such list should be treated.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it consists of a list of accepted species, which is necessarily the same as the source. Every list of species by genus or list of genera by family or whatever would have to be deleted from Wikipedia if this one is. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a list of species, but contains text after the name of each species. It isn't obvious what the text is, but perhaps the name of the discoverer of the species. It is the fact that this text is included in the material copied from the source that causes me concern on copyright grounds. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This text is effectively part of the name of the species (it's the botanical author). It can't be copyright since it will be included at least once by every scientific source that cites the species, as recommended by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.
If lists of genera, species, etc. are copyright, then at least 10s of thousands of Wikipedia articles will need to have material removed, since almost every article on an order has a list of families with their authority, almost every article on a families has a list of genera, etc., in addition to articles which are only lists – see Category:Taxonomic lists for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the speedy deletion tag. To qualify for copyright protection a list must include some element of creativity, lists of purely factual data with no element of judgement cannot be copyrighted - see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. Citing the author doesn't involve any creativity either. While it is certainly possible to claim copyright on the way a list is ordered or grouped if there is any creativity involved in that decision ordering a list alphabetically or by genus isn't going to qualify for this. Hut 8.5 15:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... alphabetical lists are not copyrightable; see Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.. Additionally, most of this list is arranged by subdivisions of the genus, while the source whose copyright is purportedly violated is arranged strictly alphabetically. --Plantdrew (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a major editor of the article, I concur with this and the other deletion contestings. Fritzmann2002 18:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

The article needs a lead - I'd mention the monograph and if there are any alternate treatments with more /fewer species. Also mention hotspots of biodiversity (i.e. regions of the world where there are large numbers of species of the genus). Also, and molecular phylogeny studies might be good to note. The parent article needs a massive expansion as well I see. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hypericum is pretty lacking in content. I'm nowhere near an expert in plants, so I'm going to try to learn some more before tackling that. Thank you for the suggestions for the lead- I really didn't know what was appropriate for that. Fritzmann2002 18:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I now have enough information in the lead. Once I finish the section leads and cross-check the list, I think I'm going to nominate it for FL. Thanks for your help Casliber. Fritzmann2002 14:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image size

Congrats on a comprehensive and detailed article. But am I alone in thinking that the large size of images destroys the visual impact? The text is squeezed to the left, and the whole thing seems to be bursting out of the screen - not in a good way. These thumbs should be 50px max. People can click on any thumbnail to get the full screen version.

This is just an aesthetic bugbear of mine. Any newspaper editor will tell you that text and images should always be well-balanced. Here they are definitely not. Darorcilmir (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I agree that the images could be scaled down somewhat. I've been focusing mostly just on getting the content into the article, without due consideration for aesthetics, but I'll add shrinking the image sizes to my to-do list for the article. Thanks, Fritzmann2002 19:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalista.mx (aka iNaturalist.org) as a reference

@Fritzmann2002: You should consider removing references to and content sourced from Naturalista.mx, aka iNaturalist.org, which, as a community-curated website, generally isn't a reliable reference for taxonomy or vernacular names. Since I'm not sure which content you used from there, I'm not comfortable removing the references myself. For some background, while only appointed volunteer curators like myself can fiddle with the taxonomy on iNaturalist, any registered user can add vernacular names/common names to iNat. You could possibly use iNat, very carefully, to cite ranges or phenological patterns for specific species, but would want to link separately to each taxon/species page, rather than the genus as a whole. You can read more about taxonomic policies on iNaturalist here. Usually we defer to Plants of the World Online for vascular plants, with exceptions. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same may apply to BioLib, but I'm not really familiar with that website. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Hyperik:, thanks for the input. The iNaturalist references are more of a redundancy than anything else, as another site for the reader to check for more information on the species in case there aren't any other sites with good info on the species, but I will make sure to prioritize other, better references over that site. I'll make sure to double check the given/vernacular names on there, too. Thanks again, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 22:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey v China

 Done

Re "The genus is most populous in China (~60 species) and Eastern Asia, as well as across Central Europe, Turkey (~80 species)" If there are circa 80 species in Turkey and only circa 60 in China, why is it described as most populous in China? Is it that the plants are most common in china but the widest variety of species is in Turkey? ϢereSpielChequers 23:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, the species counts were an addendum. I'll rewrite it so it is more precise: "The species is most diverse in Turkey (~80 species), followed by China (~60 species)..." Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 17:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another round at FLC?

Fritzmann2002, this is a fine list, but if you want to take it back to WP:FLC, I've got some suggestions.

  • First, my own agenda: I'd like to find two or three formats, or go-bys, for species [inserted: or genera] lists that work reliably at FLC. If that turns out to be impossible ... if editors who work with plant lists tend to want different things than FLC reviewers typically look for ... that's fine. But based on what I've seen so far, I suspect that finding a rhythm at FLC that works for everyone will be doable.
  • At 918kB, this is a huge page, and the tables are much more than FLC reviewers typically want to deal with. A list has to have a certain amount of gravitas to pass FLC ... but anything significantly larger than what's needed at FLC either doesn't help or lowers your chances of passing, generally.
  • All the red links to articles are going to be a problem; a simple fix is to restrict the scope to the parts that don't have so many red links.
  • Although it's not prohibited, exactly, to divide your list up into separate tables, reviewers really prefer to see all the main entries in one sortable table. I'll be happy to restructure a few tables if you like (and then self-revert) to show you what I'm talking about. One reviewer requested exactly this at the last FLC for this list.
  • I can show you comments that reviewers have made about maps like the ones you have here ... it's considered an ACCESS issue if you have colored regions in maps with no text describing the regions (mainly for people with poor sight or no sight, or people who just prefer audio versions of articles ... but even people with perfect sight can benefit from seeing the names of the regions).
  • One option for a table format is the last table at User:Dank/Tables ... that allows you to have a sortable table with an arbitrarily large text row beneath each data row. Not sure if that will help, but it's an option that a lot of people aren't aware of.
  • It's important to deal with reviewer comments from previous FLCs before heading back into FLC. For instance: The tables are missing some coding (such as scopes). I can fill that in (if this is headed back to FLC). The images should have alt text (which I'm not very good at). Technical terms should be linked, probably along with some explanations. A type species should have either an asterisk or text indicating it's the type species, rather than relying on bolding. That's just a few of the reviewer comments from last time.
  • So ... if you want to head back to FLC, I'll help, but if you don't, that's fine too. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Added "or genera [lists]" above. - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: I'm recommending that something shorter will work better at FLC ... but that doesn't mean this article has to be shorter; some version of a List of Adenosepalum species or List of Myriandra species, or some subdivision according to countries or continents where species occur, might work. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another problem: I don't think I have a good enough handle on sourcing for plant articles yet to be able to explain it to FLC reviewers. I'll work on that tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say thank you for an insightful reply, this is certainly very helpful. I had tabled this article as I was getting frustrated with it and had kind of hit a roadblock, as well as just being generally busy. However, what with COVID-19 and having far more time on my hands for the foreseeable future, maybe it would be a good idea to try to have another shot at getting this to FL-status. I'd love to work with you, but I'm by no means an expert in either taxonomy or editing Wikipedia; I'm merely a novice who enjoys to do this in his spare time, so by all means take the lead and I will do my best to enact your suggestions. It would be very cool to get this list to a polished state, and I look forward to making that happen, so thanks again. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 01:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a great use of your free time. Okay, you've got some judgment calls to make. This list is too long to do a good job of attracting reviewers at FLC. If you decide to keep this list but also create sublists from it that might pass FLC, then we have to take FL criterion 3c into account; it requires that a sublist at WP:FLC has to have enough material that's not in the parent list that you couldn't simply insert it (and similar sublists) back into the parent article without making a monster parent list. So, you'll either have to think of new bits of information to add to species in the sublist, or subtract some of the information from this parent list ... subtracting might be easier. Is there any particular sublist you want to work on ... such as, dividing up the species geographically, or by section, or by clade? - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sublists by section make the most sense for this genus, as its sections are unusually unanimously accepted in the botanical community, and there is not a large amount of debate on which species are in which sections. Adenosepalum, Myriandra, Ascyreia, or Hypericum are all sections with most of their species filled out and are not too large, while Brathys or Trigynobrathys would also be good candidates but would require a little more work. Trimming this article is tough for me, but I think the "type" header could probably be taken out without losing too much of the article's meat, and I think that at least the habitat could be included in addition in the sublists, as well as possibly multiple pistures (i.e. flowers + full image) Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 18:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to do some preliminary work on List of Adenosepalum species. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 18:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'll have a suggestion for how much to trim this parent list after I see how much information is in the sublist. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of range maps

We talked about this a while ago and I've had it on my to-do list for a long time - to go through the existing range maps and determine which ones are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH (often overreaching the actual distribution of the species) and which ones are accurately reflective of the sources. It's a shame there aren't more range maps for plants generally, and I hate to discourage the creation of them, but drawing them is a scientific art and understandably difficult to do accurately. See previous discussion here: Talk:Hypericum swinkianum for some background. Many maps on this page need to be assessed and possibly deleted or overwritten on Commons. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it, those maps are certainly rough creations. I made them based off the text distributions given at the Hypericum MySpecies site, so they were bound to not be very specific. I still feel like they are useful tools to get a visual idea of where the species can be found and represent a better and more space efficient tool than a verbose textual range description, but I am 100% sure that old me made some errors when creating them. I'd absolutely love to go back through and re-make all of them, but unfortunately I just don't have that kind of time at the moment. Best wishes, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 14:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to have at it (it's been on my to-do list for 2 years haha) but as you know, it's a lot of work to recreate so many maps, so putting it out to any other people who've edited this article. Do you have any objection to them being deleted? Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, we can reassess but I do think that the ultimate goal for this article in particular should be to have accurate and well-referenced range maps for each species. However, if they mislead the reader in any way then it's better to just not have them for the time being. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 14:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Hypericum_species"