Talk:Amaryllidoideae

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

All of my gardening books classify Hippeastrum to the family "Amaryllidaceae", not liliaceae , altough it is clear that it is not part of the genus "Amaryllis". Also there is a discrepancy between the articles Hippeastrum and Amaryllidaceae in this matter. Can somebody clarify? --Chino 09:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is much churn in plant taxonomy these days; see Angiosperm Phylogeny Group and things that link to it. Stan 16:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. Hippeastrum and Amaryllis are in subfamily Amaryllidoideae, part of the broadly defined family Amaryllidaceae in the 2009 APG III system of classification. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

The extremely dense text in the section "Reproductive biology" (needs trimming for wikipedia and) shows considerable text similarity to Graham, S.W.; Barrett, S.C.H. (2004). "Phylogenetic reconstruction of the evolution of stylar polymorphisms in Narcissus (Amaryllidaceae)". American Journal of Botany. 91 (7): 1007–1021.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) I have not done an extensive search for other possible sources. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution section has copied sentences from Meerow, A.W.; Fay, M.F.; Guy, C.L.; Li, Q.-B.; Zaman, F.Q.; Chase, M.W. (1999). "Systematics of Amaryllidaceae based on cladistic analysis of plastid sequence data". American Journal of Botany. 86 (9): 1325–1345.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

Unless this is cleaned up very soon, I will delete considerable chunks from these two sections. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This material was apparently all written in May 2009 by User:EnCASF, alias es:Usuario:CASF. Material written by Spanish Wikipedia editors has caused me problems before (particularly when I translated the Spanish version of Asparagales and found that the back-translation to English was very similar to sources such as APweb – see Talk:Asparagales#'Translation' from the Spanish version). I think this isn't deliberate plagiarism, but in large part due to the problems non-native speakers have in paraphrasing. (I suspect that large parts of similar detail in es:Amaryllidaceae and es:Amaryllidoideae are basically translations from English sources.) I entirely agree that the material needs considerable trimming by the standards of the English Wikipedia; this trimming and paraphrasing would fix the plagiarism, I suspect. I was aware of this problem when I converted the article from Amaryllidaceae to Amaryllidoideae; fixing it is on a "to-do list" somewhere... Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree that we could fix this, and I'll try to snip away at it over the next couple of weeks. However, I think that anyone, including non-native speakers should understand that copying and pasting chunks of text is not acceptable. Translation of copyrighted material is also not acceptable without permission from the copyright holder. If people from the Barrett lab see what wikipedia has done with the product that they have worked so hard to create (and I'd bet that they have seen it), they will surely conclude that wikipedia is a menace to society. For that reason I'd like to send an email message to Dr Barrett (and perhaps others). Ideally that would be after it has been fixed, something along the lines of "we've cleaned this up, if you know of any more plagiarism of your work in wikipedia, help is available to clean that up too". Nadiatalent (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that what appears here is not acceptable and neither is direct translation (although I was somewhat impressed that my Google-assisted translation of Spanish to English resulted in chunks of text that were then word-for-word the same as the source!). By the way, I see that the first author of the second of your examples, this, has actually edited the article (I happen to know his WP username) and hasn't complained. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So would you alert him as well? Some of the professional scientists might have access to software that could help to detect further examples, such as Turnitin, but I still think that it would be good to wait until after we've made some serious headway in cleaning this up before what amounts to asking them for assistance. I don't know whether Turnitin tries to detect translation plagiarism ... Nadiatalent (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: try to clean it up first. (Turnitin relies entirely on text matching, so doesn't detect translation plagiarism.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues[edit]

I see that some copying was discovered and worked on above, but considerable copied content remains - see [1], for instance, and [2]. I'm afraid that all of this content was added by User:EnCASF in this series of edits. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this material is far too close to the sources. There's a minimal version at User:Peter_coxhead/Work/Amaryllidoideae which I suggest should replace the last version of the article. I am then willing to try to add back some of the information, without of course plagiarizing the sources. Much of the material is too detailed and too complex anyway for a Wikipedia article. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Peter coxhead:! It's much better to have an article than leave this one blanked for months. I've put it in place and would be very happy for you to develop it further. However, I did revision delete it - if you need it back while you review the sources used, please let me know at my talk page. :) It doesn't have to be revision deleted now, although with content this extensive I think it needs to be removed eventually. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference - the old version is here, which could probably be rewritten. I will put it on my list for the revision of this family. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy[edit]

I think this page will work best in combination with Amaryllidaceae if it is the primary source for Amaryllidaceae s.s. (pre APG) and Amarylloidoideae (post APG), while Amaryllidacea treats the s.l. usage (post APG) as is more of a summary page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amaryllidoideae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061004033711/http://bulbsociety.org:80/ to http://www.bulbsociety.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]