Talk:Haworthia
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Unnecessary removal of substantial material
[edit]Removal of a picture that is NOT in a gallery and IS material to the article instead of moving the picture or dropping a note to the talk page if its position happens to offend you, is not only discourteous but disruptive. I realise that we have some Wikilawyers who are only in the game to see how much harm they can get away with, but good-faith editors should not support their efforts by adopting their practices. JonRichfield (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed that the position of the picture was in violation of MOS:IMAGES in that it sandwiched text. This can cause very strange layout on devices with smaller screens, which are increasingly used to access Wikipedia, so there are very good reason for the advice in the MOS. Thus there were two choices: (a) move the image right (b) remove the image. Exactly that image was already in the gallery at the bottom of the section, so I removed it rather than move it right. I don't see that my action was either discourteous or disruptive. You moved it right, which is fine (your edit summary says you reverted my edit, but actually you didn't), but you left the same image in the gallery, so I've now removed it. The end result is the same: no sandwiching, no duplicated image. So hopefully we're both happy. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Great article
[edit]Just a friendly, curious botanist stopping in to say this is a fantastic plant genus article. If I were more Wiki savvy I would try to model some of my favorite genera after Haworthia's article. ThumYorky (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Citations in the "Subdivisions" section
[edit]I'm unsure if the sentence, "Because of their horticultural interest, its taxonomy has been dominated by amateur collectors, and the literature is rife with misunderstanding of what the taxa actually are or should be.
" requires a citation. Same with "In recognition of the polyphyletic nature of the genus, Haworthiopsis and Tulista have been split off.
", as the Species section provides sources for that claim.
Would also like to note that the Taxonomy section of the Haworthiopsis article cites sources that could be relevant to this article as well.
Sparechair (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)