User talk:Michael Goodyear/Archive 8

2013

Well done improving the prostituion articles again

Once again you've done an outstanding job improving the prostiution articles. The improvement you did on Prositution in Zimbadwe is more than my abilities would permit due to my lack of education or wit to improve it. I dunno if you would be interested but Prostitution in Asia could do with some improvement.

added by Dwanyewest (talk) 20 March 2013

Still interested in History of Anatolia?

Hello. Would you be interested in editing Ancient Anatolians? I wanna improve the article, but I couldn't get around to it yet. There is also a great source: [1]. Cavann (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, feel free to contact me if you are interested again. Cavann (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These articles could do with your expertise

Since you seem so knowledgeable in articles about the sex industry there are many articles in dire need of improvement but some I think just need expansion with the sources provided these following articles I think would be decent with your expert hand. I believe there are enough sources to at least make them decent Prostitution in Guinea-Bissau, Prostitution in Malaysia ,Prostitution in Sri Lanka.Dwanyewest (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However there are a very large number of pages on prostitution by country, most of them very poorly written, and often hijacked to be a page on trafficking. Furthermore they are moving targets. I just revamped Prostitution in Israel.

Jineterismo or Prostitution in Cuba

Jineterismo used to be Prostitution in Cuba which title do you think is better or should the articles be split into two different articles what do you think.Dwanyewest (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish translation

Hi If you put the following in the wiki search box it comes up: category:science articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia Hope this helps, English Fig Hello, Just to let you know that your user page is listed on the page "science articles needing translation from Spanish wikipedia", it's the only M article that awaits translation. I'm assuming this is a mistake, but thought I'd contact you to check. Regards, English Fig

resolved--Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on Hippeastrum

I've been following your useful additions to the Hippeastrum article.

It's not quite right to have the subtitle "Separation from Amaryllis" over the material which is there now. The logical steps here are:

How many genera are there? Herbert established that there should be two: one for the African species and one for the South American species.
What should each genus be called? This in turn depends on two questions:
1. Where did the type specimen of Linnaeus's Amaryllis come from? From South Africa or from South America? If the former, then Herbert was right to coin a new genus name for the South American species. If the latter, then the South American species should be called Amaryllis and a new name is needed for the African ones. For years this was debated, but was settled by a resolution of an IBC, and Amaryllis is now correct only for the African species.
2. Given that the South American species need a new name, what should it be? Herbert muddied the waters by provisionally proposing Leopoldia before settling on Hippeastrum; others used Hippeastrum while not noticing that Leopoldia had earlier been validated, so by strict priority the South American species should have been Leopoldia Herb.. Again this is now settled since an IBC decided to conserve both names in their common uses.

I think that the early "taxonomy" material and your "etymology" material really needs working together into one connected thread; at present it's a bit repetitive. However, all this complexity is not easy to write about as I found when I first started doing it! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a work in progress, Peter, Thanks for your suggestions. I have made a lot of changes today. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it is that complicated, except to the complete newcomer who will probably skip this section. Especially now that we have provided pretty well all the source documents and commentaries. I tweaked the titles. Well there were about a dozen genera! And had it not been for Uphof, the problem might not have arisen. herbert certainly muddied the waters by using Leopoldia for many different genera at different times, and the claim to the current taxon lies only in a footnote.

I still think that taxonomy and etymology are distinct, and to mix them would obfuscate their messages. I agree with the repetitiveness - introduced recently by another editor, and I have fixed that. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, and only just seen your revisions. Excellent work. Some points:

The subheading "Separation of Hippeastrum from Amaryllis and subsequent debate over respective nomenclature" isn't really in the standard WP style (to be honest it's very clumsy). I think "Separation from Amaryllis" would be enough.

Agree. I think the Uphof debate is really a separate topic, and has been treated as such by others. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology is not really catered for in the WP:PLANTS template, so if present, it ends up in different places. In general, it seems to me that it's best put first – the "ordinary" reader may well be interested in what the name means, but isn't interested in all the taxonomy. But in this specific case, the etymology and the history of the name are so tied up that I think your placement is best.

I also thought they would be two separate audiences - I was guided by the template including etymology under taxonomy --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your re-assessment as "High"; it doesn't seem to me that it fits with the other articles in this category or what it was meant for. "Mid" is right, I think.

With some more tweaks here and there, it should definitely be a GA. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am systematically working through it and fact checking and checking citations --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Hello, Mgoodyear. You recently edited the disambiguation page Fimbria; your edit summary said, "Clarify - add ref - wikify". Disambiguation pages are not articles, they are navigation aids, and as such they have a particular style. Among other things, each bullet should feature only one navigable link, and the page should not have references. See MOS:DAB for more details. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

then I will add it to Glossary of botanical terms instead --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hippeastrum GAN

Hi! I have started reviewing this article that that you nominated for GA status. Please respond soon to my comments so that we can go on with the review. Thanks, Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hippeastrum

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hippeastrum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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) 15:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Underway --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]