Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of commelinid family names with etymologies/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of commelinid family names with etymologies

Featured list candidates/List of commelinid family names with etymologies/archive1

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because ... I could really use the feedback on this major undertaking. I never know what people are going to want to talk about most, so I'll keep this intro short until I get a better sense of what the big issues are (if any), then I'll add that discussion to the intro. Enjoy! - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Almost forgot: thanks to Jts1882 for creating both of the cladograms. - Dank (push to talk) 11:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Oops ... a reviewer didn't like the cladograms for this particular list (they'd prefer a simpler format), so the cladograms are now gone. I'm open to taking another look at this issue anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I know what I want to add to this intro. It hasn't escaped my attention that some readers will look at this list and say "I don't understand ... this appears to be a list that's trying to describe some plants, but those are the most incomplete plant descriptions I've ever seen. What's the point?" I'm not wedded to these descriptions ... we could do a little more ... but:

I tried several times to write about leaves and flowers, but these tend to vary a lot within any large family. It's like saying "Be on the lookout for a white or black male, short or tall, with dreadlocks or bald". It's easier to describe a subfamily, a tribe or a genus ... but that would be more appropriate in a different list, maybe one that has a separate row for each tribe. I look forward to collaborating on that some day.
Many of Wikipedia's science-y articles are a bit overwhelming to people who are intelligent and interested in the material, but lack the necessary background. This is what attracted me to WP:FLC many years ago ... I saw a lot of lists that served very nicely as readable introductions to a subject, without sacrificing accuracy, dumbing the subject down or talking down to people. My hope is that this list series will eventually succeed in some of the same ways. We'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: I've changed the name of the next list to List of lilioid monocot family names with etymologies, and proposed a similar name change for the alismatids ... if people are on board with both of those, then after this FLC concludes, I'll be changing the name of this list to List of commelinid family names with etymologies. Thoughts are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board with it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

My only comment is that there's a lot of duplicate links on non-woody, bracts, etc. As this isn't a sortable list, I don't think the terms need to be linked every time....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. The Notes column isn't sortable, but all the other columns are ... so wouldn't that move the rows up and down, which would require adding links to each row? - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - D'oh - I hadn't noticed that, my apologies. In that case support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility comment

I don't have an accessibility concerns about the table, but I do have one about the cladograms: the orange text (which to be fair I just added, since you had it with the alismatids highlighted in green instead of this clade) is not accessible against a white background. I checked darkorange as well and it isn't much better; I think you need to switch to darkred or another dark color for it to be parseable. I know you have this cladogram in a few different articles/lists, so I'll leave it up to you which color to switch to. --Pres N 21:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went with basic black. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson input

Good start! First round thoughts in no particular order:

Don't wikilink section headers; referring to Cladograms which is Wikilinked.
- Removed, per your request below. - Dank (push to talk)
Make the "sentences" before each cladogram actual sentences. Currently, they are: [see what I did there?]
- Removed.
I think lists work best when they are simple, consistent, and the reader knows what to expect and where to expect it. I think a paragraph of prose within a list doesn't work; as a reader, that's not what I'm expecting from a list. I want a quick reference so I can either quickly compare what is in the list or an ability to quickly identify what article I am seeking. When I was working on the one I did last year, I had so much detail at first. It's laughable how long it took to load in my sandbox. More ideas on how to keep important items in the list but not make readers' eyes gloss over in a bit.
- I'm not sure I follow ... most Featured Lists include paragraphs. But I just created an extra column and moved distribution info out of Notes and into that new column, so there's that. Per feedback in the previous list in this series, I moved the etymology information into the Notes column; I can give details if you want them.
Look at it in the app on a phone, particularly one like an iPhone 8 with a smaller screen. Use portrait mode, not landscape. The image column is not what you want it to be and it looks sloppy.
This may be a shortcoming of the app, the app and {{CSS image crop}} not playing well together, an inability of {{CSS image crop}} to deal with the squished column rendered on the small screen, or something else. You may have to work around it or even use something other than {{CSS image crop}}. I don't know.
- Thanks much, I had missed that it wasn't working on smart phones. I've increased the "min-width", and the images now display correctly on my iPhone and in small windows on my laptop, in both mobile view and desktop view. Let me know if it's not working for you.
Regarding images in a table, I think the best look is to have the images all the same height and width. The second best is the same width even if heights are different, but because they are in one column, that can look messy both in a browser and in the app, as mentioned.
- I don't think I follow ... all the images in the table should be the same width, 120px. Are they not?
Possibly separate the images into two columns.
- I did that initially in the first list in the series and had to go back and change it; it failed miserably on smart phones and in smaller windows.
Possibly have only one image, which might be the best option.
- That's pretty much the opposite of the advice I've gotten so far. When possible, the left images focus on the flowers, and the right images focus on habit and habitat. Almost none of the images do a good job of displaying everything.
It took me too long to figure out what the column "Genera for the order and family" is telling me. Three facts are cramped into one column: the order the family is in, the total number of genera in that order, and the total number of genera in this family. I think "Order" would be a good column by itself, the number of genera in the order, while interesting, may be out of scope; the number of genera in the family is interesting and deserves its own little column. (If your columns are simple and your header is "Order", then "order" doesn't need to be in each row; another column "Number of genera" would not need anything but the number.)
- Order column: done. I moved the number of genera to the first column.
saving then will continue...

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought on the number of genera in the order is it could be a maintenance and consistency issue between the order articles and the family list. Further, if the Order and Number of genera [in family] columns are broken up, each could be sortable.
- See below.
From "Notes" column, "Etymology", "Distribution and habitat" [brief], and [super short] "Description" could each be a column. "Notes" could include things like "One species, Syngonanthus nitens, is used in handicrafts."
- See below.
Nothing in the columns needs to be in a complete sentence, so articles and other nonessential words could be left out to save space.
I didn't know there was a whole family of prayer plants!
Add a Legend.
- I should be finished with this in a few minutes.
Add prose for the cladograms describing them (not in the form of an alt like for an image, but as if each cladogram were an article, if that makes sense). You could change the section to "Classification" because it ought to cover a bit more than the cladograms. They need an introduction. See List of Symphyotrichum species#Classification for one example, but I'm sure there are many other better examples.
- Removed.
Okay, that's all for now.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move the cladograms before the list and below the Key/Legend.
- Removed. Thanks for everything. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Longer replies to Elizabeth

Shorter replies will appear in-line above as I do them.
The big problem is that I can only make a small change to the table column format ... I don't think it's going to cause any problems to add one column, and I'll get to work on that now ... probably best would be a "distribution" column (but I'll have to test it). Adding more than one will cause an accessibility problem ... let me explain. PresN and I struggled with the formats for a while at User:Dank/Sandbox/9 and on his talk page. I need 120% zoom for my less-than-perfect vision ... a lot of people do. When you crowd in two images and lots of columns at 120%, and add the "min-width" parameters that will avoid significant problems with the display on smaller screens, it starts crowding the "notes" column to the point where you'll have a tall, thin notes column and lots and lots of white space, and usually the images start jumping around too. ~~So, I think I probably won't need the Legends table ... that's a good suggestion when you have a lot of narrow columns, but I won't.~~
I'd probably rather keep the cladograms after the table ... but it's your call. I'm a believer in not creating pages in article-space unless the pages serve an actual purpose. The purpose of this list is to make some botanical things easier to read for non-botanists. If the reader wants to wade through a sentence that begins "The orders of monocots based on molecular phylogenetic evidence according to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group IV", great, but this list is for readers who might not understand a single word in that sentence ... but who do understand things like flowers, leaves, species, genera, and basic geography, and who are willing to dig in and try to understand a bit more. So ... I can put the cladograms before the table, but if I do that, most of the explanation for what the cladograms mean will have to go into notes that follow the table. If you're on board with that, tell me, and I'll make the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just skip it for now. Do the cladograms need to be in the list article? Wouldn’t they be more appropriate for the clade article (or others of your choosing)? I’m on my phone and preparing for sleep soon without plans to open my laptop again, so I can’t look at it well right now. But I wonder if they could just be moved out if you want to keep it simple. I do like the idea of making this available to a wide audience. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's what you'd prefer, it's not a problem, I've removed them. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of a legend table would be to allow you to use abbreviated/shortened headers in the main table and give explanations in the legend Table. Number of genera could be called Genera but a legend and even tooltip could explain the detail of that column. This could make skinny columns. Also, consider just one image. The two take up valuable column space. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need 133% in my browser, btw, so I can relate. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, finally! When I discussed this at WT:FLC years ago people looked at me like "What is he on about?" All your suggestions sound sensible, btw ... I'm going to be conservative in my first set of edits (I don't want to keep redo-ing) then put the ball back in your court ... ~~I'm really not sure about the legend, so it won't make the cut for the first set of edits, but if you still want it later on we can add it.~~ - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E replies

Image line up problem

I hear what you are saying about having two images, and it was immediately noticeable to me that the first one is intended to be a close-up of an inflorescence or related, and the other farther away/habit. On images, now I see what's happening and making it mess up (although the "why" is above my pay grade). I'll show it with bits of code that work and those that don't, and I'll explain what I see in the browser compared to the Wikipedia app. I think the fix is simple and may not change what the browser user sees.

Code for some that work... it just uses standard [[File:]].

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Costus pictus]]'' <br/>[[File:Costus_pictus_01.jpg|alt="Costus pictus"|120px|''Costus pictus''|left]] [[File:Costus_malortieanus_004.jpg|alt="Costus pictus"|''Costus pictus''|120px|right]]

and

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Dasypogon bromeliifolius]]''<br/>[[File:Dasypogonbromeliifolius11478493874 274a47fb41 o.jpg|120px|''Dasypogon bromeliifolius''|alt="Dasypogon bromeliifolius"|left]] [[File:Dasypogon bromeliifolius 27452923429 b80d2f0332 o.jpg|120px|alt="Dasypogon bromeliifolius"|''Dasypogon bromeliifolius''|right]]

and

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Ecdeiocolea monostachya]]''<br/>[[File:Ecdeiocolea monostachya - Flickr - Kevin Thiele.jpg|120px|''Ecdeiocolea monostachya''|alt="Ecdeiocolea monostachya"|left]] [[File:Ecdeiocolea monostachya - Flickr - Kevin Thiele (1).jpg|120px|alt="Ecdeiocolea monostachya"|''Ecdeiocolea monostachya''|right]]

and so on all work fine. What they show in the app on my iPhone 8 in that column is species name with link, then below that the first image with caption (which shows up as a tooltip in a browser on my MacBook Pro – I use Firefox), then below that the second image with caption (same tooltip note for browser).

The ones using {{CSS image crop}} do not. Here is what happens, depending on which one uses that template.

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Areca catechu]]''<br/>
{{CSS image crop
|Image         = Betel tree.jpg
|bSize          = 150
|cWidth        = 120
|oLeft           = 20
|Location      = left
|Alt               = ''Areca catechu''
}}
[[File:Areca catechu 2.jpg|120px|alt="Areca catechu"|''Areca catechu''|right]]

and

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Bromelia pinguin]]''<br/>
{{CSS image crop
|Image         = Tem aspecto de tecido essa bromelia.jpg
|bSize          = 120
|cHeight        = 180
|oTop           = 0
|Location      = left
|Alt               = ''Bromelia pinguin''
}}
[[File:Bromelia pinguin.JPG|120px|alt="Bromelia pinguin"|''Bromelia pinguin''|right]]

for example, show the first images moved left about 50% and slightly higher, showing their "placeholder" boxes, which you can actually see. In dark or light mode, the "placeholder" box is gray. The whole thing is quite ugly, although a bit interesting.

If the second image uses {{CSS image crop}} rather than the first (I think there are only two that are like this), a similar thing occurs, but no "placeholder" box shows and the image is moved 50% to the right.

| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Poa pratensis]]''<br/>[[File:20150515Poa pratensis4.jpg|120px|''Poa pratensis''|alt="Poa pratensis"|left]]
{{CSS image crop
|Image         = Poa pratensis (3883809159).jpg
|bSize          = 180
|cWidth        = 120
|oLeft           = 10
|Location      = right
|Alt               = ''Areca catechu''
}}

In all instances where {{CSS image crop}} is used, there is no caption to the image. The species name with Wikilink is still above the images, as designed.

My recommendation is to cease using {{CSS image crop}}. I don't know its purpose, so I could be off base here. (Minor note of the copy/paste error for Poa pratensis... the alt in the CSS image crop says Areca catechu.)

Will save for now and let you look at that. Not sure I'm going to do anymore tonight. I haven't had a chance to dig into your replies.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing {{CSS image crop}} fixed this problem in the app; replaced all with basic [[File:]] usages. I also discovered that while a browser will follow the left and right parameter instructions regardless of the location of the [[File:]] call in the code, the app (at least my verson) will not; within a table cell, it puts left on top and right on bottom if and only if the left [[File:]] call in the code comes before the right one! Weird. Found one that was backwards in the code (the bananas) and had to switch them. Weird app quirks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found some free images of Thurnia sphaerocephala on iNat

Hey, Dank. I found some free images of Thurnia sphaerocephala on iNat. We don't currently have any (that I can see) for that species on Commons. You could use a couple for Thurniaceae instead of the other species if you wish (that's !not! a requirement for FL). If interested, I can upload them quite quickly. Assuming you'd want a bloom/inflorescence and plant/habitat. There are good photos of both with a Commons-compatible license. Let me know. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, yes please! - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are up and in the Commons Category Thurnia. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found some more free images on iNat

I have found Rapatea paludosa (flower and plant, and same size just like the Thurnia sphaerocephala ones you used), Costus pictus plant in the wild rather than a greenhouse, Areca catechu photos that you may want to peruse (the ones in the list are okay, but there may be some better ones), some really cool photos of a close up of the flower of Dasypogon bromeliifolius, possibly good photo of Ecdeiocolea monostachya in its habitat showing whole plant, can probably find a good image of Eriocaulon decangulare in its environment to replace the illustration if desired, an amazing set of Haemodorum corymbosum photos, can probably find a photo of Maranta arundinacea that is not a potted plant but is in the wild, possibly some portrait photos of Mayaca fluviatilis so they will be larger in the list, same of Strelitzia reginae, and hopefully same of Xyris gracilis. If interested, scream yes and I will work on these within the next day or so. I like to ~~waste~~spend time looking for and uploading images when my brain gets fried. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good calls I think. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image updates (I volunteer as tribute to do any adjustments to images as needed and as I suggest below, if you agree. Earlier, when I said images look best when they are the same size, with this list, the same size [as in perspective] per cell and portrait view will work best. Enjoy reading.)

Areca catechu – Cropped flower image from 4000×3000 px to 3170×3000 px. A crop of width will make the image appear taller in the table cell. It was only being used in this article, so I did not make a new file with the crop. Had various new images, but they are all low resolution, so I cropped the current second image off horizontally into a new file File:Areca catechu 2 (cropped).jpg. This will make both Areca catechu images appear the same size. If this doesn't work for you or doesn't show what you wanted, I'm sure there are other options.
Bromelia pinguin – Just some minor cropping here would suffice.
Canna indica – just needs cropping
Commelina communis – just needs cropping
Costus pictus – uploaded and cropped File:Costus_pictus_135367696_(cropped).jpg to make it the same perspective as the close-up currently in the cell. It looks like it's the best free image available for this species which shows a wider angle view of the plant but not in a pot or greenhouse. Let me know what you think.
Cyperus esculentus – just needs cropping
Dasypogon bromeliifolius – Check these out: File:Dasypogon bromeliifolius 28996254.jpg and File:Dasypogon bromeliifolius 28998701.jpg.
Ecdeiocolea monostachya – Well, I found this, and I may possibly be able to do some fancy editing to fade out the background just a bit so the plant shows up better. See what you think: File:Ecdeiocolea monostachya 217897442.jpg.
Eriocaulon decangulare – Three new options for the whole plant/habitat image: File:Eriocaulon decangulare 153997821.jpg, File:Eriocaulon decangulare 212330978.jpg, and File:Eriocaulon decangulare 218930694.jpg. Chosen image could be adjusted/cropped as needed.
Flagellaria indica – perfect; no uploads or suggested changes
Haemodorum corymbosum – six new 2,048 × 2,048 images in the middle at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Haemodorum_corymbosum; should be able to get a couple of good ones out of that, and if they show up too small, minor cropping for a change to portrait perspective could be done.
Hanguana malayana – not sure what to do here; the first image could be rotated 90 degrees into a new image, which I can do; I haven't sought a habitat/far away image yet.
Heliconia psittacorum – just needs cropping
Joinvillea ascendens – ... Not sure what do do here yet; could possibly crop in to the inflorescence of this image File:Joinvillea ascendens 2 (scott.zona).jpg (into a new file) so it would show better. What do you think?
Juncus acutus – These two images are great. Some minor horizontal cropping on first image and vertical on second image may bring them to same size and enhanced viewing, with your input.
Orchidantha fimbriata – There were only a few observations of this plant and none had free images. On this one, too, some minor horizontal cropping on first image and vertical on second image may bring them to same size and enhanced viewing, with your input.
Maranta arundinacea – I found this but am not too pleased with it: File:Maranta arundinacea 637116.jpg.
Mayaca fluviatilis – New File:Mayaca fluviatilis 153929932.jpg and rotate existing second image into a new portrait?
Musa acuminata – perfect; no uploads or suggested changes
Philydrum lanuginosum – File:Philydrum_lanuginosum_59076165.jpg new upload might work for second image.
Poa pratensis – just needs cropping
Pontederia cordata – just needs cropping
Rapatea paludosa – See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rapatea_paludosa. Five new images (last one in the commons category is a little tall, and if you notice, the one prior to that is a crop of it to make it the same perspective which would be the same size in a table cell as the other three).
Restio festuciformis – Uploaded two images that may represent the plant better; you tell me. If used, the first one (here: File:Restio festuciformis 53303901.jpg) could be cropped to portrait and the second one (here: File:Restio festuciformis 58266682.jpg) remain as is (or close to it).
Strelitzia reginae – See what you think of these: File:Strelitzia reginae 138543025.jpg and File:Strelitzia reginae reginae 165404365.jpg
Thurnia sphaerocephala – :) perfect
Typha latifolia – What do you think of this image for the first one to replace the one there? File:Hortus Botanicus Leiden grote lisdodde (Typha latifolia) (35687112584).jpg
Xyris gracilis – Found these three images (going to crop the black border off): File:Xyris gracilis 75638607.jpg, File:Xyris gracilis 75638617.jpg, and File:Xyris gracilis 75638614.jpg.
Zingiber officinale – Two new image options (not flowers – the one there is good): File:Zingiber officinale 230935597.jpg and File:Zingiber officinale 1123783.jpg.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, feel free to make the edits to the list as you see fit. (And if you'd like to find images for the asterids later on, you're welcome to do those too!) I clicked on all your links above and had no problems with them. I agree that the Maranta image is a hard call ... the existing image makes it easier to see the habit and individual leaves, but your image has the plants in a natural environment. Your call. I'm headed off to bed btw. - Dank (push to talk) 05:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would LOVE to ~~waste~~spend time finding images for the asterids when the time comes. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those images all look good, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you! All have been cropped to the proper proportions, replaced with cropped copies, or replaced with different photos. I replaced some images because the cropping adjustments couldn't be made easily – either the uncropped file size was too small, or the math was going to be too complicated. I just want to figure out how to do the bird of paradise one. I like both of those images, but they don't go well together in size. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More review from EEW

Restionaceae row citation to Bayton (currently number 57) gives a no target: CITEREFBayton error. Unless you define |ref= in the citation to use something other than author-date format (standard), {{Sfn}} calls without the year will give this error.
- Yes, it had that error for a short time while I was getting rid of the Bayton citations to deal with The_Ed's first point. It's fine now. - Dank (push to talk)
This leads into my next topic which is that I think using {{Sfn}} implies an author-date citation format. I have never seen a "just author" format, which is what is there now. However, I don't know that there is an actual "rule" about that (but would like to know). Standard {{Sfn}} formats would be

{{sfn|Givnish|Ames|McNeal|McKain|2010}}
{{sfn|Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew|2010}}
{{sfn|Christenhusz|Fay|Chase|2017|pp=175–211}}

and the |ref= parameter would not need to be defined. Currently in the article are

{{sfn|Givnish}}
{{sfn|Royal Botanic Gardens}}
{{sfn|Christenhusz|pp=175–211}}

and so on. If there is no date, n.d. is used in the |date= parameter of the Cite template. Other instructions exist in the template documentation for no author. I don't know if this article should all be changed or not, but I'd like to get other input on this for shortened footnote usage. Tagging a couple of people. I know Peter coxhead is familiar with shortened footnotes, and tagging Plantdrew because they know lots of things. :– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Happy to get input on anything from Peter and Plantdrew. - Dank (push to talk)

@Eewilson: as you probably know, the default "link name" for a shortened footnote is formed from up to the first four author last names plus the date. However, by including {{sfnRef}} in the actual reference, it's possible to use any arbitrary link name. So if you look at the entry in the current References section beginning "{{cite journal|last1=Givnish" it has |ref={{sfnRef|Givnish}}, thus allowing {{sfn|Givnish}} to link to it. This is most useful, in my view, for references to taxonomic databases like PoWO, where an author and certainly a date really don't make sense, but not needed for the Givnish et al. or Christenhusz et al. references. It just saves having to repeatedly type e.g. {{sfn|Givnish|Ames|McNeal|McKain|2010}}. I wouldn't myself bypass the default in such cases, and it could certainly be changed if you want. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peter coxhead. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the POWO short citations are telling me; what is the reader supposed to be looking for? Examples:

POWO, Arecaceae, Flora of Tropical East Africa.
POWO, Arecaceae, Flora of West Tropical Africa.
POWO, Bromeliaceae, Flora of West Tropical Africa.
POWO, Cannaceae, Flora of West Tropical Africa.
POWO, Cannaceae, Flora of Somalia.

I think that the family means go there. But why the flora source? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is at Note b. I can add something to the note if you like. This is the standard way the "loc=" parameter displays (and I believe loc= is required in cases like this by our citations guidelines.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be good to do |loc=Arecaceae, Flora of Tropical East Africa, for example, for each one. The |loc= parameter can have a url in it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, adding a link to |loc= is not required (unless it would be consistent among other citations in the article and is available and so on). However, it could be helpful to the reader in this case. Your call for now or for future reference. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EEW review of Alts (and captions)

In order to be accessible, the image alt should describe what you see, not be the name of what you see (unless that is not in a screen readable capion, then include it). See MOS:ALT. For example, [[File:Rice diversity.jpg|thumb|upright=1|Rice seeds|alt=rice seeds]] could instead be [[File:Rice diversity.jpg|thumb|upright=1|Rice seeds|alt=display box of rice seeds showing their color and size variety]] or possibly even more detailed alt=display box of various sizes and colors of rice seeds; brown, black, ivory, green, rust, and yellow seeds are shown. Each image should have a descriptive alt.

Example from the table for the image of the bloom for Areca catechu: |alt=the large yellow bloom of Areca catechu is dozens of long, thin, <<.... and fill in proper words to describe it>>.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption text in table is currenty the name of the species, which is already in the cell and wikilinked; in a browser (perhaps most browsers), if you hover over it, you see the caption. In the app (at least on my phone), it actually shows up as a caption below the image. The left one would be valuable saying "bloom" or "flower" or "close-up" or similar, and the right one as "leaves" or "growing habit" or similar. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not my call, but I'll bring this up with whoever does my image review and see what they say. FWIW, my Featured Lists (all with lots of plant images) have passed 12 image reviews so far. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but things can always get better, and we are about making Wikipedia better. Not that it's bad to have it the way you do. Just a suggestion. Keep in mind, though, that articles do not need to be consistent among each other (even articles in a "series"), just within. I'm a detailed reviewer. You did ask for my input. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to follow the recommendations of the source and image reviewers ... since I don't know who they'll be yet, I have no way of knowing (for sure) what they'll say. I know it's frustrating, but it would probably be better just to wait and see what they say, and then pick it up from there. - Dank (push to talk) 06:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, of course. Back to the Alts, though, are you thinking they don't need expansion? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm going to add more alt text, but this isn't working for me, Elizabeth, it's too much all at once. Let's wait and see what the source and image reviewers have to say, and then come back to this discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. I did it again. I know I get carried away and can be overwhelming. Peace? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now expanded all the alt text, added page ranges to Christenhusz for the two that didn't have them, added locations and links to IPNI, and added a note in the citations section (in addition to the existing note) to tell readers to click on "General information" at POWO after they search for the family name. Hopefully the source reviewer will find all this sufficient. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also see my reply to The_ed17 about Burkhardt and POWO. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For questions such as "did you look up the family or the order" and "where does the vernacular name come from", the answers will be immediately obvious to anyone reading those pages in the book: there's a section for each order with all the families in it, and each family name is immediately followed by a vernacular name. I'm not going to add text to that effect in the list itself; that would be patronizing (for readers who have the book, or can view the pages) or misleading and insufficient (for readers who don't have the book). (And sure, it's fine to reply to this ... in the course of working this morning, I realized that I had probably arrived at answers to the questions you were asking, so I went ahead and did everything I was comfortable doing, without waiting on the source review. Your thoughts are welcome.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean you added page numbers to Christenhusz, so that really answers that question. As long as the reader doesn't have to guess where to look. I should have been more clear that it's not about family or order, it's about what reference you used and where in the reference you obtained the information. I think The_ed17 and I were bringing up similar issues in different ways, and theirs was clearer. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about the bunched citations in the lead; I've removed two cites and narrowed the range for another. I don't think it makes sense to remove or move any more cites; the two main ones (Givnish and RBG) are just one page each. We can discuss further with whoever the source reviewer turns out to be, if you like. Have I covered everything you've brought up so far? - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EEW misc

Cite the facts in the Key section. Suggest having them in prose rather than bullet, or at least add a sentence leading into them.
- I have removed the two bullets in the Key. The remaining sentence doesn't need sourcing, and I've moved it to the Notes section.
Lead paragraph: a group of citations at the end of a long sentence or multiple sentences isn't sufficing. Cite closer to the facts each source represents.
- If you're saying there's something that needs to be sourced that isn't, I'm all ears. If you're saying my sourcing style is bad, let's run that by the source reviewer and see what they say. FWIW, my plant lists have passed 12 source reviews so far. Also FWIW, most of the feedback I've gotten on this and other Featured Lists has been in the other direction, asking me to bunch the citations when I wasn't doing that.
  - I think bunched citations make it harder to track down information. When MOS:CITE says cite close to the information, I take that to mean much closer than some do, especially for articles that contain scientific information. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations in the header of the main table are fine in general; however, they are not giving enough information to tell the reader where to get what they need (nor where you got the info).
- Example: the last column is cited simply "IPNI". Does the family search for the species? The family? What are they searching for and why? To find out what the type genus is? Needs clarity. I've done something like "POWO (2021), search for species name" as the citation note (with "search for species name" in the |loc= parameter). With IPNI, it's a bit more complicated because there could be more than one entry for a taxon name.
- Family: which citation gives which piece of data? Family name and that it is a member of the commelinids. Number of genera. Vernacular name.
- Notes: header cites POWO but it's unclear why.
- Order: in Christenhusz, did you look up the family or the order? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the subsection just above. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eewilson

Support: I support this moving to FL status. Thanks for the opportunity, Dan, and good work yet again. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly, glad you're happy with the result, and I hope to see you back at FLC soon in any capacity. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The ed17

Shouldn't refs 1, 2, 13, 19, 30, 41, and 58 have page numbers? WP:PAGENUM doesn't suggest that there's an exception for dictionaries or encyclopedias.
- I'll source all of those citations (except Givnish) to Christenhusz (page numbers are already listed for that) and Burkhardt (which is a single web page). The two remaining page-less citations to Christenhusz are column citations; AFAIK, this is in common use at FLC (and probably elsewhere) to mean "I'm going with this source for this information; see the individual rows for page citations as needed". But if someone objects on the basis that I'm now relying too heavily on Christenhusz, I may have to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies for adding all this work on your plate! There's two more left, I fear—#7 and #38, assuming the latter has page numbers. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I replaced Burkhardt with Christenhusz. POWO: I'm glad you brought that up. It was sourcing the number of genera, but it was going to be a pain to keep those numbers up to date, so those numbers and the bare POWO citation are now gone. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I hadn't thought about this, but yes, number of genera would have been a pain to maintain unless you put it on your calendar to check every year (ha!). I think it's still in the legend, btw. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does "clade" need to be used without explanation in the first sentence? I worry that the unfamiliar term makes the article less accessible for a general reader, forcing them to click through to learn what it is before navigating back here.
- Changed it to "a group of 29 interrelated ..."
Also on readability, I don't love the reference in the middle of the first sentence.
- Removed
"The coco-de-mer has the largest seed of any plant, at up to 30 kilograms (66 lb) ... – is it the largest or the heaviest? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "heaviest". Thx for taking a look, very helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Happy to help! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - One more thing (and if this is a problem, let me know): for Burkhardt in this list, and in future lists, for Coombes, Bayton and Quattrocchi (but not Stearn): to avoid the problem we had above about page numbers, I'll give the url for a page where the info can be found online, and use the "loc=" parameter instead of page numbers. In the 2020s, a lot more people get their pages from websites than from books, and it will also be easier for me (since, in any alphabetical reference work that shows up online, the most accurate and reliable location to give for an entry will always be the entry itself). - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sigh. Strike that; I've pulled Burkhardt again. All this stuff is now cited to Christenhusz again, with page numbers. I think I've covered everything you asked for now, but let me know if not. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks Dank! Supporting this on text/MoS. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. It was good to see you again and catch up a little bit. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partial image review

Per her talk page, the tool she used for the ones downloaded from iNaturalist won't download the image if it doesn't have a free license. Her alt text is right in line with the alt text for the other images. Eyeballing these, it's fairly easy to tell that the flowers and leaves are identical or nearly identical to the ones on Commons listed for these species. (Personally, I try to pull from Commons, iNaturalist is a bit above my pay grade.) All the files except for File:Pandanu helico 100623-4742 mms.JPG, File:Philydrum lanuginosum flower8 (16630603383) (cropped).jpg, File:Pontederia cordata 1 PP (cropped).jpg, File:Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden by ArmAg (34) (cropped).jpg and File:20150813Typha latifolia3 (cropped).jpg were imported using the iNaturalist tool, so it was mostly trivial to verify the licenses. Picture quality is good in all cases. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per her talk page, her position is that she's done an image review for the whole kit and caboodle ... I'm hoping that that plus my review of her images will be sufficient. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a note on the image review, I'm good with Eewilson's review plus your review back in turn for the images she added.
In general, I try not to get involved in discussions of the contents of nominated lists as a delegate (as opposed to as a reviewer, where it's more appropriate); that said, since Dan has been discussing these lists with me previously: I was a little concerned that the structure/format of these three lists has been changing so much over their FLCs, first that they weren't matching each other and then that they were changing even after promotion in the case alismatid list, but I think that (thanks to Dan being so aggressive about updating all three lists with every change) that it's ended up in a good spot. I prefer the current format to some of the others, and I think the clean, double-images look nice, so thank you Elizabeth.
I have two minor concerns, both of which I'll discount for this list in terms of promoting: one, that we've lost the explanation for why a particular species is the one with example images for the family (which was that it was a member of the type genus), though that's easily fixed by changing the legend from "Images" to something like "Images (member of type genus)" or something like that. It's not strictly necessary, but I think it'd be helpful. The other is that I dislike the "names with etymologies" titling scheme as being very wordy. I understand that you added it to get away from disagreements about what a list of "families" without qualification should include, but in the absence of any clear guidance from WP:PLANTS I think it's a reaction to a single reviewer's comments that could also have been solved by keeping the number of genera/species per family in the table. In the end, though, that's a content decision that I'm not going to try to be a gatekeeper on - I'm likely biased by working on lists of animals where there are dozens of species in a family, not thousands. Since you're navigating this space without PLANTS guidance and the reviewers don't seem to mind, I'm not going to make a fuss about the name.
Promoting. --Pres N 18:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.