Talk:Liliaceae

message: Many of the genera listed here are no longer included in the Liliaceae under more recent schemes, but have been divided into other families of orders Liliales and Asparagales. Liliaceae may include only 10 genera: Cardiocrinum, Erythronium, Fritillaria, Gagea, Lilium, Lloydia, Medeola, Nomocharis, Notholirion, Tulipa.Tom Radulovich 04:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally it suffices to both mention the latest research and at least a bit about how things were classified before (give a year when it changed). Sometimes wording like "molecular research shows that genera x, y, and z are more closely related to each other than w" is easier to cope with than "x should be in family y" (see WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV). Feel free to ask at WT:PLANTS if you'd like advice on specific situations. Kingdon (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hemerocallis, etc.

message: Why are there two pictures of Calla Lilies on this page? Wikipedia places them in the Araceae family, not this one. Precinct13 01:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I decided to be bold and move the pics. They are now on Araceae. Precinct13 01:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are there Calla Lillies?

message: The linked photo of an "orange lily" is not a true lily (Lilium) but rather a daylily, (Hemerocallis). Although this genus was previously classified in Liliaceae it would be less misleading to link to one of the true lilies, or at least a member of Liliaceae s.s., for this article. MrDarwin 15:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to a pic of Lilium martagon - MPF 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "orange lily"

message: I working on Lumber River State Park in North Carolina. One of the flowers that is mentioned in the state park website is the spider lily. What is the "official" name of this lily? Dincher 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this State Park is situated in North Carolina, the spider lily mentioned is probably the Carolina Spider Lily (Hymenocallis caroliniana). Description on the site of USDA . JoJan 14:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the help with the spider lilyDincher 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spider lily

message: I have treated Conanthera in Tecophilaeaceae
--Penarc 16:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tecophilaeaceae 

message: Someone removed Spanish language tag - this should remain till the Spanish article no longer contains material not on the English page --Michael Goodyear (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: now redundant - removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language tag 

message: Someone changed tepals to sepals. This is incorrect the perigon is poorly differentiated and has two whorls of petaloid tepals. If one insists on referring to sepals, then there are 3 maximum not six. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morphology 

message: Given that this is classed as of High Importance and a Vital Article, it should be upgraded to GA quality. Thye Spanish version which already has that status, would be a good starting point --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a start on upgrading it --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding subfamily stubs to deal with redlinks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is now more a C than a Start --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Warning: a number of plant articles which were expanded using the Spanish Wikipedia were removed by User:Moonriddengirl because they turned out to have been plagiarized. Amaryllidoideae is one example; a whole 65 kb article was removed, losing a lot of hard work put in by some editors. In this case I managed to salvage some of the material (see the page history).  I note that the page history of es:Liliaceae shows involvement by the editor who was responsible for the Amaryllidoideae plagiarism (EnCASF = CASF). So please be careful and check that text in the Spanish version isn't simply a translation from an English source. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

text: yes I am aware of that - so am checking the sources, and other language versions . In such cases a rewrite is far better than whole scale deletion --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  this shows the importance of working from multiple sources - I have checked the involvement of CASF with the Spanish page, and there are no significant contributions in the last 5 years --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good to know; it was just a warning. I agree that a rewrite is better, but Wikipedia policies require immediate deletion, it seems. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

text: We now have the outlines of a Good Article and can start preparing it for nomination. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: Thanks for recent suggestions at improvements but I wanted to illustrate each feature with an example drawn from the family - and tried to align them with the corresponding text. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: === Not even one interesting fact about the family Liliaceae? Hard to believe. ===
When you have something on the main page that is as interesting as the Liliaceae and you turn it into something completely different from another topic, you don't make me want to read the article, you just make me want to stop looking at the main page.
You couldn't find a single thing interesting about the Liliaceae, the family itself? 
This is the most disappointing DYK I have encountered, and considering the bad science in so many of them, that's quite an accomplishment. The Liliaceae is one of the most interesting families of plants, with great scientific research advancing our knowledge of the evolutionary relationships among the Liliaceae and closely related cladeds leading to an understanding of the evolution of the monocots, and this article can only offer a DYK about the tulip trade?
Here's the Tulip mania article for everyone else interested in that topic who got falsely lured to this article about the Liliaceae.
--AfadsBad (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know? Liliaceae 

message: When you have something on the main page that is as interesting as the Liliaceae and you turn it into something completely different from another topic, you don't make me want to read the article, you just make me want to stop looking at the main page.
You couldn't find a single thing interesting about the Liliaceae, the family itself? 
This is the most disappointing DYK I have encountered, and considering the bad science in so many of them, that's quite an accomplishment. The Liliaceae is one of the most interesting families of plants, with great scientific research advancing our knowledge of the evolutionary relationships among the Liliaceae and closely related cladeds leading to an understanding of the evolution of the monocots, and this article can only offer a DYK about the tulip trade?
Here's the Tulip mania article for everyone else interested in that topic who got falsely lured to this article about the Liliaceae.
--AfadsBad (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not even one interesting fact about the family Liliaceae? Hard to believe. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Liliaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hcmuaf.edu.vn/ctt/softs/phtqt/biotech2006/papers/nonghoc/DTNhut4.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Conc.converg.Liliales2002.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liliaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221173359/http://naturalhistoryofplants.com/ to http://naturalhistoryofplants.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Liliaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227010610/http://www.rhs.org.uk/Gardens/Wisley/About-Wisley/Plant-of-the-month/April/Erythronium--Pagoda- to http://www.rhs.org.uk/Gardens/Wisley/About-Wisley/Plant-of-the-month/April/Erythronium--Pagoda-
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201225700/http://francais.mcgill.ca/files/cine/EcoFoodNutr1983_13_199-219.pdf to http://francais.mcgill.ca/files/cine/EcoFoodNutr1983_13_199-219.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Liliaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924061105/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/gnlist.pl?652 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/gnlist.pl?652
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201153936/http://www.sunshineflowerbulbs.com/bulb_globalization.htm to http://www.sunshineflowerbulbs.com/bulb_globalization.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Didn't want to tag it since this is a good article, and can't try to update it because I don't know the family, but statement "For instance Amana is still listed separately in WCSP," the "still" is potentially dated. —Eewilson (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the sentence. Tom Scavo (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be properly sourced and  used (WCSP and PoWO accept Amana), but I think the difference between sources is made clear elsewhere in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dated statement