Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Banksia

message: Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as , , ...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place  (or worse ), now you can simply use , likewise for  and  → .
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
*
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template talk:Citation#Implementation|Citation templates now support more identifiers]]

message: The template  produces the same quality ratings for this project as for the general WP:PLANTS, i.e. ratings using this template appear in the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Assessment. However, looking at some of the articles, my impression is that the quality ratings for Banksia articles are rather low, compared tot WP:PLANTS as a whole. E.g. if it had a WP:PLANTS template, I wouldn't hesitate to change Ecology of Banksia from C to B. Am I over-impressed or is this project too harsh in its ratings? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We only have a couple of members, so we self-assess, and when self-assessing it is wise to be conservative. With respect to ecology of Banksia, this article was written before Dryandra was merged into Banksia, so the ecology article only reflect the ecology of about a third of the species. I think it was downgraded from B to C at that time. Hesperian 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with hesp - my rule of thumb is 'B' is fully sourced and comprehensive (i.e. striking distance of GA), C is with chunks un-inline reffed or some sizeable holes around, but cover most material...etc. Don't forget, many articles rate 'B' were rated before inline referencing was widespread and before there was a 'C' category, so many 'B's that are not fully inlined should really be Cs Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly don't wish to disagree with you two, and I now see the reason for a C for Ecology of Banksia. On the subject of B rated articles, I've skimmed some of those in WP:PLANTS (list here) and I agree that there are a few which are over-rated (e.g. Perilla was rated B until I reduced it to C). Compared to some other areas of Wikipedia, I think that plant editors are rightly quite tough, but we perhaps need to be careful not to get too tough. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings for WP:BANKSIA 

message: The taxonomy of this species complex is being discussed in this paper, with implications for a number of articles within the scope of WP:BANKSIA. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk)  21:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha/well spotted! - glad to see this come out. I've spoken with 3 of the 4 authors about it....now to go read.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banksia neoanglica, Banksia spinulosa sensu stricto and Banksia cunninghamii 

message: I ran across this paper on style morphology while checking up on Banksia grossa: Ladd, Alkema & Thomson, 1996. It doesn't appear to be cited for any Banksia articles, and while microscopic carpel architecture may be a bit much for a typical Banksia article, the abstract suggests it discusses the implications for pollinator specificity as well. Choess (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did check that one before but it focusses on morphology at a very small level. I must have missed the bit on pollinators  - I didn't think there was much on that but might have missed something useful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw the abstract, so if you've already seen it, there's probably not much to it. Choess (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in (a) style? 

message: This discussion is of interest to this project: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_24#Category:Banksia_redirects. Cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  fyi 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015
As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:
* indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course) 
* add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it
 
It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au 
We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to watch the football finals instead :-) Kerry (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015 

message: Banksia Woodlands of the Swan Coastal Plain has just been declared "Endangered". Hesperian 03:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ....oh dear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: we've been aware of the this threat for the last 9 years :File:Menziesii threats 01 gnangarra.jpg Gnangarra 00:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  endangered woodlands 

message: Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest.    It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish.  Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest 

message: Hi Folks its been while but thanks to Wikimedia Australia as part of another project I was able to revisit the site where the Banksia telmatiaea type species was collected by Alex George. Some of you may remember this one created a bit of a ripple that ended back with George due to the significant variance between the plant in Kings Parks propagated from seeds he collected to the plant in its natural location(as an side to that the plant wasnt in the KP banksia garden a couple of weeks ago).  Back in 2007 during the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia telmatiaea the question was asked by Melburnian why is this called the swamp fox banksia, in particular the "fox" aspect, there was no source that explained it for this or the Fox Banksia B. sphaerocarpa. I think a couple of these photographs demonstrate the reason for the "fox" component in the name as being from a visual characteristic dur the middle stages of flowering. Gnangarra 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work  Gderrin (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the great new photos - yes, I can see a resemblance to fox-tail shapes in the flower buds. But looking at the Banksia sphaerocarpa article it says: "Three weeks before the flowers open, the spikes develop a strong musky smell" I'm now wondering if the original "fox" reference was to this smell perhaps being thought to be similar to the musky smell of foxes? Melburnian (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt notice any smell when taking photos but I wasnt specifically taking any notice either. Gnangarra 06:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banksia telmatiaea 

message: Banksia taxa are were, as far as I can see, the largest single group of plant articles that still used manual taxoboxes. I have been working through them converting to automated taxoboxes (i.e.  or  as appropriate). As far as I could I have retained the display of ranks between genus and species that were in the original manual taxobox, although
*the number present is inconsistent; some species articles only have the genus Banksia, others have up to subseries, series, section and subgenus (personally I don't think that species articles need all these)
*the classification system used seems mostly to be George (1999), but not always; in taxonomy templates I have tried to keep to George (1999).
Please adjust the taxonomy templates if you think my classification isn't right. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the taxonomy templates I needed to create or use to automate the existing taxoboxes are listed below. The classification is based on that in Taxonomy of Banksia, which I think is based on George (1999), unless otherwise noted below. The taxonomy templates need to have  completed. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Automatic italicization now works for botanical names with connecting terms; it's no longer necessary to add any kind of manual italicization. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated taxoboxes 

message: I'm aware that right now page titles like the one at Banksia subser. Longistyles are incorrectly italicized. They can be forced to be correct manually, as at Banksia subser. Banksia, but I am working on changes to  which will fix this either automatically or in a simpler way. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Automatic italicization now works for botanical names with connecting terms; it's no longer necessary to add any kind of manual italicization. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrectly italicized page titles

message: I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
*John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
* John Smith "" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from ,  and .
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
-  Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  User script to detect unreliable sources 

message: ===FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject===
  Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

message: Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

message: Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a  parameter to , which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to , and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass  a new  parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-independent quality assessments