![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
All of my gardening books classify
Hippeastrum to the family "
Amaryllidaceae", not
liliaceae , altough it is clear that it is not part of the genus "Amaryllis". Also there is a discrepancy between the articles
Hippeastrum and
Amaryllidaceae in this matter. Can somebody clarify? --
Chino 09:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The extremely dense text in the section "Reproductive biology" (needs trimming for wikipedia and) shows considerable text similarity to Graham, S.W.; Barrett, S.C.H. (2004).
"Phylogenetic reconstruction of the evolution of stylar polymorphisms in Narcissus (Amaryllidaceae)". American Journal of Botany. 91 (7): 1007–1021.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) I have not done an extensive search for other possible sources.
Nadiatalent (
talk)
12:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The evolution section has copied sentences from Meerow, A.W.; Fay, M.F.; Guy, C.L.; Li, Q.-B.; Zaman, F.Q.; Chase, M.W. (1999).
"Systematics of Amaryllidaceae based on cladistic analysis of plastid sequence data". American Journal of Botany. 86 (9): 1325–1345.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link).
Unless this is cleaned up very soon, I will delete considerable chunks from these two sections. Nadiatalent ( talk) 14:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that we could fix this, and I'll try to snip away at it over the next couple of weeks. However, I think that anyone, including non-native speakers should understand that copying and pasting chunks of text is not acceptable. Translation of copyrighted material is also not acceptable without permission from the copyright holder. If people from the Barrett lab see what wikipedia has done with the product that they have worked so hard to create (and I'd bet that they have seen it), they will surely conclude that wikipedia is a menace to society. For that reason I'd like to send an email message to Dr Barrett (and perhaps others). Ideally that would be after it has been fixed, something along the lines of "we've cleaned this up, if you know of any more plagiarism of your work in wikipedia, help is available to clean that up too". Nadiatalent ( talk) 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
So would you alert him as well? Some of the professional scientists might have access to software that could help to detect further examples, such as Turnitin, but I still think that it would be good to wait until after we've made some serious headway in cleaning this up before what amounts to asking them for assistance. I don't know whether Turnitin tries to detect translation plagiarism ... Nadiatalent ( talk) 19:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that some copying was discovered and worked on above, but considerable copied content remains - see [1], for instance, and [2]. I'm afraid that all of this content was added by User:EnCASF in this series of edits. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this page will work best in combination with Amaryllidaceae if it is the primary source for Amaryllidaceae s.s. (pre APG) and Amarylloidoideae (post APG), while Amaryllidacea treats the s.l. usage (post APG) as is more of a summary page. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 18:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Amaryllidoideae. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
All of my gardening books classify
Hippeastrum to the family "
Amaryllidaceae", not
liliaceae , altough it is clear that it is not part of the genus "Amaryllis". Also there is a discrepancy between the articles
Hippeastrum and
Amaryllidaceae in this matter. Can somebody clarify? --
Chino 09:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The extremely dense text in the section "Reproductive biology" (needs trimming for wikipedia and) shows considerable text similarity to Graham, S.W.; Barrett, S.C.H. (2004).
"Phylogenetic reconstruction of the evolution of stylar polymorphisms in Narcissus (Amaryllidaceae)". American Journal of Botany. 91 (7): 1007–1021.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) I have not done an extensive search for other possible sources.
Nadiatalent (
talk)
12:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The evolution section has copied sentences from Meerow, A.W.; Fay, M.F.; Guy, C.L.; Li, Q.-B.; Zaman, F.Q.; Chase, M.W. (1999).
"Systematics of Amaryllidaceae based on cladistic analysis of plastid sequence data". American Journal of Botany. 86 (9): 1325–1345.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link).
Unless this is cleaned up very soon, I will delete considerable chunks from these two sections. Nadiatalent ( talk) 14:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that we could fix this, and I'll try to snip away at it over the next couple of weeks. However, I think that anyone, including non-native speakers should understand that copying and pasting chunks of text is not acceptable. Translation of copyrighted material is also not acceptable without permission from the copyright holder. If people from the Barrett lab see what wikipedia has done with the product that they have worked so hard to create (and I'd bet that they have seen it), they will surely conclude that wikipedia is a menace to society. For that reason I'd like to send an email message to Dr Barrett (and perhaps others). Ideally that would be after it has been fixed, something along the lines of "we've cleaned this up, if you know of any more plagiarism of your work in wikipedia, help is available to clean that up too". Nadiatalent ( talk) 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
So would you alert him as well? Some of the professional scientists might have access to software that could help to detect further examples, such as Turnitin, but I still think that it would be good to wait until after we've made some serious headway in cleaning this up before what amounts to asking them for assistance. I don't know whether Turnitin tries to detect translation plagiarism ... Nadiatalent ( talk) 19:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that some copying was discovered and worked on above, but considerable copied content remains - see [1], for instance, and [2]. I'm afraid that all of this content was added by User:EnCASF in this series of edits. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this page will work best in combination with Amaryllidaceae if it is the primary source for Amaryllidaceae s.s. (pre APG) and Amarylloidoideae (post APG), while Amaryllidacea treats the s.l. usage (post APG) as is more of a summary page. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 18:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Amaryllidoideae. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)