Disputatio:Pisaster ochraceus

Situs scientifici[fontem recensere]

What's with these formulas? Should we be adding them to every taxon? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:47, 18 Martii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so; they do provide a relatively reliable source of taxonomic information. Is there something you don't like about them? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:56, 18 Martii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, just wondering. Did we discuss them in the Taberna? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:01, 19 Martii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last discussion was at Disputatio usoris:Lesgles#Cuminum_cyminum. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:29, 19 Martii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I wasn't entirely sure whether that was a private project or you were inviting others to barge in. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:51, 19 Martii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barge away! :) Lesgles (disputatio) 19:17, 20 Martii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that earlier discussion I said I was adding these formulae to all plant pages. So I was, but I haven't had time recently to continue that blanket coverage. My estimate is that I had done about a third. As expanded by Lesgles, the formula is now suitable for animals as well as plants, at any taxonomic level, and, yes, by all means, add it to any appropriate page.

It draws information from Wikidata, so the benefit it brings to a new page will be visible as soon as you make the Wikidata link. On an existing page, already linked, it will take effect the moment it's added. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 21 Martii 2018 (UTC)[reply]