Talk:Cichorium endivia (PROTA)

From PlantUse English
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is a test to show how a PROTA page would look like in Pl@ntUse. The botanical name in blue constitutes a link to the main page of Pl@ntUse. Michel Chauvet (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2014 (CET).

The botanical name in blue could be 1 or 2 points larger. [Gaby]
I did it. I ignore if this can be done automatically. Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2014 (CEST).
Looks fine to me! Schmelzer (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2014 (CEST)

Please give your opinion within the relevant section. Begin your text with :, which will indent it.

Page titles

I put (PROTA) as a common argument. This solution is usual in Wikipedia to distinguish pages with the same title (which is not possible). If later we host other databases, the argument will be enough to distinguish them (e.g. : (PROSEA) !).Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2014 (CET).

Upper bar

I adapted the bar I use for books.

The colour is fine I think, as I had a look at the choice of colours. There are many, and it is true you need a bright one. It is a bit artificial.[Gaby]
I will ask my colleagues for paler colors.
I changed the colors (in English and French) by using the Wikipedia Web colors chart. I used PapayaWhip for orange, and Honeydew for green. I also put the logo, and I could recreate a French logo with Photoshop. Michel Chauvet (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2014 (CEST).
Yes, this is more 'natural' to the eye... Schmelzer (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2014 (CEST)
  • Is it relevant to put something at the left / right (previous / following species ? Michel Chauvet (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2014 (CET).
That (previous/following) would implicate the previous or next species in alphabetical order? That would be nice. I can also imagine that a button showing the letters of the alphabet on which one can click to go to the list of available species articles would be useful too.[Gaby]
The problem I see with the alphabetical order is : do we put the species which only have a starter kit ? As for a link to the list of species, you can click on the category name "PROTA". We can put a link to this category anywhere... Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2014 (CEST).
I put a link to the category "list of species". I think it is a good solution. Michel Chauvet (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2014 (CEST).
I do agree. Schmelzer (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2014 (CEST)

Star box

The 'star box' has been added thanks to a template and a table. This template will have to be improved, but it shows how it could look like. Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2014 (CET).

I like this! It would be nice to be able to edit the colour of the stars too.[Gaby]
What is the use of such colours ? Can you give me the link to a PROTA page with different colours ? Michel Chauvet (talk).
Sorry, I was not clear. I meant that behind each use there are coloured and non-coloured stars. I would like to be able to edit these stars, by adding colour or removing the colour, and so make it more or less important for a category. I can also imagine that there can be the need to add a use to the 'star box'. Would this be possible too? Schmelzer (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2014 (CEST)
OK. The star box is now a simple table. I wish to transform it into a template. All lines would appear in the Edit mode, such as "General importance = ". Just putting 1, 2, 3... will show 1, 2, 3... stars, and putting 0 will delete the line. I think this solution is quite simple. I can now ask a colleague to write the template (too difficult for me).
I created a template. When a line is empty, it doesn't appear. But we must put {{Stars3}} (if the number is 3), and not simply 3. Another tricky problem is that, although empty lines don't appear, they leave empty lines... Michel Chauvet (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2014 (CEST).

Show more buttons

Christian Cogneaux added elements in the protologue section, that we can delete or improve. We have to think about the usefulness of such data. A simple list of links could be enough, and more dynamic. Additional databases could be put as soon as they are available on line. Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2014 (CET).

As for the show more buttons, I think only several of these buttons are useful, and the one for the protologue does not seem to me as a relevant one. I think this information in the show more buttons should not be visible straight away in the text, but should be clickable with a link (or something like that). The text will become difficult to read if the tables would be visible permanently. Relevant show more buttons for me are: vernacular names,origin and geographic distribution, uses (but this should be edited, as there is also much 'non-info'). Other paragraphs on cultivation might only be useful if other information, than was harvested from Prosea, is found.[Gaby]
I do agree that only the cells with the actual information can be displayed in the show more table.[Gaby]
This will be difficult to edit automatically, as it involves a decision box by box. And putting it manually will be time-consuming. Let us think about it. Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2014 (CEST).
You mean for these show more boxes, it will be all-or-nothing for all paragraphs? I do not know whether it will take more time to delete not useful show-more boxes or just to add the relevant ones. I would prefer the first option, although it will be more work for the person who does the uploading. Schmelzer (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2014 (CEST)
Can you tell me for which sections the show more buttons are relevant, or for which they are not ? I guess that from Protologue to Synonyms, they are useless, as well as Botanical description. For Vernacular names, my personal feeling is that it brings a lot of unsourced and even false names, anf the interest is limited, above all for Africa.

Show more sources

My philosophy is that the species pages of Pl@ntUse could provide links to most databases. Data will not appear in boxes, but the links will go to the updated website. The limit is that links have to be put manually when species names are not part of the URL.

  • WAC: Broken link
  • MBG-IPCN : goes to Tropicos main page !
  • Inside Wood : doesn't work on 6 April 2014
  • PROSEA : is it really useful ? I guess PROTA improves and updates it. If we succeed to have PROSEA on board, it will be useless to put a link.
  • SEPASAL is indeed a good source, but I was unable to connect. Michel Chauvet (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2014 (CEST).
  • ZipcodeZoo is quite puzzling for me. It includes a lot of useless information, and very little about crops.

Show more content

I have not found the way to mask / display the texts with Mediawiki. One option is to put them in boxes with a distinct background colour, but they will then appear permanently.

Another option is that the Show more buttons link to a distinct page where such information is displayed. This could be good for edited pages. For starter kits, texts can well remain on the main page.

With SEPASAL, we face a strange situation. Their website is quite unaccessible, and PROTA would then become an open window to their texts. Will they be happy with that ? Michel Chauvet (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2014 (CEST).


Categories are a very useful tool to classify pages, as they are created automatically when adding them at the end of a page. An obvious category is PROTA, where we will have all the species articles. We can also put a category with the primary use of the species (Vegetables (PROTA) in this case). Categories can be further classified in supercategories, such as Use groups (PROTA). Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2014 (CET).

There are quite a number of species with more than one primary use. They can be classified into 2 (or more) categories, I presume.[Gaby]
No problem for that ! Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2014 (CEST).

Is there an interest in adding categories for secondary uses ? I think so, but it is not so easy. Michel Chauvet (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2014 (CEST).

Species quoted in other articles

A redirect page has to be created for each species, pointing to the page where it is presented. I suggest we add section titles in such pages, allowing to go exactly where the species is dealt with. Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2014 (CET).

I just did it with the three species included in Combretum padoides (PROTA). Simply copy the words Combretum exalatum (PROTA) in the search box, and you will see the result. By adding categories to the redirect pages, such minor species appear in the lists of species. Michel Chauvet (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (CET).
Looks very nice to me! But it is insiders knowledge to put (Prota) behind the species name in order to go to the right page. How can outsiders deal with this?[Gaby]
Pages must come with something like PROTA at the end of the title, because only one page can bear a given title. But in most cases, you simply need to type the first letters, and then scroll down the list to choose PROTA. People searching specifically for PROTA can also put a direct link to the category PROTA in their browser, and so the search is easy. See for example the Category:Species. Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2014 (CEST).
It might take some time for people to understand the system, but I understand it can only work like this. People interested in a particular species can then go to the different pages of the species in Pl@ntUse. Schmelzer (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2014 (CEST)


I suggest to add a provisional link to the Prota4U page, in order to facilitate comparisons and uploads. Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2014 (CET).

Perfect, thanks! Personally I would not add the paragraphs on Editors, assistant Editors, General Editors and Photo Editors. I see no use for it here. [Gaby]
You mean on each species page ? I just deleted them. I agree this can be found on introduction pages about the volumes, or in the subcategory. Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2014 (CEST).
Thanks! Schmelzer (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2014 (CEST)

I think it could be good to display the PROTA logo on all the pages. Gaby, could you send me a good image of it ? Michel Chauvet (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2014 (CET).

I will look for it now and send it. [Gaby]
Would the distribution maps be useful to include as well? [Gaby]
Of course, maps are useful. But they need a special upload procedure. I don't know if it can be done automatically. Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2014 (CEST).
I just added the logo. Are you happy with the result ? Michel Chauvet (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2014 (CEST).
Looks good to me, thanks. Perhaps a little larger, the size of the coloured strip? Schmelzer (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2014 (CEST)
I tried to enlarge the logo. But the result is not fully satisfactory, because it remains inside the bar, with some space below. I will ask.

I added the distribution map for Combretum padoides. Michel Chauvet (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2014 (CEST).


Section titles are quite big. I think the first ones (Protologue, Family and Chromosome number) can appear as simple lines below the scientific names. I did it. Do you agree ? Michel Chauvet (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2014 (CEST).

Yes I fully agree. That information belongs more to the 'basics' than the other sections. Schmelzer (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2014 (CEST)


I uploaded the drawing from Prota4U. I am quite satisfied. By default, they will be in CC-BY-SA. Is this OK ? Do you have a version with a higher resolution ? Michel Chauvet (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2014 (CEST).

There are higher resolutions for all species I think. They belong to the 'copyrighted' part I guess, and I would rather not have them larger at this point. Quite a lot of pictures are from Prosea.Schmelzer (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2014 (CEST)
I can live with that resolution. Michel Chauvet (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2014 (CEST).