1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
Ctenophorus cristatus
Hello Plantdrew, I'm a student updating the Ctenophorus cristatus page, and am struggling to format the referencing because it appears you have used a unique referencing style. Could you please show me how you have formatted the referencing in that article so that I can use the same style? Thank you. --WatsonKat (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Elaeocarpus dentatus
Hello Plantdrew, I saw you just rated Jovellana sinclairii, recently I updated Elaeocarpus dentatus but it hasn't been reassessed. If you had a moment that would be great :). Thanks, ~ User:Beeveria 23/12/2020
Talk:Osprey/GA1
Probably time to close this. AIRcorn (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Aircorn:, sorry I left that running so long. I haven't requested/closed a GA review before; could you check that I've closed it out properly and correctly updated the Article history template? Thanks. Plantdrew (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Porcine adenovirus for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Porcine adenovirus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porcine adenovirus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Watsonia_(plant)
one of the most destructive disliked s--- of a weed that has consumed vast amounts of time, money and exasperation in south western australia over the last 50 years, and despite all the measures the bloody corms rise out of drying lateritic soils to start again like a perennial villain in Dr Who - really obscene superlatives are insufficient to give an estimation of the negative value on native flora in western australia JarrahTree 04:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Pelargonium cucullatum
Thank you for scaling the new article on Pelargonium coronopifolium. I recently extended the article on Pelargonium cucullatum, which is still scaled as stub. Perhaps you would like to have a look at it and scale it for the Plant and South Africa projects. Thank you in advance. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Dwergenpaartje:, I've rescaled it. You used to contact fairly frequently about looking over articles you'd expanded. I failed to respond in a timely fashion at some point, and I think this is the first request from you I've seen since then. I'm not sure if my lack of response discouraged you from asking for further reviews, or you just haven't needed any reviews recently, but please feel free to request further reviews. Plantdrew (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you and dont worry. I just haven't been active on Wiki for about half a year. A trip to South Africa resulted in images of many to me new plants. I'm trying to get IDs for those and will then upload to commons, this takes a lot of time. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Category size
Just out of interest, what criteria do you apply to decide whether to upmerge or demerge taxonomic categories? If I came across Category:Lychnis I would upmerge it to Category:Caryophyllaceae on the grounds that it was too small. I've recently upmerged dozens of fern genera categories (many created by Polbot); 10 actual entries and 20+ potential entries is, I think, roughly the standard I apply. This is actually far more tolerant of small categories than Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization: "Categories which run over several screens (say more than 50-100 entries) should be split up". Although I think I wrote up most of the project guidance, it was firmly based on the consensus of the time rather than my personal view; the consensus then favoured large categories. (I seem to recall that Stemonitis was an advocate of this.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've been going with half of your standard; 5 actual entries and 10+ potential. A fair number of categories I've (re)created were previously deleted by Stemonitis, including some that now have 10+ entries. The Lychnis category was a mistake; I didn't notice that POWO doesn't recognize the genus until after I'd started the category and the taxonomy template (I'm generally leaving manual taxoboxes in place for now when POWO doesn't accept a genus). Plantdrew (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe we need to see if the consensus at WP:PLANTS has changed? Peter coxhead (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- On the subject of POWO, they seem to have adopted a lumpering perspective lately, not just for ferns. They often follow the controversial GLOVAP approach. I don't know about Lychnis, but I've got more cautious about following them unless there is good independent evidence. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Warnstorfia exannulata
NB bangs head slowly but repeatedly against wall... Narky Blert (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Neslia merge
I don't see the merge discussion at eitherr Talk:Neslia paniculata or Talk:Neslia. Am I missing something, or was the discussion not actually created? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Australian biota project
Has got to a new stage of its progress in this confusing and chaotic world... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unknown-importance_Australian_biota_articles = 0. Please help by when creating new biota articles for australia, to make sure the unassessed page stays the way it is adequately tagged, or please ask for help in doing so... More on the next stages of the Australian biota project soon... and thanks for whatever you have done for the project in any way since 2006 - JarrahTree 05:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
February 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
- February 2020—Issue 011
- Tree of Life
- Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Segnosaurus by FunkMonk |
Danuvius guggenmosi by Dunkleosteus77 |
|
With the outbreak of a novel coronavirus dominating news coverage, Wikipedia content related to the virus has seen much higher interest. Tree of Life content of particular interest to readers has included viruses, bats, pangolins, and masked palm civets. Viruses saw the most dramatic growth in readership: Coronavirus, which was the 105th most popular virus article in December 2019 with about 400 views per day, averaged over a quarter million views each day of January 2020. Total monthly viewership of the top-10 virus articles ballooned from about 1.5 million to nearly 20 million.
From October 2019 – December 2019, the top ten most popular bat articles fluctuated among 16 different articles, with the December viewership of those 10 articles at 209,280. For January 2020, three articles broke into the top-10 that were not among the 16 articles of the prior three months: Bat as food, Horseshoe bat, and Bat-borne virus. Viewership of the top-10 bat articles spiked nearly 300% to 617,067 in January. While bats have been implicated as a possible natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2, an intermediate host may be the bridge between bats and humans. Pangolins have been hypothesized as the intermediate host for the virus, causing a large spike in typical page views of 2-3k each day up to more than 60k in a day. Masked palm civets, the intermediate host of SARS, saw a modest yet noticeable spike in page views as well, from 100-300 views per day to as many as 5k views per day. With an increase in viewers came an increase in editors. In an interview, longtime virus editor Awkwafaba identified the influx of editors as the biggest challenge in editing content related to the coronavirus. They noted that these newcomers include "novices who make honest mistakes and get tossed about a bit in the mad activity" as well as "experienced editors who know nothing about viruses and are good researchers, yet aren't familiar with the policies of WP:ToL or WP:Viruses." Disruption also increased, with extended confirmed protection (also known as the 30/500 rule, which prevents editors with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits from making edits and is typically used on a very small subset of Wikipedia articles) temporarily applied to Coronavirus and still active on Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data. New editors apparently seeking to correct misinformation continuously edited the article Bat as food to remove content related to China: Videos of Chinese people eating bat soup were misrepresented to be current or filmed in China, when at least one such video was several years old and filmed in Palau. However, reliable sources confirm that bats are eaten in China, especially Southern China, so these well-meaning edits were mostly removed. Another level of complexity was added by the fluctuating terminology of the virus. Over a dozen moves and merges were requested within WikiProject Viruses. To give you an idea of the musical chairs happening with article titles, here are the move histories of two articles: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
Awkwafaba noted that "the main authorities, WHO and ICTV, don't really have a process for speedily naming a virus or disease." Additionally, they have different criteria for naming. They said, "I remember in a move discussion from the article then called Wuhan coronavirus that a virus name cannot have a geographical location in it, but this is a WHO disease naming guideline, and not an ICTV virus naming rule. ICTV may have renamed Four Corners virus to Sin Nombre orthohantavirus but there are still plenty of official virus species names that don't abide by WHO guidelines." |
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Stenanthera
Hello Plantdrew and thanks for your work. I'm afraid I'm a clutz at sorting out taxobox/species box issues. I'd be grateful if you would take a look at Stenanthera and Stenanthera conostephioides. (I have tried to fix - I promise!) I'll watch and learn. Gderrin (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Taxobox question
When I look at the taxobox at Saintpaulia, I feel that "Subgenus: Streptocarpus subg. Streptocarpella" should appear as "Subgenus: S. subg. Streptocarpella". Generalizing, subgeneric taxa that are not the target of the taxobox should have the genus name abbreviated. Now if I only had to deal with ICNafp names, this would be easy to implement – assuming consensus that it was the right thing to do, and I won't make any changes without wider discussion. But ICZN subgeneric names seem to be set out in different ways, e.g. subgenus Y of genus X appears as either "X (Y)" or just "Y". In the former case, again assuming it's not the target taxon, what do you think about abbreviating the genus name? Are there other ICZN subgeneric ranks in use in taxoboxes? You look at a much wider range of taxoboxes than me, I think, so I would value your view before taking this further. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead:, if format "X (Y)" is used, I think the genus should be abbreviated, but I prefer format "Y" (although I'm not sure which, if either, is ICZN preferred). I'm not aware of any formal ICZN ranks in taxobox other than subgenus. There are a handful of manual taxoboxes with
|species_complex=
,|species_group=
or|species_subgroup=
(mostly Drosophila taxa). Values for those parameters aren't formatted in any consistent way. I'm pretty certain I've seen some manual taxoboxes with a species complex/group value in|species=
. I think there may be a couple taxonomy templates for species complexes.Plantdrew (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)- Thanks. I've got a bit sidetracked by Saintpaulia → Streptocarpus and Chionodoxa → Scilla, but I will try to get to this sometime. The automatic title italicization doesn't work for "sect." titles, so this also needs fixing. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thanks
your cleanup editing always appreciated JarrahTree 23:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
One for you
See Prickly Pear Island snail. Caps? Taxobox? Ugh. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
DAB
If you get a chance, Calvitimela has a dab in the species list to fix. The link needs to be made red with an appropriate disambiguator. Also, the article is in only one redlinked cat. Fixing this one is a little beyond my bio knowledge. Thanks. MB 19:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
March 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
- March 2020—Issue 012
- Tree of Life
- Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Argentinosaurus by Slate Weasel and Jens Lallensack |
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations by Britishfinance |
|
The newest Tree of Life WikiProject is about a taxon that is dominating the headlines, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and its many effects. We interviewed Another Believer, the founder of WikiProject COVID-19. This interview has been edited for length. Find the full interview here.
Thank you to Another Believer for your time, both in this interview and in this project. Interested readers can join WikiProject COVID-19. And please stay safe and healthy out there. --Awkwafaba |
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Weeds in my yard
Since this stuff is blooming right now, I looked for info in WP and didn't find anything. So I added something to Oncosiphon. Is that OK to talk about the species in the genus article. I didn't think there was a great need for a separate article. MB 04:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi! Definitely deserves its own article. I moved your content here: Oncosiphon pilulifer. It would be cool to get some photos of it growing invasively. There aren't many images on Wikimedia Commons. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for creating article. It was probably much easier for you to to the taxobox than it would have been for me. I'll get some photos. MB 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hyperik, I just noticed that Oncosiphon suffruticosum exists, but is not linked in Oncosiphon due to a slight difference in the name. I presume one should be a redirect. MB 17:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for creating article. It was probably much easier for you to to the taxobox than it would have been for me. I'll get some photos. MB 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, do you want a heads up?
Plantdrew, thank you for your work overall, and specifically adding an important taxonbox number thingie to Pinanga sylvestris. Do you like a notification from page creators, or does the system sort of do this automatically? Brunswicknic (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help
You have been much help but now I cannot log in to Wikipedia!!! I have tried my password and some old ones but it will not accept me. I give up! Phycodrys (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Phycodrys Oh seems I am logged in! What was the password I used? If you helped - thanks.Phycodrys (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Ditrichum
I created a stub article for the moss genus in place of the redirect to Verbesina. The redirect is not used in article space. It links to one of your user pages (User:Plantdrew/USDACommonNameAttention) where you have it on a list of articles that are needed. I thought this was an uncontroversial change but apparently not as it was reverted. I've left a comment at User_talk:Lithopsian#Ditrichum if you'd care to comment. — Jts1882 | talk 09:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Oreo: pop culture
Hello Plantdrew Regarding the page “Oreo:”I have to take exception to your removal of the complete “popular culture” section from this page, and have undone that change.
My reason for reinstating the section is that Oreos have something of an iconic status (admittedly in American junk food!), and the Pop Culture aspect is an important aspect of this. The wholesale removal of the complete section, based solely on a technicality which applies to individual items within it, seems pretty pedantic to me. Surely there can be a bit more latitude, in the interest of giving readers a true flavour (no pun intended) of the subject.
I don’t dispute that the items listed within the section are mostly without published source references (I doubt that such are available at all, short of finding a published script from each). All of the items listed, however, are of video or music examples which are currently and easily available to any internet viewer: What could be more verifiable than seeing or hearing from the actual source?
My only contribution, incidentally, was A Star Is Born; some of the other items have been there back to 2006. In a few cases the Wikipedia pages on the individual films make a connection to Oreo, albeit weakly. But that is the nature of each of these items; Oreos are mostly minor occurrences within the larger theme of a movie or song.
I’d be obliged of your consideration and response.
Regards Kokopelli-UK Kokopelli-UK (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Overlinking
Hi, thanks for your contributions. Please remember not to link years, dates, or common terms (like "plant"). WP:OVERLINK Tony (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Ipomoea hybrids
Hi Plantdrew, on POWO, the hybrids Ipomoea × multifida and Ipomoea × sloteri are listed as synonymous. I would have merged the two articles based on the ref, but if one is an allopolyploid of the other, wouldn't that make them separate species and not synonymous at all? 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Switching tacxobox to spicesbox
Please stop switching tacxobox to spicesbox because I think the revision is unsourced and unnecessary. If you have any questions please let me know. User3749 (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Gymnogongrus
I did not think G. griffithsiae had been misspelled? Phycodrys (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Struthiola tetralepis
Could you please have a look at the new article Struthiola tetralepis and scale it for the Wikiproject Plants and WP:South Africa? Thank you in advance! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Located what may be a Cornish Alba
The leaf stems are a beautiful red while the branches long and graceful. When I look at the actual specimen that was collected the greens and cream or white MelD towards the Center of each leaf. The leaves have a distinct pointedness at each tip but the leaves are almost as wide as they are long. Does this sound like it might be a relative? This is my first venture into contacting an editor such as yourself so I am unsure of the exact protocol. I do have photos. I also have a somewhat now dried out sample. But I can revisit the site without too much trouble if you have an interest in seeing it in its long-standing location – In Birmingham Alabama, USA. Rick 205rickham (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Haramiyidae
Plantdrew...i was poking around extinct mammals and have gotten into a bit of an edit war with a user. The user insists a redirect to Thomasia (mammal) but the family has more than one genus that links to it, albeit they are all red. shouldn't Haramiyidae also be red and not be a redirect?....Pvmoutside (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Layout template for species articles
Hi Plantdrew- I see you on so many articles that I thought you might be able to spare me the tedium of wading through the morass of WP "guidance": I'm wondering if we have a sample species article layout suggesting section names and organization. I took a quick look at WikiProject Species, but didn't see anything. My motivation at the moment is trying to determine if we have a standard section where we might elaborate on a species' conservation status beyond the infobox graphic. Thanks in advance for any tips. Eric talk 15:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Eric: there's a full guide for plant articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template (too full, in my view; there's a need for a summary). Plantdrew will be able to say more, I'm sure, but there seems to be less consensus for animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Eric:, the standard for bird article para heading sequence is here and includes a paragraph for "Status". The question on the standard accepted layout for species articles often arises on project talk pages. Here is a recent link and also an earlier proposal discussing the layout for all animal articles can be found in the archived discussion at this link. Loopy30 (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you! I might never have found those except by chance. I wish this kind of reference were indexed somehow, findable from somewhere like Wikipedia:Article development. Eric talk 13:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- FYI, I started a section in the article that prompted my quest: Scaphiopus_holbrookii#Conservation_status. Thanks again for the tips. Eric talk 15:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Eric:, the standard for bird article para heading sequence is here and includes a paragraph for "Status". The question on the standard accepted layout for species articles often arises on project talk pages. Here is a recent link and also an earlier proposal discussing the layout for all animal articles can be found in the archived discussion at this link. Loopy30 (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
April 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
- April 2020—Issue 013
- Tree of Life
- Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Danuvius guggenmosi by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by J Milburn |
Lythronax by FunkMonk, Lythronaxargestes and IJReid |
|
Inspired by a March 2020 post at WikiProject Medicine detailing the growth of Featured Articles over time, we decided to reproduce that table here, adding a second table showing the growth of Good Articles. Tree of Life articles are placed in the "Biology" category for FAs, which has seen a growth of 381% since 2008. Only two other subjects had a greater growth than Biology: Business, economics, and finance; and Warfare. Percentage Growth in FA Categories, 2008–2019, Legend: Considerably above average, Above average, Average Below average , Considerably below average, Poor
*subset of natural sciences Unsurprisingly, the number of GAs has increased more rapidly than the number of FAs. Organisms, which is a subcategory of Natural sciences, has seen a GA growth of 755% since 2008, besting the Natural sciences overall growth of 530%. While Warfare had far and away the most significant growth of GAs, it's a clear outlier relative to other categories. |
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Jaguar
Hi. You did an edit on the jaguar article which you called a taxobox cleanup, but you removed the Wiki code I used to zoom in on the jaguar. Can you explain the logic behind your edit please. Does the code not work on some devises? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
No reply, so code returned to article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
May 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
- May 2020—Issue 014
- Tree of Life
- Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Gigantorhynchus by Mattximus |
|
This month we're joined by Jts1882, who is active in depicting evolutionary relationship of taxa via cladograms. Part of this includes responding to cladogram requests, where interested editors can have cladograms made without using the templates themselves. How did you come to be interested in systematics? Are you interested in systematics broadly, or is there a particular group you're most fond of? As long as I can remember I’ve been interested in nature, starting with the animals and plants in the garden, school grounds, and local wood, and then more general wildlife worldwide. An interest in how things are classified grew from this. I like things to be organised and understanding the relationships between things and systems (not just living things) is a big part of that. Biology was always my favourite subject in school and took up a disproportionate part of my time. My interest in systematics is broad as I’d like to comprehend the whole tree of life, but the cat family is my favourite group. What's the background behind cladogram requests? I see that it isn't a very old part of the Tree of Life Well I can’t take any credit for the cladogram requests page, although I help out there sometimes. It was created by IJReid and there are several people who have helped there more than me. I think the motivation is that creating cladograms requires a knowledge of the templates that is daunting for many editors. It was one way of helping people who want to focus on content creation. My main contribution to the cladograms is converting the {{clade}} template to use a Lua module. The template code was extremely difficult to follow and had to be repetitive (I can only admire the efforts of those who got the thing to work in the first place). The conversion to Lua made it more efficient, allowed larger and deeper cladograms, plus facilitating the introduction of new features. The cladogram request page was recently the venue for discussion on making time calibrated cladograms, which is now possible, if not particularly user friendly. What advice do you have for an editor who wants to learn how to make cladograms? The same advice I would give to someone facing any computer problem, just try it out. Start by taking existing code for a cladogram and make changes yourself. The main advice would be to format it properly so indents match the brackets vertically. Of course, not everyone wants to learn and if someone prefers to focus on article content there is the cladogram request page.
Do you have any personal projects or goals you're working towards on Wikipedia? As I said I like organisation and systems. So I find efforts like the automated taxobox system and {{taxonbar}} appealing. I would like to see more reuse of the major phylogenetic trees on Wikipedia with more use of consensus trees on the higher taxa. Too often they get edited based on one recent report and/or without proper citation. Animals and bilateria are examples where this is a problem. Towards this I have been working on a system of phylogeny templates that can be reused flexibly. The {{Clade transclude}} template allows selective transclusion, so the phylogenetic trees on one page can be reused with modifications, i.e. can be pruned and grafted, used with or without images, with or without collapsible elements, etc. I have an example for the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification (see {{Phylogeny/APG IV}}) and one for squamates that also includes collapsible elements (see {{Phylogeny/Squamata}}). A second project is to have a modular reference system for taxonomic resources. I have made some progress along this lines with the {{BioRef}} template. This started off simply as a way of hardlinking to Catalog of Fishes pages and I’ve gradually expanded it to cover other groups (e..g. FishBase, AmphibiaWeb and Amphibian Species of the World, Reptile Database, the Mammalian Diversity Database). The modular nature is still rudimentary and needs a rewrite before it is ready for wider use. What would surprise your fellow editors to learn about your life off-Wikipedia? I don’t think there is anything particularly surprising or interesting about my life. I’ve had an academic career as a research scientist but I don't think anyone could guess the area from my Wikipedia edits. I prefer to work on areas where I am learning at the same time. This why I spend more time with neglected topics (e.g. mosses at the moment). I start reading and then find that I’m not getting the information I want. Anything else you'd like us to know? My interest in the classification of things goes beyond biology. I am fascinated by mediaeval attempts to classify knowledge, such as Bacon in his The Advancement of Learning and Diderot and d’Alembert in their Encyclopédie. They were trying to come up with a universal scheme of knowledge just as the printing press was allowing greater dissemination of knowledge. With the internet we are seeing a new revolution in knowledge dissemination. Just look at how we could read research papers on the COVID virus within weeks of its discovery. With an open internet, everyone has access, not just those with the luxury of books at home or good libraries. Sites like the Biodiversity Heritage Library allow you to read old scientific works without having to visit dusty university library stack rooms, while the taxonomic and checklist databases provide instant information on millions of living species. In principle, the whole world can now find out about anything, even if Douglas Adams warned we might be disinclined to do so. This is why I like Wikipedia, with all its warts, it’s a means of organising the knowledge on the internet. In just two decades it’s become a first stop for knowledge and hopefully a gateway to more specialised sources. Perhaps developing this latter aspect, beyond providing good sources for what we say, is the next challenge for Wikipedia. |
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Enwebb (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Adminship?
Hi Plantdrew, I was just thinking how I admire your worth as an editor, and how you'd make a great admin. I checked your talk page archive to see if I had suggested this before. I hadn't, but someone else had. Since it's been 2.5 years, I hope you may have reconsidered. "Net positive" is a common yardstick at RfA. It's one you easily meet, so either way, thank you for your continued commitment to Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crangonidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superfamily (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Polyides rotunda
Thanks for your help. I note that the taxobox indicates the "rotunda" does not exist! Please help.Phycodrys (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello Plantdrew,
- Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
- Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
- Discussions and Resources
- A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
- Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
- A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
- Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Emile Campbell-Browne (1830–1925)
Just wondering if you have ever heard of this person? He is claimed to be an eminent botanist although a later edit claims he was also a zoologist. He doesn't come up in any searches from sources I have but a variety of editors (mostly IPs) keep adding him back into various articles such as Horton, Dorset here an image is added and Lemon meringue pie here where a claim that he was an inventor of the said confection. The one named editor involved is User:Astropolice but all the reversions are IPs. I have a strong belief that this is all a hoax and that this person is an invention, but before I revert them all again, I would welcome your view to see whether you have heard of him or have any reputable sources that mention him. Interestingly the only source given is a local history book, long out of print, which I can't find as an electronic copy anywhere - all hallmarks of a hoax. Any thoughts would be most welcome. Regards Velella Velella Talk 12:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- If this person were a real botanist or zoologist with this date of death, he would surely show up in a Google Scholar search. There's nothing for "Campbell-Browne", let alone "Emile Campbell-Browne" or "E Campbell-Browne". Revert is my view! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming its a hoax, which seems likely, its a persistent one, going back to at least 2016. The renowned botanist, zoologist, and penguin enthusiast has made it into a book on British Pies and is appearing in more articles (barbed wire, snares penguin, etc). Here's a new batch of contributions from a new editor. — Jts1882 | talk 16:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is annoying. It looks very much like an ongoing hoax. Revert, demand verifiable proof of existence of this person, and escalate if user persists in adding this stuff. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Add: the purported image of this person that used to be at lemon meringue pie is of someone else. Clear hoax. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks for all that input. I will put together an SPI and see how far back I can go to identify the Sock puppeteer. It was the image that first worried me. Eminent scientists photographed at the turn of the century nearly always had objects in the portrait that alluded to their interest and their fame, So nothing botanical, no penguins etc was a significant red-flag. Thanks for all your assistance. Velella Velella Talk 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Microcharmidae, family within Buthoidea
Plantdrew, I've done something to the taxobox of Microcharmidae which seems to have messed up the taxobox in Buthidae. Buthidae should say it's Buthidae, obvs., in Buthoidea, while Microcharmidae should similarly be a family in that superfamily. Sorry, not sure how to fix it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is fixed. Perhaps a stub article for Buthoidea is need now? — Jts1882 | talk 11:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Talk Page Stalker! And yes, Buthoidea needs a stub. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arjuna Ratha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
many months ago
you alluded to articles that exist but not tagged for oz and biota - you were right - found a patch of ants and bees last week - cheers - trust the virus is the lead=st of your worries - thanks for the long not acknowledged tipoff JarrahTree 04:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
heads up re: Acridinae (frog)
Hi. Thanks for the backup on this particular case. I have just today had a long exchange with the manager of the AMNH Amphibian website, and it appears that there is a replacement name that has been suggested, and he has changed the entry in the online classification to reflect this new name; the group is now listed there as the subfamily Acrisinae, and it contains basically the same constituent genera as before. Since this website is an authoritative source, I think it's probably okay to restore the content of the former Acridinae (frog) article, but under a new article titled Acrisinae, as this source is more up-to-date than the sources which had these genera in Hylinae. My concern - for the record - is that Acrisinae is not a name that has been published in print, nor approved by the ICZN as a replacement. In a sense it is the lesser of two evils: the name Acridinae Mivart 1869 is not an available name, and neither is Acrisinae (until it appears in print), but given the choice of which unavailable name to use in Wikipedia, it is preferable to use one which does not perpetuate an ongoing conflict, and anticipates the proper resolution. Assuming Acrisinae is published eventually, at that point Wikipedia will already be in line with that new accepted nomenclature. It's marginal, but overall it seems beneficial to do it this way. I'll try to work on this later today. Dyanega (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Advice sought
There's considerable confusion over the epithet in Coleus and Plectranthus that is variously spelt forskalaei, forskolaei, forskolii, forskohlii, etc. (I think, as explained at Coleus barbatus#Taxonomy, that under the ICNafp, Art. 60.5, the first part of the epithet should be spelt "forskaol.." because the "å" in the original should become "ao", but no-one seems to use this spelling, so I have committed the sin of OR.)
At present, the following all redirect to Coleus barbatus:
because that's how they were set up before I moved Plectranthus barbatus. However, it's clear from reliable sources that the use of this epithet for Coleus barbatus is an error, and they are synonyms (possibly illegitimate) of Coleus hadiensis, which doesn't yet have an article.
I'd really like to redirect them to some kind of 'disambiguation' page, which explains the two possible uses. Do you know of any examples that are set up in this way? I guess there could instead be hatnotes at Coleus barbatus and Coleus hadiensis, but a hatnote is awkward to write, I think, because of the variety of (mis)spellings. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
What! Coleus barbatus and Coleus hadiensis synonyms! No way! Leo Breman (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
June/July 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
- June and July 2020—Issue 015
- Tree of Life
- Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Canada lynx by Sainsf |
|
DexDor is a WikiGnome with a particular interest in article categorization, including how organisms are categorized.
|
|
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Achillea ambrosiaca
Sorry, I wasn't being pushy so much as clumsy ... I should have checked the history, noticed that you made an edit to the redirect, and asked your advice before taking any other steps. I'll do that next time. Still learning. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
August 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
- August 2020—Issue 016
- Tree of Life
- Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Horseshoe bat by Enwebb |
Limusaurus by FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack and Lythronaxargestes |
Cross posted from the Signpost On August 7, WikiProject Palaeontology member Rextron discovered a suspicious taxon article, Mustelodon, which was created in November 2005. The article lacked references and the subsequent discussion on WikiProject Palaeontology found that the alleged type locality (where the fossil was first discovered) of Lago Nandarajo "near the northern border of Panama" was nonexistent. In fact, Panama does not even really have a northern border, as it is bounded along the north by the Caribbean Sea. No other publications or databases mentioned Mustelodon, save a fleeting mention in a 2019 book that presumably followed Wikipedia, Felines of the World. The article also appeared in four other languages, Catalan, Spanish, Dutch, and Serbian. In Serbian Wikipedia, a note at the bottom of the page warned: "It is important to note here that there is no data on this genus in the official scientific literature, and all attached data on the genus Mustelodon on this page are taken from the English Wikipedia and are the only known data on this genus of mammals, so the validity of this genus is questionable." Editors took action to alert our counterparts on other projects, and these versions were removed also. As the editor who reached out to Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia, it was somewhat challenging to navigate these mostly foreign languages (I have a limited grasp of Spanish). I doubted that the article had very many watchers, so I knew I had to find some WikiProjects where I could post a machine translation advising of the hoax, and asking that users follow local protocols to remove the article. I was surprised to find, however, that Catalan Wikipedia does not tag articles for WikiProjects on talk pages, meaning I had to fumble around to find what I needed (turns out that WikiProjects are Viquiprojectes in Catalan!) Mustelodon remains on Wikidata, where its "instance of" property was swapped from "taxon" to "fictional taxon". How did this article have such a long lifespan? Early intervention is critical for removing hoaxes. A 2016 report found that a hoax article that survives its first day has an 18% chance of lasting a year.[1] Additionally, hoax articles tend to have longer lifespans if they are in inconspicuous parts of Wikipedia, where they do not receive many views. Mustelodon was only viewed a couple times a day, on average. Mustelodon survived a brush with death three years into its lifespan. The article was proposed for deletion in September 2008, with a deletion rationale of "No references given; cannot find any evidence in peer-reviewed journals that this alleged genus actually exists". Unfortunately, the proposed deletion was contested and the template removed, though the declining editor did not give a rationale. Upon its rediscovery in August 2020, Mustelodon was tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G3 as a "blatant hoax". This was challenged, and an Articles for Deletion discussion followed. On 12 August, the AfD was closed as a SNOW delete. WikiProject Palaeontology members ensured that any trace of it was scrubbed from legitimate articles. The fictional mammal was finally, truly extinct. At the ripe old age of 14 years, 9 months, this is the longest-lived documented hoax on Wikipedia, topping the previous documented record of 14 years, 5 months, set by The Gates of Saturn, a fictitious television show, which was incidentally also discovered in August 2020. How do we discover other hoax taxa? Could we use Wikidata to discover taxa are not linked to databases like ITIS, Fossilworks, and others?
|
This month's spotlight is with Mattximus, author of two Featured Articles and 29 Featured Lists at current count.
I think I have a compulsion to make lists, it doesn't show up in my real life, but online I secretly get a lot of satisfaction making orderly lists and tables. It's a bit of a secret of mine, because it doesn't manifest in any other part of my life. My background is in biology, so this was a natural (haha) fit.
This experiment was just to see if I could get any random article to FA status, so I picked the very first alphabetical animal species according to the taxonomy and made that attempt. Technically, there isn't enough information for a species page so I just merged the species into a genus and went from there. It was a fun exercise, but doing it alone is not the most fun so it's probably on pause for the foreseeable future. Note: Aporhynchus is the first alphabetical taxon as follows: Animalia, Acanthocephala, Archiacanthocephala, Apororhynchida, Apororhynchidae, Apororhynchus
I would recommend getting a good article nominated, then a featured list up before tackling the FA. Lists are a bit more forgiving but give you a taste of what standards to expect from FA. The most time consuming thing is proper citations so make sure that is in order before starting either.
My personality in real life does not match my wikipedia persona. I'm not a very organized, or orderly in real life, but the wikipedia pages I brought to FL or FA are all very organized. Maybe it's my outlet for a more free-flowing life as a scientist/teacher.
The fact that wikipedia exists free of profit motive and free for everyone really is something special and I encourage everyone to donate a few dollars to the cause. |
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Copulation links
Why are you making changes like this and this? I also saw this. I'm asking not only because WP:NOTBROKEN exists...but also because the Copulation (zoology) link is the better link when the text is about, or mainly about, non-human animals. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the "I also saw this" part of my comment, that change adheres to WP:NOTBROKEN. So I don't see that as an issue. The first change I mentioned (this) also adheres to WP:NOTBROKEN. But why make this edit? Or this edit without replacing the copulation link with the copulation (zoology) link? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I see that the copulation (zoology) link is already linked in that section of the Head louse article. So I removed the "copulation" link from there. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juniperus convallium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
TFD for unused taxonomy templates
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 8#Template:Taxonomy/ Pycnothelidae. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Your view sought
I'd particularly value your view at Template talk:Speciesbox#Ranks between species and genus if you have time. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
"Seidenforchis" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Seidenforchis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15#Seidenforchis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Problematic taxonomy templates
Hi, I blanked Template:Taxonomy/Ceratodontiformes and Template:Taxonomy/Lepidosireniformes, which you recently created. They caused rank inconsistency errors, because they had a parent, Dipnoi, of the same rank (ordo). See the articles Lepidosirenidae and Ceratodontoidei for comments on these orders, which don't seem to be accepted now. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ceratodontiformes is still recognised by Fishes of the World (5th edition), which is the default taxonomy used by the fish project (maybe there is something else for fossils). Lepidosirenformes is no longer recognised, with its extant families subsumed in Ceratodontiformes. The Deepfin taxonomy retains Lepidosirenoidei as a suborder, which is consistent with FotW5.
- The problem with the taxonomy templates is that the rank in Template:Taxonomy/Dipnoi was changed superordo (as in FotW5) to ordo, without a reference. The changes made to a number of lungfish pages reference a revised taxonomy in Kemp et al (2017), which places the living lungfish in suborder Ceratodontoidei within unranked clade Neodipnoi (with a new definition). The paper makes no mention of Ceratodontiformes, neither its past or current status. Their suborder Ceratodontoidei seems very similar to order Ceratodontiformes in FotW5 and Deepfin, although it places additional fossil genera. It seems that the taxonomy templates and taxoboxes are being changed based on a primary source in an unnecessary and inconsistent way. If following Kemp et al (2017) the parent of Ceratodontoidei should be Neodipnoi (not Dipnoi), but their new definition says nothing of the parent taxon, which would make it hard to create a referenced taxonomy template. — Jts1882 | talk 13:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Extinct symbol with ichnotaxa
I don't have any real interest in ichnotaxa; I've only edited a few articles while fixing {{Ichnobox}}. I saw your edit at Oldhamia. It's never been clear to me whether the extinct symbol makes sense applied to an ichnotaxon. Since an ichnotaxon is group of fossil traces, not of fossils, then its members were never alive to become extinct. When the animal that made a trace is discovered, it has to be given a name under the ICZN, so the ichno-name strictly applies to the trace. However, I'm probably being over precise.
The ichnogenus taxonomy templates mostly have |extinct=yes
(or true
), but not all. For example, searches among taxonomy templates give:
- Template:Taxonomy "rank ichnogenus" → 200
- Template:Taxonomy "rank ichnogenus" "extinct yes" + "extinct true" → 129 + 48 = 177
- Template:Taxonomy "rank ichnogenus" "extinct no" → 23
All 26 ichnofamily taxonomy templates are marked as extinct.
So for consistency, I guess that:
- The minority of ichnogenus taxonomy templates with
|extinct=no
should be changed to|extinct=yes
. - Manually added genera or species, e.g. as types or subdivisions, in ichno-taxoboxes should have † present, as you provided at Oldhamia.
What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion about the †; I was standardizing how
|type_ichnospecies=
and|subdivision=
were formatted, and figured since †s go all the way down the taxonomic hierarchy as generated by taxonomy templates, they might as well continue down to species as well (although I'm sure there is inconsistency of †s for species in automatic taxoboxes). Eggs are alive (even if unfertilized?), so ooboxes should have †s. If there were a recently extinct wasp that was initially known from living individuals, I wouldn't be especially surprised to see a nest displayed in a museum with a label reading †Vespa extincta. If wasp nests were likely to fossilize, I also wouldn't be surprised by a label reading †Vespichnites extincta. But I do get the argument you make.
- So, yes, ichnogenus templates should have
|extinct=yes
(and I should have thought to check this when I was going through ichnoboxes yesterday). I think I have got † in all the type/subdivisions in ichnoboxes now (I'll double check when Template Data updates next month). Plantdrew (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly believe in consistency, so I've been through the 23 ichnogenus taxonomy templates that didn't have
|extinct=yes
and fixed them. Not all the target taxa have articles, but those that do will now have the † symbol for the target taxon. I did the same for the oogenus and oofamilia taxonomy templates, a few of which weren't marked as extinct. There are some higher level 'ranks' in ootaxa; see, e.g., Template:Taxonomy/Geckonoid. It seems to me that the "morphotypes" and "basic shell types" aren't really taxa, and are based on extant eggs anyway. So I wouldn't mark them as extinct. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly believe in consistency, so I've been through the 23 ichnogenus taxonomy templates that didn't have
HELP Phycodry1945
For complicated reasons I have had to log into Wikipedia anew. You have helped me earlier, can you help me now? Do you think I am fully lodged in with full Username etc. Phycodrys1945 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Phycodrys1945:, yes you seem to fully logged in with a new account (and you should have received a notification that I've mentioned you in writing this comment; the notification wouldn't happen if your account wasn't valid). Plantdrew (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'll have to work on it, I like a shortcut to the desktop. I had asked "Curries KnowHow" to help me get Zoom - they wiped out all my files , photos etc I'm a nervous wreck. Thanks to you I may recover.Phycodrys1945 (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Oh help - if you can, I cannot Edit source or open up one of the species I listed in me User page (if that is the correct name!). Phycodrys1945 (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Ah I have added a short section of one alga & added it to my userpage - I can open it from here. All seems OK. My thanks to you.Phycodrys1945 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Taxon vs genus/species
I may have asked that before, but is there something more than personal preference to having "genus=" & "species=" rather than "taxon=" in taxobox? Functionally it's the same, I hope. Botany vs zoology project convention? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Elmidae:, it's mostly functionally the same. However, in cases where the taxonomy template is disambiguated (usually when there are plant and animal genera sharing the same name), "genus"+"species" (with the template's disambiguator included under "genus") works, but "taxon" does not. That difference drives my personal preference for genus+species. Beyond that, consistency within WikiProjects; birds and plants mostly use "genus"+"species", while fish and insects use "taxon" (and I don't change fish or insects to "genus"+"species").
- If you were prompted to ask specifically by my recent edits to Isabelcristinia or Catimbaua, my personal preference is a little stronger with monotypic genera; I feel it's a little clearer which authority goes with the genus and which with the species when genus and species appear under separate parameters. Plantdrew (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
On miracle fruit
Good call, I've always known it under this name. I imported a few big plants and fruit concentrate almost 2 decades ago for an ice-cream maker who was experimenting... Have you ever eaten them? Absolutely amazing! I ate a lemon with rind and all, and coffee tasted incredible. If I remember correctly, I first read about it in some text about a fruit orchard in Panama or Costa Rica... A theory (probably by someone who didn't like fufu) was that Nigerian food was so disgusting because this fruit made everything better -I don't agree, I like Nigerian food (ate jollof rice today!). I've still got an ama-cha hydrangea cultivar, but this doesn't work at all for me.
Also thanks for all the fixes here and there! Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Please explain
Please explain why you removed the assesments in this edit. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Arctic redpoll
Hi Plantdrew: I'm wondering about the Arctic redpoll article. You changed the conservation status here, but all it now shows is an unlinked "LC", because this species isn't recognised by the IUCN. (It is, however, recognised by many taxonomists.) It has been designated as a species of least concern by Partners in Flight, but we have no process of linking anything other than IUCN to the typical taxobox displays, so the colourful little line of circles (and the written out "least concern") doesn't show up. Any suggestions? MeegsC (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Shirakisotima
I see you have merged Shirakisotima with S. japonica, that seems fine. However, I had linked S. japonica with 5 other languages at d:Q7780082, some of which appear to have separate species and genus pages (e.g. nl), others redirect genus to species. Should Q7780082 and d:Q14333813 be merged as well or otherwise updated?Peterwchen (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Stewart Island shag
Hi Plantdrew: Since you had a bit of interest in this in the past, can you cast your eye over the (very short) updated Stewart Island shag and see if it reads okay to you? Thanks, MeegsC (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello Plantdrew,
- Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Support for spider category changes
Just to say how strongly I support trying to get rid of intersectional categories like "Sheet weaver spiders of Europe". I regard such categories as an abomination. They virtually never have a complete geographical set, so you end up with multiple categorizations like "Spiders of COUNTRY" and "Sheet weaver spiders of CONTINENT", creating webs [no pun intended] of categories instead of trees. Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Staphisagria has a broken automatic taxobox
I just noticed that the "automatic taxobox" is not formatting properly, and have no idea how to fix it. Did not approach whoever (if anyone) made it, as they may not know how to fix it, either. If this is something you can fix, feel free to jump in. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Fixed it. It was just missing a closing curly bracket (}). SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Cite Q template
Hello Plantdrew,
I would appreciate your contribution to the debate about use of the Cite Q template here and here (starting about half-way through at "Hi Geoff"). I think plant names should always be in italics (including in references) but MargaretRDonald thinks the usefulness of the template outweighs its weakness. I have asked a similar question of Primefac. (A friendly debate.) Thanks in anticipation. (Watching here or wherever.) Gderrin (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Gderrin: I think may be useful to keep the discussion in one place, my talk page, as that is where I have put forward arguments for the use of cite Q. I understand your concern about italics but I think it is far too early to shut down the usage of cite Q until many more people have had experience of the template and used it. Given that many many plant articles fail to link to author sources at all, it is surely preferable to have a link minus the correct italics than no link at all. Compare for example, Pogonolepis August 2, 2020 with Pogonolepis December 21, 2020 where the italics have been lost but we are linked to the source article and to an important researcher in the area, Philip Sydney Short. Two important links given by the simple use of {{Cite Q}}. MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Banners
Hello Plantdrew, let me clarify about WP:MAMMALS banners and project article tagging.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide advises: "The pages of a WikiProject are the central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. Editors there develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes and keep track of work that needs to be done. It also provides a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed."
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Tagging pages with WikiProject banners advises: "Many WikiProjects use talk page banners to mark certain pages as within the scope of the WikiProject. This helps the WikiProjects to organize their progress improving pages within the project's scope......Consequently, pages should only be marked with WikiProject banners for projects that intend to support the tagged pages." [My bolding]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#WikiProjects define their scopes advises: "If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of a WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article. For example, washing toys for babies reduces transmission of some diseases, but the banners for WP:WikiProject Health and fitness, WP:WikiProject Biology, WP:WikiProject Viruses and/or WP:WikiProject Medicine do not need to be added to Talk:Toy."
In summary, WPDOGS gets to badge those articles that it intends to improve. It does not badge every article that deals with dogs, refer the projects scope. We should not be badging articles "for the good of the great WP:MAMMALS motherland". In my view, unless WP:MAMMALS intends to take on a management and development role for WP:DOGS-related articles, there is no need for a WP:MAMMALS banner. William Harris (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Plantdrew!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Barleria prionitis
fyi, I have done as much as I could to the article, is the current page acceptable to you? Brunswicknic (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
White-tailed spider
White-tailed spider is an article about two species of spider in the genus Lampona.
- If it's left, I'm not sure whether it's possible to construct an automated taxobox. Any ideas?
- Ideally I would prefer it to be a disambiguation page with links to two species articles. Do you know of any articles set up the way it is now?
Peter coxhead (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
White-tailed spider | |
---|---|
Adult | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | Animalia |
Phylum: | Arthropoda |
Subphylum: | Chelicerata |
Class: | Arachnida |
Order: | Araneae |
Infraorder: | Araneomorphae |
Family: | Lamponidae |
Genus: | Lampona |
Species | |
Lampona cylindrata L. Koch, 1866 | |
Lampona murina L. Koch, 1873 |
- Something like this? — Jts1882 | talk 20:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Jts1882: well, if we have to have an article like this, your taxobox looks good! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Jts1882: after some thought, and also after working on Bolas spider, I decided that it was better to treat "white-tailed spiders" as an informal group, which meant that a normal Automatic taxobox could be used. I'd still prefer articles on each species, but given that it exists... Peter coxhead (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Jts1882: well, if we have to have an article like this, your taxobox looks good! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Spider taxoboxes
I've spent some time converting the last few manual spider taxoboxes to automated ones. Using the search hastemplate:Taxobox "Order Araneae"
, right now I don't find any spider articles with manual taxoboxes. I'll be interested to see what you find when you update the table. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Query
Hi, I wanted to present this for you. User:Starzoner/Eria andamanica. This worth publishing? Starzoner (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Starzoner: I would try to fix the genus redirect before publishing under the name that PoWO accepts, i.e. Dendrolirium andamanicum. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Starzoner: but it's odd that the genus Dendrolirium redirects to a different genus. It needs to be converted to a genus article, as per PoWO. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your "thank" on Lamprodermataceae :-)
Hi Plantdrew, and thank you yet again for tidying up my enthusiastic but maybe not so well-informed edits to biology articles. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
"Complete list of species in genus Persea" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Complete list of species in genus Persea. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Complete list of species in genus Persea until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello plantdrew, thanks for the taxoboxes on the articles, I don't know how those work anyways — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFirstVicar4 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Skeletal stub
I've been trying to build a skeleton of a stub on User:Plantdrew/Plant stub checklist but it is rather complex. Making it so it can be copy-and-pasted is the goal, but the layout is giving me trouble, and looking at it makes me wonder if it will be used properly. Maybe we could select a few stubs of real plants that we could get up to consensus between us, then put the link to their diffs on the taxon template page? Or we could ask at the Village Pump and have somebody build us a substitutable template that has the basic templates within it? The fields in the substitutable template could be the scientific name and the Wikidata item ID. Abductive (reasoning) 03:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- I can help with the template if you come up with the basic structure. I assume it would need parameters like
|short=
,|scientific_name=
,|common_name=
,|authority=
,|image=
,|synonyms=
,|taxonbar=
,|categories=
,|subtaxa=
(which can use {{Format species list}} for formatting lists from POWO, WFO, PlantList, etc),|subtaxa_ref=
, and so on for other elements in the stub checklist. It should be straightforward in Lua. — Jts1882 | talk 08:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Automatic taxoboxes
I was about to create an article on Flabellia petiolata when I discovered it was a monotypic taxon, so I am now proposing to expand Flabellia, but that brings two problems; firstly, I don't know how to deal with the automatic taxobox, and secondly, according to Algaebase, the genus is now included in the family Halimedaceae rather than Udoteaceae. It would be helpful if you could make the required changes, or point me to instructions so that I could try to work it out myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth:, done. Plantdrew (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment about Eria
Hi Plantdrew, I wanna have a small rant here about the species list. I had edited and created some pages, but the utter majority are synonyms of other species. Honestly, I feel like it should just be updated. Starzoner (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Starzoner:, the list was very badly out of date. I've added an updated list. Note that with {{Format species list}}, it is very easy to copy a list of species from POWO; the template takes care of formatting.
- The old species list should be deleted, but before doing so, I want to make sure no articles are orphaned. That entails checking that any redirects from combinations in Eria to combinations are linked from the article (or species list) for that genus (and may require updating lists of species in other genera); also, links that aren't redirects, but aren't included in the current species list will need to have the article moved to the currently accepted name. The old list can be deleted piece-meal as portions of it are checked. Plantdrew (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Eria
Thanks very much for cleaning this page, it was something I was going to do today. I like what you have done. I will check Cylindrolobus for up-to-date, &c. 07:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- please see Cylindrolobus, new page, is it ok?. Brunswicknic (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Is it OK? I'd guess so, but I want to check [2], which I guess is the basis for POWO's treatment of Eria (with many species split into other genera. I'm not finding a full-text version that's not behind a paywall from my home, but I expect I can bypass the paywall when I go into the office on Tuesday. Plantdrew (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- please see Cylindrolobus, new page, is it ok?. Brunswicknic (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
I just wanted to say thanks for checking my stubs and correcting my poor attempts at categorization. Abductive (reasoning) 00:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Otholobium swartbergense
I just created Otholobium swartbergense. Perhaps I may ask you to rate the article within the wikiprojects Plants and South Africa. Thank you in advance. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Tag on my Biography Page
Heya Plantrew, just a note I saw you tagged my Bio page. No probs just want you to know I generally try to avoid editing that page at all for NPOV reasons. I needed to fix the date of birth as it was causing an issue linking between pages on multiple wikis. However more or less everything else on that page was not done by me, except adding one paper that is going on Wikisource, again for link reasons. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- The tag is in your best interests. You make no secret of your identity and regular editors know that, but the potential conflict of interest should be noted. Unfortunately there are editors who are not so honest.— Jts1882 | talk 20:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes @Jts1882: I make no secret of it and thank you for your response. This issue first came up on Wikispecies where I am both an editor/ sysop and a taxon authority having named species. When someone created a page about me here I felt it was also in my best interest not to hide my identity, by my choice no one made those links for me. its why when I make changes to taxa I have published on I usually message a relevant notice page first as a polite heads up if nothing else. Unfortunately issues such as NPOV and WP:OR are not appreciated by everyone and I feel if people know upfront I cannot be accused of hiding it. I have no issue with the tag and realise its in my best interest, am glad its there. It was added just after I corrected my birthdate though so thought I should send a quick message about that. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Acmispon categorization
Sorry, I should have fixed the categorization of the Acmispon articles when I moved some species recently. (The North American Loteae are a taxonomic nightmare, with constant moves among Acmispon, Hosackia, Syrmatium and Ottleya, not to speak of the original Lotus, and considerable differences between sources, partly, but not entirely, due to their differing dates.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Continued need for a "guidance stub".
A number of users are still creating sub-stubs lacking the most basic information and templates. If there was an example stub (or three) the project could agree on, it would make it easier to give these users guidance. Abductive (reasoning) 11:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The |name=
parameter
In many taxoboxes, I believe mostly butterfly species, I've founnd a name parameter with the common name, although the article is at the scientific name. How do you think I should handle that? Animal lover 666 (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
have
you explained anywhere what you are doing with the banksia talk page tagging? have been off focus and havent seen anything JarrahTree 23:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- you dont reply? JarrahTree 02:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Help with a redirect issue?
Hi, please feel free to ignore/delete this, but I couldn't figure out how to use the and I've seen you as an editor on a lot of plant pages so I thought I'd ask you about an issue I'm having.
The issue is with a plant redirect. The problem seems to be that there are two versions of the Latin name Solanum glaucescens.
One is Solanum glaucescens Zucc. (called zarza in parts of Mexico) which is a valid and accepted name for which a Wikipedia page does not currently exist. The other is Solanum glaucescens Bacle ex Dunal which is a synonym of Solanum glaucophyllum Desf.
Currently, the page Solanum glaucescens redirects to Solanum glaucophyllum. I'm not sure how to go about fixing this issue and I was wondering if you had any input as I'm still not used to the redirect mechanisms and proper styles.
Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Tr3ndyBEAR: Hello Tr3ndyBEAR. Plantdrew seems to be away from his desk at the moment. I'm happy to respond on your talk page. Gderrin (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Symmoriida
A tag has been placed on Category:Symmoriida requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Australian Rainforest Key
Hi Plantdrew. As you probably know the old RFK which was hosted at trin[dot]org[dot]au has been superseded. Yesterday I noticed that the domain is once again working but it brings up a rather sinister-looking page. There are probably many articles that still contain references and links to that old URL and I've started searching for them and replacing them with an updated link. I was wondering if there is a tool that can do this automatically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglenut (talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Junglenut: This search finds 569 pages linking the website, of which 244 pages use template {{RFK6.1}} and another 52 pages use {{AustTRFPK6.1}}. It might be possible to modify the template to edit the url, although that will depend on how the new version handles it (e.g. different url using same id). Can you give an example of an old and new url? This could provide a temporary fix. — Jts1882 | talk 10:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Test of sandboxed template (ignore the title which uses the page name):
- Using {{RFK6.1}}: Hyland, B. P. M.; Whiffin, T.; Zich, F. A.; et al. (Dec 2010). "Factsheet – Plantdrew". Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants (6.1, online version RFK 6.1 ed.). Cairns, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), through its Division of Plant Industry; the Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research; the Australian Tropical Herbarium, James Cook University. Retrieved 20 March 2013.
- Using {{RFK6.1/sandbox}}: Hyland, B. P. M.; Whiffin, T.; Zich, F. A.; et al. (Dec 2010). "Factsheet – Plantdrew". Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants (6.1, online version RFK 6.1 ed.). Cairns, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), through its Division of Plant Industry; the Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research; the Australian Tropical Herbarium, James Cook University. Retrieved 20 March 2013.
- Would this help? — Jts1882 | talk 10:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Jts1882: I was just writing a reply to you when I realised you'd added another comment. Yes that update to the template seems to work fine.
- @Junglenut: It might be useful to create a new template for the new site and then redirect the old one. The advantage of a custom template wrapping {{cite web}} is that it makes future changes to the website easier to handle. Looking at the ATRP site, it doesn't seem to use the Hyland et al citation for edition 8. There also seem to be two variants of the page with a www.canbr.gov.au/cpbr link as well as the apps.lucidcentral.org I used for the template change. The former is used for ATRF identifier in the {{taxonbar}}. — Jts1882 | talk 11:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Jts1882: I was just writing a reply to you when I realised you'd added another comment. Yes that update to the template seems to work fine.
- Test of sandboxed template (ignore the title which uses the page name):
- @Jts1882: I would be happy to create a new template but I don't know how to do it. Re the two different sites, the canbr.gov.au one is also outdated (it's v.7), and the lucidcentral one is the current v.8. (I keep forgetting to sign my messages, but not this time!) — Junglenut (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
genus auto taxoboxes with English names
Plantdrew, i hope I'm fixing auto taxoboxes the way you like them now. Lately I've noticed the auto taxoboxes link back to the specific name genus rather than the bold non linked page you view right off. If you look at the auto taxobox page itself, the pages are no longer linked to the English pages. See Pencil-tailed tree mouse. I think I fixed the page, but let me know if I should do something diFferent....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Pvmoutside: the taxobox at Pencil-tailed tree mouse is just as it should be. An important step, which regularly seems to be missed by some editors, is that when the article is not at the taxon name for whatever reason (English name, disamiguation, etc.) the link field in the taxonomy template must be set to the page name with the link text the scientific name, as is the case at template:Taxonomy/Chiropodomys. This ensures that the scientific name is shown correctly in bold in the taxobox.
- My only comment about the article is that the first sentence should begin with the title, so I would swap the scientific and English names. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Moonlight cactus or Selenicereus
I've been working on Selenicereus and Hylocereus, fixing the sinking of the latter into the former. I would, naturally, prefer the genus article to be at the scientific name and not at "Moonlight cactus", which remains ambiguous, not just because Hylocereus is still widely recognized. I notice that the move is on your list at User:Plantdrew/Moveprep. Do you have any more thoughts about this? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead:, it should be moved to the scientific name. I'm pretty sure last time I checked (several years ago), Google reported search results were in the low thousands for "moonlight cactus". Now that is up to 24k, but Google reports 400k results for "Selenicereus" (yes, I take WP:GOOGLETESTs with a large grain of salt). I see Britannica moved their article to "moonlight cactus" from "night-blooming cereus" in 2018, which is probably driving some increase. "Moonlight cactus" is not the most commonly used vernacular name for Selenicereus, and all of more common vernacular names (as well as moonlight cactus), appear to be ambiguous.
- I believe everything in User:Plantdrew/Moveprep#Plant_moves should be moved. That section is a comprehensive list of the plants on Wikipedia I am aware of with vernacular name titles that are (in my opinion) completely unjustified (well, comprehensive barring a couple cases where I disagree with vernacular name titles that were arrived at via discussion through a formal RM). Most everything else on my Moveprep page should be moved as well, unless I've included a comment expressing some hesitancy. Plantdrew (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I also note that Google ngrams don't show "moonlight cactus" at all, and "Selenicereus" get more hits than the ambiguous "night blooming cereus". So I'll go ahead and make the move after leaving a justification on the talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Veronica jovellanoides
Hi Plantdrew, wondering if you would mind rating Veronica jovellanoides, I reckon it is above start class now. Thanks, Beeveria (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Done Plantdrew (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Generic popular names for plants
I'm trying to decide how detailed ShortDescBot should be when dealing with Angiospermae. This is such a huge and diverse group that I think we can be slightly more particular than "flowering plant", leaving that general term just to sweep up at the end everything that doesn't have any high-level popular name. At the moment I'm thinking of using these categories as popular terms, and wondered if you had any thoughts or suggestions for alternatives: grasses, orchids, cacti, [other] succulent plants. Unfortunately, many of the taxonomic groups such as Asteraceae don't map well to popular terms in the category tree. I'm also doing plants by habitat more generally: trees, shrubs, vines, eucalypus (in the mallees category), epiphytes; and acquatic plants. Of course I can't get too particular, or it will take forever, but generic terms that can be identified by Wikipedia category and that apply to more than, say, 1000 or so articles, would be OK. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- @MichaelMaggs: There aren't a whole lot of categories that would work for 1000+ articles.
- Family categories with a well known popular name (including some you've already mentioned)
- Category:Orchids (Orchidaceae) "orchid"
- Category:Legumes (Fabaceae) "legume"
- Category:Poaceae "grass"
- Category:Cyperaceae "sedge"
- Category:Araceae "aroid" (excluding Category:Lemnoideae, which can be called "duckweed")
- Category:Bromeliaceae "bromeliad"
- Category:Cacti (Cactaceae) "cactus"
- Category:Arecaceae "palm"
- Other family category possibilities (maybe not so well known, or map less well to family)
- Category:Asteraceae "composite"
- Category:Euphorbiaceae "euphorb"
- Category:Melastomataceae "melastome"
- Category:Gesneriaceae "gesneriad"
- Category:Apiaceae "umbellifer"
- Category:Brassicaceae "crucifer"? or maybe "cruciferous plant" or "mustard"?
- Category:Solanaceae "nightshade"
- Category:Liliaceae "lily"? (may apply well to some other plants formerly included in Liliaceae)
- Category:Juncaceae "rush" (but bulrushes aren't rushes)
- Category:Cucurbitaceae "cucurbit"
- Category:Dipterocarpaceae "dipterocarp"
- Category:Ilex (only genus in Aquifoliaceae) "holly" (well known, maps well, but a small category)
If you drill too far down a family category you may end up with some taxa that aren't members of the family. Category:Pulse crop diseases needs to be excluded from legumes, and Category:Monocot diseases has subcategories that need to be excluded from Poaceae, Arecaceae and Orchidaceae.
Categories by habit are severely underpopulated. There are a lot of articles on trees that aren't in Category:Trees. Category:Succulent plants is missing lots of articles for succulent species not in the three entirely succulent families (Cactaceae, Crassulaceae, and Aizoaceae). You can certainly use the habit categories to generate short descriptions, but be aware they are far from complete.
Category:Carnivorous plants could be worthwhile
Instead of "mallee", you might consider "eucalypt" (using the genus categories for the genera listed there)
"Mistletoe" describes everything in Category:Loranthaceae as well as the genera listed at Viscaceae. Plantdrew (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- That's really helpful, thanks very much. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused taxonomy templates
I have Template:Taxonomy/= Leishmaniavirus on my watch list so I saw your edit. Is it fine to do that for any taxonomy template that is unused? There are some more virus ones for obsolete taxa or for strains that have since been redirected to the species they belong to and therefore do not have their own article anymore. Velayinosu (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Velayinosu: well, it's what I regularly do. If you feel very energetic, you can nominate all the entries in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates for deletion, but someone will get round to it eventually. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
"Template:Taxonomy/Leptochiton" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Taxonomy/Leptochiton. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 28#Template:Taxonomy/Leptochiton until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Carex nothospecies
A tag has been placed on Category:Carex nothospecies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Advice on a large small problem
Hi. I'm curious as to your thoughts on something. There is a set of pages, all created by a single editor many years ago, each page listing all the species of robber flies whose genus names begin with a given letter of the alphabet. For instance, List of Asilidae species: A. I've only just now noticed, however, that when these pages were created, the editor who created them arbitrarily and erroneously put ALL of the author names in parentheses. That means that well over half of the entries - thousands of them - are wrong. Tracking down which subset of species names actually REQUIRE parentheses for their authorships would be an absolute nightmare of an editing task. On a few of these pages, subsequent editors have added new names, properly lacking parentheses when appropriate, but overall the scale of the issue is pretty overwhelming. The original source file from which these pages appear to have been downloaded (http://www.geller-grimm.de/catalog/species.htm) has the authorships properly formatted, and therefore mostly lacking parentheses. I honestly can't imagine how to fix this short of deleting the existing page scripts and replacing them entirely with a new version parsed from the source file, but I'm not proficient enough to know how to automate this, and doing it manually is not something I would expect any human to attempt, since there are 7194 names in the source file. If you know a good way to clean this up, that would be fantastic. Dyanega (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Dyanega:, rewikifying the source list is easy with the right tools. I have it done at User:Plantdrew/Asilid species. (I downloaded the source, opened it in a spreadsheet (it's a .csv, but values are separated by semicolons rather than commas), copied the spreadsheet column with the names and authorities and pasted that into Wikipedia, and then applied {{Format species list}} (the format template had a script time-out error when I tried to apply it to the entire list, but worked when I broke the list up into four batches).
- My list doesn't have genus section headers like the existing lists do. There's been some haphazard attempts to link authority names to their biographies in the existing lists; I don't think that's worth the effort to preserve (if authorities are going to be linked it would be easier to start over by doing a search/replace my sandbox master list rather than try to reconcile links in 26 different lists). Links to newly described species not in Geller-Grimm's list are probably worth preserving. Geller-Grimm has just 16 species described form 2007-2009, and none from 2010 or later. Searching for recent publication dates should turn up most of the species that have been added to existing lists that aren't in Geller-Grimm.
- I don't intend to place a burden on you to fix the current asilid lists, but if you are inclined to do so, I hope my sandbox list makes it easier (and you are welcome to make edits to User:Plantdrew/Asilid species). I'm not inclined to work on the asilid lists myself right now. I'd rather not work on correcting authority parentheses errors at all, but I guess I'll tackle the 300 odd spider species created between May 2 and May 4 by a novice editor that ALL have an authority in parenthesis.
- There is a big problem on Wikipedia with authority parentheses. It's mostly an ICZN taxa problem (with ICNafp taxa, the problem is more omitting a combining authority that should follow a parenthetical authority). Many articles have been created by editors who don't understand the significance of parentheses. Taxon articles may have parentheses that shouldn't be there, or omit parentheses that should be present. I am not inclined to trust that Wikipedia has applied parentheses correctly. However, I don't routinely check parentheses in my Wikipedia edits, and I don't think any active taxonomy editors pay a very close eye to parentheses in articles they haven't created. Sometimes I'll notice a problem with parentheses. If it's a small problem, I'll fix it; if it's a large problem (e.g. 7000+ species), I may not. Maybe I'll notice a non-parenthetical species that predates the description of its genus; maybe I'll notice species described in the last ~10 years with parenthesis. In a list of species, parentheses for ALL/NONE of the species is a red flag for me, if I notice. Parentheses problems are more apparent in genus articles with species lists than in species articles. I'd bet that there are some asilid species articles with incorrectly parenthesized authorities copied from the existing lists, but there isn't an efficient way to check for that.
- It's not just necessarily Wikipedia either. My first Wikimedia edits were on Wikispecies for a few weeks in early 2008. I started editing Wikipedia several years later. While I was active on Wikispecies, an admin!!!, queried "When do we use the brackets around the author? This puzzles me a lot but I never asked.". I explained it, but it didn't leave me with much confidence in the state of Wikispecies at that time. Plantdrew (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. With the proverbial "leg up" on this, I might chop away at it, one page at a time. It definitely is a problem when people edit taxonomy articles who know next to nothing about the nuts and bolts. I *do* generally notice when articles I'm editing contain a discrepancy, and then I check the entire article. I haven't made many edits to species names on those asilid pages, however, so that escaped me. Appreciate the support. Dyanega (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew and Dyanega: just noticed this thread. I monitor new spider articles, and had seen the parentheses problem. I left a note on QatarStarsLeague's talk page, and am working my way through them. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plantdrew, see the work list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spiders#New spider articles that need checking if you want to work on some of them. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Double small font
Just to note that when fixing incorrect uses of {{Species list}}
, as here, it's easy to end up with double small font; better is to convert to use {{Linked species list}}
, removing all the formatting, or convert to a plain list with *. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spiders#Use of Specieslist template for some general comments and a question. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Tilletia horrida
Hi. Hate to bug you, but need your expertise. Can you take a look at this new article? It had been a redirect to Tilletia barclayana, where it is listed as a synonym. Can it be both a synonym and its own species? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 13:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Onel5969: While I'm not as well versed, this article mentions on pages 125-126 that the two were synonymised after "questionable results of a study in which seedlings of two species of Pennisetum L.C. Rich. were artificially infected with the rice pathogen". If you can't access the article I can provide a screenshot of the relevant extract. Take from this what you wish. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Onel5969:, the short answer is no, it can't be both synonym and it's own species at the same time. A longer answer is that taxonomists can disagree and one person might regard something as a distinct species that another regards as a synonym. Wikipedia can't really accommodate multiple taxonomic points of view (it would be WP:SYNTHESIS, and would be inherently inconsistent), so we usually follow the a particular database that follows the general consensus taxonomic point of view for a particular group of organisms. We shouldn't have an article on a species that is listed as a synonym in a different article; the articles should either be merged, or the name should be removed from the synonym list (in the case of T. horrida, keeping separate articles and updating the synonym list at T. barclayana appears to be the right way to go). Plantdrew (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thanks to both you and Anarchyte for your detailed explanations. I see that the editor who created the new horrida article has already removed the synonym from the barclayana article. I had already marked the horrida as reviewed, since I had an inkling that this would be your response. On a different tack, have you ever thought of doing NPP patrol, concentrating on taxonomy articles? Onel5969 TT me 00:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
display of extinction symbols
Excuse my laziness, it is easier to ask. I seem to recall there was a way to suppress extinction symbols in taxoboxes, or perhaps there was general agreement not to bother. In the simple listings I remove the redundant marks from the 'child' parts, just seems sensible. ~ cygnis insignis 19:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there has ever been a consensus to do this. Indeed, given that automated taxoboxes generate the symbol from the taxonomy templates, at levels of genus and above, a missing lower ranked extinct marker would correspond to a taxonomy template error that would get corrected – the system checks that all ranks below an extinct rank are also marked as extinct. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I later realised I know how to do it, I'm rusty, whether I should stop doing what I had been is the question. Do either of you think it preferable to mark each one, or inconsequential, and would you have that in the article lists as well? ~ cygnis insignis 20:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis:, my inclination is include extinction symbols for lists of child taxa in the taxobox of an extinct parent taxon. However, I don't feel very strongly about it, and in practice I don't regularly add extinction symbols when they are absent (but I definitely don't remove them when present). I don't think I've ever added extinction symbols to a list of species in the body of an article about an extinct genus; but then again most fossil genera don't have species presented in a list format in the body of the article (there will be a list in the taxobox, but individual species are usually mentioned in running text in the body of the article). I think it would be good to add extinction symbols to (article body) species lists when a genus has both extant and extinct species, but again, this isn't something I routinely check. Plantdrew (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- This seems good advice to me, i.e. always put them in taxoboxes, don't put them in running text, always put them in lists which mix extant and extinct taxa, it doesn't matter either way in something like a list of the species of an extinct genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you both, I think that is pretty much what I had resolved to do. I have possibly removed in a mix, but only where I added a screed to make it explicit when, eg. fossil or once known as extant. I should probably add subfossil, which might indicate known to people once upon a time. I should probably expand them into sentences … ~ cygnis insignis 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- This seems good advice to me, i.e. always put them in taxoboxes, don't put them in running text, always put them in lists which mix extant and extinct taxa, it doesn't matter either way in something like a list of the species of an extinct genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis:, my inclination is include extinction symbols for lists of child taxa in the taxobox of an extinct parent taxon. However, I don't feel very strongly about it, and in practice I don't regularly add extinction symbols when they are absent (but I definitely don't remove them when present). I don't think I've ever added extinction symbols to a list of species in the body of an article about an extinct genus; but then again most fossil genera don't have species presented in a list format in the body of the article (there will be a list in the taxobox, but individual species are usually mentioned in running text in the body of the article). I think it would be good to add extinction symbols to (article body) species lists when a genus has both extant and extinct species, but again, this isn't something I routinely check. Plantdrew (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I later realised I know how to do it, I'm rusty, whether I should stop doing what I had been is the question. Do either of you think it preferable to mark each one, or inconsequential, and would you have that in the article lists as well? ~ cygnis insignis 20:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Nepenthes latiffiana
Hi, I just accepted Nepenthes latiffiana submit to AfC, then noticed the submitter had previous for copy vios so I did some more checking and realised the first para of "Plant characteristics" is a direct copy of diagnosis from this source page 7. I'm not sure my knowledge of the terminology is good enough to reword, so I thought I'd ask if you could have a look as I know you jump on many/most plant AfC submissions. If not I'll remove and request a CV revdel. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @KylieTastic:, I'm not sure who you're referring to as having previous copy vios. The person who created this article hasn't edited any other articles. The paper with the diagnosis has a copyright notice stating it is "distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License". Isn't it OK to copy CC-BY content to Wikipedia? If not, just remove it. A diagnosis is required when describing a new species, but it's not really encyclopedic content (the "description" section following the diagnosis in the linked paper would be appropriate for an encyclopedia). A diagnosis summarizes the differences between any similar known species and a new species; it's not useful to somebody who isn't already intimately familiar with the known species, or at least somebody who has access to specimens of the known species. The description is useful for a more general audience (although it requires knowledge of jargon as written). 01:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- They have a rejection for submitting Draft:Nepenthes domei as a copy vio so as it was deleted it does not show up as edits - it was submitted and deleted 14 April 2021. DOH - yes I completely missed the "Creative Commons Attribution" I looked for the logo/standalone text - which is of the launch page. I agree that using the diagnosis rather than the following description did appear odd to me, however as the description was so long and detailed it seams that a direct copy would not be appropriate either. Many thanks KylieTastic (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Request for peer review
Hi Plantdrew. I hope you are safe and staying hydrated during these times! Sorry to bother you and for the random request. I have been working on an Australian cycad stub article, Macrozamia miquelii, and I'm trying my best to get the article to a C class. I know that you peer reviewed another cycad species in 2017 (Macrozamia spiralis) and that is why I am requesting a peer review from you. I would love it if you could review my work on the Macrozamia miquelii and leave a comment on what I can do to improve my edits. I hope this is okay and it is completely fine and understandable if you are busy.
Hope to hear from you soon! Thank you for your time! :) --Yames76 (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For keeping Taxoboxes tidy and error-free, I award you this barnstar! — hike395 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC) |
Plant names in other languages
Hi Plantdrew, I picked your name randomly, but fully cognisant of the fact that you contribute a lot on taxonomic matters, so I thought you might b the right person to address. Do we have policy guidance on the inclusion of names in other languages such as here (example for mere illustrative purposes, does not fully reflect common practices)? Where such sections exist in articles, the different names are added ad hoc by whoever come across the article and add the name in a language that they speak. In some cases there are interwiki links to most of the languages cited, which make such inclusion superfluous. In other cases, it is almost always the names in European languages that are added, so such sections fail in terms of WP:WORLDVIEW. Would like to hear your take. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Rui Gabriel Correia: see WP:WikiProject Plants#Common names – guidance widely ignored, but sound in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Blobfish photo
Hi, I noticed that there is a 'well known photograph' of (a) blobfish, but no link. This is the edit where you added it. 2A02:C7F:861D:6A00:F1D1:47C3:879F:FB9E (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Edit Warring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodsprings,_Nevada
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 98.26.118.255 (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
23 more WikiProject tags
In case you're interested, I just went through all transclusions of {{Category described in year}} and found these 23 category talks which don't exist yet ~
- Category talk:Butterflies described in 2012
- Category talk:Crustaceans described in 1925
- Category talk:Fossil parataxa described in 1860
- Category talk:Fossil parataxa described in 2020
- Category talk:Fossil parataxa described in the 19th century
- Category talk:Fossil taxa described in 1792
- Category talk:Fossil taxa described in 2021
- Category talk:Insects described in 2020
- Category talk:Insects described in 2021
- Category talk:Molluscs described in 2020
- Category talk:Molluscs described in 2021
- Category talk:Moths described in 2020
- Category talk:Nematodes described in 1799
- Category talk:Nematodes described in 1856
- Category talk:Nematodes described in 2020
- Category talk:Plants described in 1757
- Category talk:Plants described in 1769
- Category talk:Plants described in 2020
- Category talk:Plants described in 2021
- Category talk:Reptiles described in 2020
- Category talk:Spiders described in 1862
- Category talk:Spiders described in 2020
- Category talk:Taxa described in 2021
Cheers ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 02:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding:, now done and thanks for pointing these out. I have not been consistently adding {{WikiProject Years}} in my previous edits, but I did for this batch. Plantdrew (talk)