User talk:Peter coxhead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please note that if you leave a message for me here, I'll reply to it here, so put this page on your watch list.
If I left a message on your talk page, you can reply there as I'll be watching your page.
This makes it easier to follow the conversation.
Thanks!

TUSC token 4e41785016df312d7f4772b046fd919f[edit]

I now have a TUSC account!

Plant article naming convention[edit]

Hi Peter coxhead. There is a plant article naming convention request at the Help Desk. I saw your name listed at Naming_conventions_(flora) contributions and am hoping you would post your thoughts at How long does speedy deletion usually take?.[1] I asked Pmanderson on the Pmanderson talk page, but not sure if she/he will see the request. Thanks. --

tetrahedronX7[edit]

Hey thank you for editing . My friend

Automatic taxobox help[edit]

I'm preparing to go through all of the Primates articles and convert them to {{Automatic taxobox}}. Per the consensus, I have set Haplorhini and Strepsirrhini to always display. I have already done some test runs with Lemur, Lemuriformes, Strepsirrhini, Fork-marked lemur, and Giant mouse lemur. I do have a couple questions, though. First, why is "Euprimates" showing up in some of the aforementioned articles? Second, since we've settled on a particular taxonomy for strepsirrhine primates, some of the ranks are not needed—such as Lorisiformes, Cheirogaleoidea, and Chiromyiformes. What should I do about them? Are they harmless, or does something need to be done. In short, we'll be using the 2-infraorder taxonomy listed on Taxonomy of lemurs.

By the way, the "update" link (under Subgroups) on the template pages is reporting that the toolserver has moved. You might want to update the links. – Maky « talk » 09:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Euprimates" shows up because Template:Taxonomy/Strepsirrhini has this as its parent. Remember that the automatic taxobox system simply follows the "Template:Taxonomy/X" hierarchy. So if you get something unexpected above taxon "X" you need to look at "Template:Taxonomy/X" and see what the parent is set to. I won't fix the Strepsirrhini issue myself, because it's better if you check all the primate taxa and make sure they are consistent. Although inconsistencies are reduced in the automatic taxobox system, they aren't eliminated altogether. Suppose that taxon W has the subtaxon X and X has the subtaxa Y and Z. Then one editor can set Y to have X as its parent and another can set Z to have W as its parent. This will produce W → X → Y and W → Z in the taxoboxes for Y and Z, even though Y and Z are at the same level in the hierarchy.
Yes, I know the subgroups system doesn't work. I think the documentation says this somewhere. I don't think that the code that was on the toolserver was migrated by its creator, so it can't be fixed, at least at present. I guess that this part of the system should simply be removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Euprimates, the system displays all taxa in between the current one and the next higher major rank. So for Lemur, it is going to display everything up the chain until the order is going to show up. (Aside: should Lemuroidea be always display?) We can squelch this behavior to remove Euprimates, but I think it will require a skip template. If we want to do this let me know and I'll do it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Erik, it also depends on how editors set the parent taxon in a taxonomy template. Suppose genus X is in subfamily Y which is in family Z. It's not necessary for "Template:Taxonomy/X" to have Y as the parent; both it and "Template:Taxonomy/Y" can be set to have Z as the parent, if Y should not be displayed in taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'm fine with Euprimates showing up in the Strepsirrhini article (and therefore also the Haplorhini article), but not so much in the Lemuriformes or Lemoroidea (Lemur) articles. I guess I will point their parents Strepsirrhini, or something similar. So it sounds like I just ignore the other unused superfamilies and infraorders...
Well, hold on. The system deliberately shows all minor taxa between the current and the next highest major rank because that is what the designers of it thought was best. Do we really care enough to override that? Should we override it on all taxoboxes? Why are these ones special? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Are these special? I doubt it. I'm just worried that any higher-level taxa articles I create and take to FAC might get criticized for having too much taxonomic information in the infobox. But we can cross that bridge when and if it comes up. – Maky « talk » 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Erik's question about Lemuroidea, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm not planning on showing those infraorders and superfamilies in all the lemur articles. It's only meaningful at the higher levels. All systematics at that level are highly disputed, but this system was selected for use on Wikipedia because it allows the clearest and most consistent language to be used when talking about both living and extinct primate taxa, as well as their unique anatomy.
I mean on all the various lemur species/genera articles, e.g. Brown mouse lemur, should the taxoboxes include Lemuroidea? (This seems a lot more compelling to me than including Strepsirrhini on the taxobox at Brown mouse lemur.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals#Taxonomic ranks in taxoboxes (exception for Primates), I made the case that it's important to distinguish between the two major divisions of primates. At the species level, that's all that matters—they are either strepsirrhine or haplorhine primates, not which superfamily they belong to. I think superfamily matters at the family level, but that's all. – Maky « talk » 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that discussion. Your note here is in reply to me, but I'm not sure if you are trying to explain to me why having Strepsirrhini in the taxobox is more useful than having Lemuroidea, or if you have a different point? Or what your thoughts are on including Lemuroidea in all the lemur taxoboxes? In any case, I think what you outline here is what you have caused to happen with your changes from a few hours ago. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, please keep an eye on what I'm doing over the next few days. If I'm doing anything wrong, just let me know. I'll be monitoring the conversation here and return here if I have any other questions. – Maky « talk » 19:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection, I see what Erik was saying. It would be ideal for Lemuriformes to show up in Lemuroidea (Lemur), which means it must be the parent. And likewise, Lemuriformes must have Strepsirrhini as the parent. How complex would a skip template be, and how would it work? I've noticed that at the family and genus level, this problem goes away, as Erik predicted. In other words, it's only a problem at these higher levels.
Well, currently it does show up on Lemur, because it is the parent. This isn't what I'm saying. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
"How complex would a skip template be" – one possibility here, if Euprimates is really objectionable, would be to have an extra Strepsirrhini template that is used as the parent for Lemuriformes/etc. This template's parent would be Primates. The regular Strepsirrhini, used only at Strepsirrhini and perhaps as a parent for extinct Strepsirrhini subtaxa, would still have Euprimates as its parent. This way, Strepsirrhini would still list Euprimates, but Lemuriformes would not have Euprimates in its taxobox. Similarly for Haplorhini. We do this in various other places to keep e.g. Dinosauria off of Bald eagle, and to deal with limitations in WP's template system when the chain of template substitutions is too big. Here's an example, there are several: Template:Taxonomy/Eumaniraptora/skip. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to think on this... – Maky « talk » 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm beginning to rethink the Lemuroidea question now. It might be beneficial to let the lemur and lorisoid families point to their superfamily, especially since it won't affect articles for genera and species... but that might require discussion and consensus... (See Cheirogaleidae as an example, and then see their two developed children: Fork-marked lemur and Giant mouse lemur.) Your thoughts? – Maky « talk » 19:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure exactly what you're proposing. Would you spell it out please? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Simple: Lemur families show the superfamily (Lemuroidea). Below that level, superfamily is not shown. The only extra taxon rank shown would be Strepsirrhini (as mentioned above). – Maky « talk » 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
OK; I see what you mean. I don't understand why, but I think I see what you are suggesting here. (In any case it appears to be the status quo at this point.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I have gotten so confused by your questions. I'm sorry this has been so confusing. I guess I just don't understand what you're suggesting. Do you want to see superfamily Lemuroidea listed in the taxobox all lemur articles? If so, why?
Sorry if I've been confusing! I'm mostly just trying to figure out what everyone wants the taxoboxes to look like so I can help set up the templates to make it happen. (Also I want to keep track of how the templates are used for various reasons.) I don't have strong feelings either way about either of these questions. I just asked since we were talking about putting more things in taxoboxes and Lemuroidea seemed more compelling than Haplorhini/etc. "why?" – so that it will be easy to see from the taxobox that the species/etc is a lemur. Why did you want Strepsirrhini/Haplorhini in the taxobox? Same reason, I guess? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I would love that. However, I'm hesitant because I'm worried it would be seen as an attempt to bloat the taxobox. Distinguishing lemurs and lorisoids within Strepsirrhini would be good, as long as it wouldn't force the infraorder Lemuriformes to be visible also. (That taxonomy is highly controversial, as I note in each article that mentions it.) Everyone agrees on the superfamilies, though. So if I correctly understand how this template works, then we may need a skip template to make sure Lemuriformes only shows at the superfamily level... If so, can you please help? – Maky « talk » 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Either way, the handling of Euprimates seems more convoluted now that I've had time to look at it. There appears to be two competing taxonomies: Primatomorpha (including Primates, Dermoptera, Plesiadapiformes) or Primatomorpha (including Dermoptera and Primates) with Primates containing Plesiadapiformes and Euprimates. In Google Scholar, the use of Euprimates (the latter) seems to win out, but the Wiki articles seems to favor putting everything in Primatomorpha (the former). If we were to switch to using Euprimates, the featured article Primate might have to be restructured, partly rewritten, or moved. (The complication is that the popular term "primates" typically refers to Euprimates under that classification.) Your thoughts on how to proceed? To be honest, I have neither the time nor the desire to make such a fix to the Primate article right now. – Maky « talk » 14:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That is interesting; thanks! I have no opinion at this point about which to use; if there's consensus among primate workers for one or the other then why not use it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
In that case, since Euprimates is currently a redirect to Primate, I'm just going to point the parent of Strepsirrhini and Haplorhini to Primates. If someone wants to challenge this taxonomy (and is therefore willing to make the necessary changes), then that will be their problem and we can address the issue at that time (if necessary). – Maky « talk » 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Peter, yes, by "between the current one and the next higher major rank" I meant of course the taxonomy templates currently linking those two. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Colour me blushing[edit]

Yes ErikHaugen, my edit which you reverted (thanks) was unintentional. Big thumb problem when scrolling down Watchlist on ipad. Sorry about that. Moriori (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nutmeg[edit]

Hello, Peter - I see you have occasionally edited at Nutmeg, but I wasn't sure whether you had the article on your watchlist. I wanted to ask you about two edits:

1) This one [2]. I remembered a similar edit being undone back in November: [3]. Someone has added it back in again.

2) This one [4] (fiddled with in one or two subsequent edits). I don't think it's an improvement in the prose. CorinneSD (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist, but I don't get round to checking all of the changes (I really should prune the list!). I entirely agree that these edits should be undone. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you about this again. (I was away from editing for a week.) I looked at these edits again. I was thinking I could just revert back to your last edit, but there is one other intervening edit (changing "marijuana" to "cannabis"), and I wasn't sure whether that was a good edit or not. CorinneSD (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your judgement re the last "good" version and I did decide to revert to the one I last edited – the added material is not appropriate for the English Wikipedia in my view and/or not sufficiently reliably sourced. The use of "marijuana" occurs in an unsourced bit; I'd use that word rather than "cannabis" if the source did, but there wasn't one that I could see. So I changed the wikilink to avoid the redirect, and left a "citation needed" tag. Unfortunately articles on plants commonly used as food seem to attract well-meaning but unhelpful and unsourced edits. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That's why WP is fortunate to have knowledgeable people such as yourself as editors. Thanks for making the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infraspeciesbox[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Infraspeciesbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Species by common name cats[edit]

Why this edit? Was there consensus to depopulate these cats? Guettarda (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

These others are still populated. Guettarda (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but those categories all have a reasonable number of articles in them. There has been a consensus that "small categories" should be avoided; I've generally been quite conservative compared to some editors in interpreting this as 10 or more entries. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


Auto ed[edit]

Hi Peter. I've started going through USDA Plants common names (User:Plantdrew/USDACommonName), creating redirects and tagging existing redirects with "R to scientific name|plant". I was wondering if you could help with coding for auto ed to append "R to scientific name|plant" to redirects. Right now, I still have auto ed set up with your code for appending "|plant" to redirects tagged with just "R to scientific name". Plantdrew (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I have this action set up at User:Peter_coxhead/autoedit.js. So just copy this file and it should work. (I've taken a temporary break from working through the BSBI plant names to do some work on Cistus species, but I do intend to finish off the list. USDA Plant common names – wow, that's a big task!) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that works. I may have bitten off more than I can chew; so far (after 4 days of work) I'm about 40 pages into a 610 page list of USDA common names. Plantdrew (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Slow and steady is my philosophy with such tasks; I work on something more interesting and then come back to it. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: depending on what you want to do with the USDA common names, you might find User:Peter coxhead/Test/T5 useful. It's a template that suppresses output if there's no page at the common name (1st parameter) and creates a link directly to the talk page of the common name, which serves to check that it exists. Thus:

* {{User:Peter coxhead/Test/T5|wild celery|Apium graveolens}}
* {{User:Peter coxhead/Test/T5|European marshwort|Apium nodiflorum}}
* {{User:Peter coxhead/Test/T5|spreading dogbane|Apocynum androsaemifolium}}

generates

If you want to check existing common names, this makes it a bit easier. I decided that creating all the missing common name redirects for the BSBI list was too much work for a first pass. I may go back to this task.

(By the way, Apium graveolens should not redirect to Celery, at least in my view. The species should have a separate article.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm mostly interested now in creating missing common name redirects for the USDA list (about an order of magnitude more species than BSBI deals with, so maybe I'm insanely ambitious), but I also want to check existing redirects of USDA names for missing redirect categorization or possible conversion to SIAs. I might play with your T5 template; I think it'll be helpful for my purposes if redlinks in both of the first two parameters suppress the the entry. I haven't been tagging talk pages of common names as WP:PLANTS redirects; it seems like a bot could invoked once the redirects are categorized, but your T5 certainly makes it easier to get to the talk pages for manual tagging.
Splitting Apium graveolens and celery has been on my radar for a while; we've already got Celeriac split from the binomial. Previous discussion was pretty negative on splitting. Sorting out geranium and pelargonium is another ancient split/move discussion I'd like to revisit if I find the energy. Plantdrew (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Square capitals template[edit]

Hi Peter,

I really don't know if you'll find this interesting, but as a template guy you may find a use for it: A new template {{Sqc}} (square capitals) created by Erutuon.

[Here is an example] of it being used.

The full discussion that led to its creation can be found here:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin#Small caps (or query the page for "{{Sqc}}" to find the heart of it, as the section is rather long).

All the best, Hamamelis (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Although not of direct use to me, it does raise similar presentation issues as the problem of how to style selling names, as per {{tdes}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Mandrake move[edit]

You recently participated in a move request discussion at Talk:Mandrake (plant). I have posted a follow-up request at Talk:Mandragora officinarum if you are interested in participating. —  AjaxSmack  00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the research and work on Mandrake, Peter. Soon enough The Cabal will initiate you to the rank of apprentice sorcerer, and you will be able to use its magical powers to your advantage. With these skills you can win all the content disputes on Wikipedia. Regards, No such user (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I wish! Seriously, the more I look into the scientific literature on Mandragora, the more uncertain I become as to the best approach in Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

rewrite[edit]

I thought it best to refrain from what I was about to write on the other thread. Please. An editor will read a statement like "No, you don't agree with me" and interpret "No, you don't agree with me". In a recent discussion I perhaps unwisely used the example, despite a plethora of others that could have been used, of Arnold Schwarzenegger as a perhaps over famous example of a person who is afforded long title description in Britannica and absurd scaremongering exaggerations ensued in that thread. Here I say, in effect, that recognisability is a foundational principle of article titling and I get hauled over the coals for it by a variety of editors. WTF. GregKaye 19:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions to Wikipedia, I see that you've participated in a number of move/titling discussions. So you're undoubtedly aware that people have strong, even passionate, views about titles, and that we all come to this particular table with history. One problem with recognizability and naturalness is that there can be ENGVAR issues – see e.g. Talk:Maize, noting the number of RMs. I edit mostly plant pages, and there are constant problems with editors from one country assuming that the English name they use is recognizable and natural to everyone. So I'm primed to insist on full consideration of all five principles, on a case by case basis. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate what you say and, if anything, I think that I would prefer precision to be foremost amongst the fundamental issues that we stick by. In that discussion you told me curtly "No, you don't agree with me". There was no disagreement. I should not have refrained but should have confronted this at the talk page. Now I am being told that I seem formalistic. What I am doing is expressing the importance, as I see it, of issues such as recognisability and true precision (not just as a front for the dissection of disambiguation) in title choice. We should have accurate content. We are unnecessarily failing. No one seems to care. GregKaye 19:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you are unnecessarily pessimistic. We should have accurate content – titling and content are different issues. In electronic media, a unique title is needed to unambiguously identify an item. Wikipedia could have used numbers and still had perfectly accurate articles, whose lead sentence and section identified the topic. No one seems to care – to the contrary in my view, in relation to titles: editors care too much about titles. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)