User talk:Peter coxhead
TUSC token 4e41785016df312d7f4772b046fd919f
I now have a TUSC account!
Plant article naming convention
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?. I asked Pmanderson on the Pmanderson talk page, but not sure if she/he will see the request. Thanks. --
Hi PC, point taken, you are right. How about "The species in the genus have attractive flowers"? Also, having looked at in more detail, how about removing "and have two distinct ranges, seeing that "recent studies suggest that" ... "the single species indigenous to England, Wales, Ireland, and the fringes of Western Europe" ... "does not belong in the genus"? Regards,
- Well, the problem is that although it's agreed that M. cambrica should be in Papaver, it's the type species, so if it's formally moved, the genus can't be Meconopsis. I understand there's a proposal to conserve Meconopsis, so I suspect that only when this is approved will reliable sources actually make the move. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter ... you effectively reverted an edit of mine on the above subject, where I corrected the attribution of the "hookeri" synonyms. Please note that the attributions I put in are according to IPNI, which is more up-to-date than WCSPF (as the latter admits it can be up to 2 years behind IPNI). Do you not agree? MisterCDE (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. My recollection – apologies if I'm wrong – is that there wasn't a reference so I restored it as per a source. (Since the main secondary sources often differ, it's important to give the reference.) By all means fix it to IPNI + a ref. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Saw that you reversed my edit that added Douglas fir to Category:Trees of Oregon. Understand your concern that Oregon is covered by Trees of the Northwestern United States category. However, just so you understand my rationale, I thought since there’s a specific category for Oregon trees and because Douglas fir is Oregon’s official state tree and a Top-priority article for WikiProject Oregon, it would be appropriate to include it in Trees of Oregon even though it overlaps with another category. While I knew it would create category overlap, I thought this was reasonable/appropriate justification for overlap. Bottom line … I really don’t care one way or the other, but want you to be aware that there was a thoughtful rationale for putting Douglas fir into Oregon trees category.--Orygun (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Orygun: It's not a totally straightforward issue, I agree. There has been a problem with editors using categories such as "Trees of ..." as substitutes for articles such as "List of trees of ...", and this is not what the category system is supposed to be used for. Nor should an article be placed in a category and that category's parent. On the other hand, the category system is a mess, so it's not clear that "random corrections" like mine are really useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Blazing star barnstar|
|For stellar contributions to improving plant related articles.|
Excellent technical work, excellent arguments at talk, excellent breadth of coverage of plant related topics, and excellent responsiveness to requests by many editors. I was surprised not to see more barnstars already on your talk page. FloraWilde (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Acupuncture source at WT:MEDRS
Hi Peter -- appreciate your having taken the time to comment on this. I made a small but important correction to the wording of the question at hand: here. It doesn't bear upon what the phrase "real acupuncture was no better than sham" refers to. But the difference between a statement being a conclusion of the paper vs. the conclusion of the paper is a difference worth noting, and may or may not impact how you choose to word your remarks at WT:MEDRS. Best regards, and a toast to scholarly pedantry, Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 00:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that in the paper, Ernst et al. make several statements which could be construed as "conclusions". The key question in relation to MEDRS is the conclusion reached from his review(s), which, in my reading, is the one in the summary and no other. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I agree with you. There's also some question over exactly what the specific phrase -- "real acupuncture was no better than sham" -- refers to; I agree with 2/0's conclusion  that he's referring to his ref#128, Suarez-Almazor et. al. 1990.
- Some editors appear to believe that the phrase "real acupuncture was no better than sham" refers to the larger body of literature, and that my disputing their conclusion is a POV-push to make acupuncture look like it's more effective than it is. What can I say to that? Not much other than this. Happy editing, --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 02:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Peter coxhead,
as you are at least observing the Rosa Iceberg article, I'd like to ask if you could look over my changes to Rosa Peace - and if you have any suggestions what to do with information I can't verify (the story about Viscount Alanbrooke which seems to be incompatible with the naming by the US partner). I normally don't change more than a few sentences...
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Anna reg: great work! I was particularly interested in the use of the "ahnentafel" template, which I'd not seen used in this context in the English Wikipedia; I think it works well. I've made some copy-edits, but these are just minor formatting and English. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I copied the template idea from the russian wikipedia, where it's used in a lot of rose articles - and was glad to see that this German named template works here as well. Thanks for your corrections - the down to instead of up to minus xx degrees correction makes sense and is already copied into my sandbox (where I'm trying to collect useful things for rose articles), as it appears in most rose cultivar articles. Thanks again, --Anna reg (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Once again we are both doing the same edits simultaneously! I was actually disappointed and surprised at the complete absence of taxonomic and phylogenetic information, I think some purists threw the baby out with the bathwater since the last time I had a major go at this page. Planting my daffodil bulbs made me revisit it! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I wander around bulb articles from time to time. I didn't initially realize you were actively working on the article; hope I didn't cause any edit conflicts. The articles (genus and species list) present the common problem with a widely hybridized popular garden plant: the botanical and horticultural aspects can easily get muddled up, to the detriment of both. Hippeastrum and many cacti articles are other examples. I regularly wonder whether it would be better to have separate "botanical genus" and "gardening" articles in these cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I saw your contribution to the Violet saga, after I was considering asking your advice about it. I haven't had a chance to read all the MOS material in detail, after clearly misquoting it the first time. It's heartening that you also see what the style-enthusiasts are doing as flawed. I'm too tired right now, but am wondering if there's some awful confusion somewhere between redirecting and piping that may be leading to serious deterioration in disambiguation pages as people apply "the rules" without thinking about how to help the reader. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Peter. I thought I'd better come over and explain why your edit to Violet was incorrect. (It wasn't me who undid it, but only because somebody beat me to it; I'd have done it if they hadn't.)
You are correct that "Redirecting may be appropriate ... when linking another disambiguation page"; however, that's irrelevant to the edit in question because it didn't involve redirecting (linking to a page that redirects to a different page), but piping (linking to a page using something other than the page's title as the link text). Piping is covered by different guidelines than redirecting, and they don't include an exception for linking to disambiguation pages.
It's also worth noting that in the specific case of List of plants known as violet, redirecting isn't possible, regardless of whether it's appropriate; there are no redirect pages that point to List of plants known as violet.
- So what you are saying is that if there is a redirect to List of plants known as violet (which is easily created) then we could use that link in the disambiguation page? An idiotic position in my view. How do you suggest that readers are directed to set index articles which are part of the disambiguation of a topic? Do we have to repeat the entire content of the SIA on the disambiguation page? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)