Jump to content

User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Reverting

You should only revert an edit if you think it made the article worse. Reverting it simply because you don't know why it was made is not productive. See WP:REVEXP. And you should be familiar with the WP:MOS. Heyyyaahhh (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Heyyyaahhh: you should see and note WP:ES. You gave no edit summary at all; I gave one – I reverted an unexplained edit. All you had to do was to make the edit again, if it was justified, but this time with an edit summary. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It is ridiculous and disruptive to revert an edit just because you don't understand why it was made. It was a really obvious basic edit that any competent editor would know the reason for in an instant. Exactly what harm did you imagine it did? Heyyyaahhh (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Heyyyaahhh, regardless of context (of which I know nothing), please see Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary. It's better for everyone.
Also, it's hard to take seriously someone whose strict obeyance to guidelines causes them to ignore others. This is another reason to use an edit summary in the future: it will help your case.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Austrammo

Hi peter this is pipamidalton. I apologize for my error as I went “remove dead link happy” thinking I was improving articles. I didn’t know about WP:REDDEAL "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article" and for that I am so very sorry. All the hard work you did. I know how that must feel because I do feel same when I come across nuisance edits. But I assure you these are all good faith edits so I’m removing any reds I removed and know next time. How do we delete the alternate article that had my edits? I’m sorry againPipamidalton (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pipamidalton: don't worry about it; there's too much to learn about Wikipedia editing never to make a mistake! To undo an edit you made, if no-one else has edited the page, go to the History tab and undo the last edit. Otherwise, you have to manually put back what you changed. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:MOS on breeds

Hi, please revert your revert pending resp by closer at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Some clarification. It is easy to replace down the track? I think that this needs more thought - not that I disagree with the close. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

If you don't disagree with the close, how can you disagree with QEDK bringing the MoS into line with their close decision? I do disagree with the close, precisely because the issues you raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Some clarification were not resolved. But unless the close is challenged and over-turned, then our guidelines should be consistent with it. Challenge the close, and I willingly accept that QEDK's edits should be reverted. Without such a challenge, they should not. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Flowering Leaf Theory

I've removed the other mentions of this, as it's original research.

One of the references is accessible (https://www.wildflowersocietynl.ca/page9/files/Sarracenia_Vol_19_3.pdf Sarracenia 19(3): 23-24 (2011). (Sarracenia is a wildflower newletter; Osprey is a natural history magazine.) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: yes, someone is still adding this all over plant articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Accidental Rollback

I am so sorry, I accidentally rolled back your edit here. I've undone my rollback here. The page jumped as it loaded and I misclicked. SQLQuery me! 21:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@SQL: no problems, easily done. Thanks for the message, though. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Speciesbox for Rubus idaeus

Hi. Thank you for reminding me about adding some sort of edit summary. Also, I've tried to learn from yours and plantdrew's edits to my edits, like taxon should not be capitalized and speciesbox should be and so on. But, I'd like if you could add the speciesbox for "Rubus idaeus" in correct form. I'm uncertain how to handle the subgenus it currently has listed. Voltteri (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Voltteri: see Rubus idaeus. However, it's not possible to display the subgenus name correctly at present; it's a known problem to be fixed. For a botanical name it should be shown as "R. subg. Idaeobatus", but the template doesn't de-italicize "subg.", so it seems better to just display "Idaeobatus". Peter coxhead (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Yeah, I figured the subgenus might cause problem with the template scheme. I guess this and some other cases I've seen might be why this process isn't automated. Voltteri (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Voltteri: it's on my to-do list to fix the template, but it's a list that just seems to grow. :-( Peter coxhead (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Voltteri: There are various places where I've skipped converting to automatic taxoboxes for now due to lack of sources, or disagreeement among sources regarding the placement of taxa in minor ranks (that is, subfamilies/tribes for genera, subgenera/sections for species). For subfamilies/tribes I usually look at APWeb and GRIN and if they don't agree, I skip. APWeb and GRIN don't agree on the tribes for Caryophyllaceae, so I haven't worked on that family yet. GRIN is really the only database that has subgenera and sections, and it doesn't always have them. I'm a leery of relying only on GRIN for this, so I often skip genera where Wikipedia species articles have subgenera and sections. Granted, I could make more of an effort to track down good taxonomic sources for this kind of stuff, but right now there's still plenty to do where the sources aren't such a problem. Plantdrew (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

rank label

I didn't want to muddy the TOL conversation, I read a consensus to act on what you suggest, but a notion occurred to me. As guidance, the labels for each taxon correspond to current usage (consensus) of workers in their field, as ranked or unranked, I think this is what you are saying can and does happen. My suggestion, ill thought out, is to have the top level (kingdom) drop the label and the linked article, eg animal, plant, takes over navigation where the taxobox cannot (should not?). That is sort of what happens, but absence of a label allows accommodation of a base, a ground-level, where the base of classification trees meet the roots. Forgive the analogy, I'm told I am less clear when I attempt to convey something that way. cygnis insignis 17:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd thought of several ways round the problem – the core of which is that a 'relational database' (which is what the taxonomy templates are, albeit crudely) has serious problems handling multiple over-lapping hierarchies. (Wikidata has a terrible problem with taxonomy too.)
  • One approach is along the lines of your idea. When a taxobox is displayed, then when working upwards from the target taxon to Life, if an inconsistent rank is found, it's replaced in the taxobox by "Unranked:" or something similar.
  • Another is more complicated, but basically involves passing upwards a value for "classification mode", so that at each point in the hierarchy, the system chooses the parent that matches that mode.
I think we'll all have to return to this in the future, because I can't see a consensus classification at the upper levels emerging any time soon. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Your oversight of these matters is beyond praiseworthy, findin' fault in your approach is proving exceedingly difficult, Anyway … the example of the chiropterans is prove-worthy, there are several purported phylogenies within the ranked system we have applied. cygnis insignis 16:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I found your secret!

I was about to tell you about this crazy taxonomy template I found and send it to Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates ( 0 ), but then I looked at the history to see what joker made it and it was you! {{Taxonomy/Vole}} was the template in question. And now Vole has an automated {{Paraphyletic group}} box instead of the manual {{Taxobox}} it was using. Hopefully that doesn't mess up your testing. --Nessie (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@NessieVL: well, it was one of a number of test taxonomy templates (like Template:Taxonomy/Junkia) that I used to use to introduce errors to see that the system coped with them. But clearly I'll now need to leave Template:Taxonomy/Vole alone!
It does raise the issue of consistent naming of taxonomy templates for unranked/informal groups: should they be at the scientific name when it exists as an alternative (as is currently the case for Template:Taxonomy/Tracheophyta/Plantae, for example); at the plural of the informal name (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Angiosperms) or at the singular, like Template:Taxonomy/Vole? Or does consistency not matter? Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Voles would be better, as there is more than one type, but that usually gets criticised because of Wikipedia naming conventions preferring use of the singular (c.f. chimpanzee). The same applies to Zebra so this issue opens a can of Worms.
The taxobox no longer uses Template:Taxonomy/Vole. The subfamily is set as the parent using |parent=Arvicolinae. The alternative |taxon=Vole shows an additional line in the taxobox (Informal group: Vole), which seems redundant. This redundancy might also be relevant for Nessie's proposed update of the taxobox at Bryde's whale, which currently gives two abbreviated species names and the two binomials. Only the latter are needed.   Jts1882 | talk  09:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jts1882: I see no reason whatsoever why taxonomy template names should be bound by the convention that articles should have a singular title where possible. I definitely favour the plural (the Vole example is a special case because it was a test).
A related issue is whether the taxonomy template name and the link text (returned by {{Taxon info|...|link_text}}) should ever be different. There is an issue with the italicization of the page name and the taxobox name when they are different from the link text. The current code, as you know, checks these two names against the base taxon name, derived from the name of the taxonomy template. But if what is shown in the taxobox, namely the link text, is different from the base taxon name, it can be argued that the check should really be against this (or perhaps both).
I'm thinking of introducing a tracking category to see how common it is for the link text and the base taxon name to be different. If it's uncommon, then I would propose fixing them to be the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I second the use of English plurals (many are Latin plurals already). If Wikidata is to be a guide (not that it should be in all cases), descriptions for ranks above species are plural while species and below are singular, so this would tie in nicely. Just my 2 cents, and since I'm in the process of adding many missing biota descriptions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the Vole article was not using your taxonomy template before, and it is not now either. There are cases where the Paraphyletic group box uses |taxon= instead of |parent=, usually where there was a now obsolete taxon created at some point to mirror the English word. I don't think it would be a good practice to invent a taxon and rank and shoehorn it in to all paraphyletic/polyphyletic groups.
As for English plurals in the taxoboxes, there are already a few cases like algae and bacteria where we have Golden algae and Nylon-eating bacteria and not Golden alga nor Nylon-eating bacterium. Really though, all clades are plural, as they contain multiple species and/or many individual organisms. But English is weird. --Nessie (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Taxobox formatting problems at Template:Taxonomy/Tortrix? florissantana

Can you please take a look at the formatting at the very bottom of Template:Taxonomy/Tortrix? florissantana? It comes up in a list of pages with Linter errors, which is how I noticed it. Something screwy is happening with brackets and italic/bold formatting, and these taxobox templates are too opaque for me. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: looking at it, it will have been wrong for a long time: |refs= in taxonomy templates can't have ref tags. However, the particular form of error displayed may have changed with recent changes to the underlying code, particularly the conversion of parts to Lua. Fixed now. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to remember that. It may have broken when Tidy was retired in favor of Linter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: one issue was (and continues to be) that the templates that initially implemented the automated taxoboxes spread opening and closing tables, starting and continuing table rows, starting and ending spans, etc. across different templates. This makes conversion to Lua, and subsequent maintenance both difficult and error-prone, so it's possible that a new problem was introduced. We're trying to re-organize the code, but it's an on-going process, where each "fix" reveals new errors. Module:Autotaxobox should detect the ref tags and handle them, issuing a sensible error message; I'll add it to my to-do list. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Understood. As I implied above, the taxobox system is above my pay grade. Thank you for fixing and improving it. I will continue to report any problems that I observe. I spend a lot of my WP time fixing errors listed at Special:LintErrors. I have not seen any systematic taxobox-related errors popping up on those lists. There are very minor errors in individual articles, but nothing major that I have seen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Review quality rating extended articles

Hi Peter, Could I please ask you to have a look at the quality ratings of Corymbium, Mairia and Roridula. Thank you in advance! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Authors in parentheses

A nice film title, but actually about my head canon on why sources disagrees (slightly). A new generic placement sees the author in parentheses, a regular case, but see if you can follow this:

  • a cryptic species Mormopterus sp. 6, [irrelevant, but I mentioned it before]
  • published as Mormopterus eleryi Reardon & McKenzie, 2008, the type species of
  • subgenus Mormopterus (Setirostris) Reardon, McKenzie & Adams, 2014,
  • Mormopterus (Setirostris) eleryi Reardon & McKenzie, 2008. [All good so far]
  • genus Setirostris Reardon et al., 2014 in Jackson & Groves (2015) Taxonomy of Australian Mammals p. 598
  • species Setirostris eleryi (Reardon & McKenzie), 2008 in Jackson & Groves (2015)
  • genus Setirostris Reardon et al., 2014 in Australian Faunal Directory (AFD) Setirostris "Described as a subgenus of Mormopterus (Readon [sic] et al. 2014) and treated as a genus by Jackson & Groves (2015)"
  • species Setirostris eleryi Reardon & McKenzie, 2008 in AFD

The 2014 revision also saw Australian taxa assigned to another new subgenus which follows a similar [parallel?] synonymy for the new taxa in these works, now arranged here as genus Ozimops, isolating the subgenus Mormopterus (Mormopterus) to bats outside the region (and the scope of these references, so I cannot compare the workers notes). cygnis insignis 19:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Um... Can I follow it? No. My experience is that for groups where there isn't a reliable taxonomic database, actively curated by people who understand the relevant nomenclature codes, you can't trust published authorities (and even when there is such a database, it's not necessarily right). Parentheses in particular are often used sloppily.
However, I find Art. 51.3.2 in the ICZN unclear (but I'm more used to the botanical code). See Art. 5. It says "The use of parentheses enclosing the name of the author and the date is not affected by the presence of a subgeneric name, by transfer to a different subgenus within the same genus, ...". So, if I understand it correctly, when Mormopterus eleryi Reardon & McKenzie, 2008 is called Mormopterus (Setirostris) eleryi, the authority remains Reardon & McKenzie, 2008. But if it's moved to Setirostris eleryi, then the authority is written as (Reardon & McKenzie, 2008).
Again if I understand correctly, changing the rank of a subgenus to genus doesn't seem to need parentheses. So if M. subgenus Setirostris has the authority Reardon et al., 2014, then genus Setirostris has the same authority with no added parentheses. Dyanega is (or was) an ICZN Commissioner, so is the person to ask about this! Peter coxhead (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Still am, thanks. ;-) Be that as it may, ANY genus placement that differs from the original genus necessitates parentheses. As you said the first time, if it's moved to Setirostris eleryi, then the authority is written as (Reardon & McKenzie, 2008). Assuming it has never been treated as a genus, then changing a subgenus to a genus will result in ALL the previously included species names using parentheses; the same is true if a name that has always been treated as a genus is turned into a subgenus. Dyanega (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dyanega: thanks; it's very good to have an expert on hand. I'm clear about species under the ICZN. As I noted above, I'm much more familiar with the ICNafp, and, if I understand correctly, there is a difference in relation to names for ranks between genus and species. In the ICNafp, when such a name has its rank changed, then parentheses are used. The ICNafp gives the example of Anthyllis sect. Aspalathoides DC. If the section is raised to the rank of a genus, then it becomes Aspalathoides (DC.) K.Koch. Whereas in the ICZN, when subgenus M. (Setirostris) Reardon et al., 2014 is raised to the rank of genus, no parentheses are used, so we have genus Setirostris Reardon et al., 2014. Am I right about the ICZN? (I do wish it had more examples; the ICNafp is less well written in my view, but easier to understand through the examples.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
for a related example, Mormopterus (Micronomus) was recognised the year before, and Ozimops show a variety of taxa new and old. These are mentioned at AFD and at Richards & Groves better link, to compare when parentheses were applied or omitted (deliberately or erroneously). Thank you both for the replies. cygnis insignis 10:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, under the ICZN, only names of species' authors can ever be in parentheses; genus-rank names or higher (including subgenera) are never parenthesized. Dyanega (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dyanega: thanks, good to have my understanding confirmed. Now all I have to do is to remember it! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Chingkankousaurus

You made the most recent edits at {{speciesbox}} so you probably understand what should be done to correct the recent edits at Chingkankousaurus by a new user. I could figure out a fix but it would be better done by someone who knows whether the new image is desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: it had already been reverted, but for the record, this is what it should have been. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Polygonum polymorphum

Hi Peter. I notice you've redirected Polygonum polymorphum to Koenigia alpina. I originally knew Polygonum polymorphum as Persicaria polymorpha, which is indeed described as synonymous by the Missouri Botanical Garden. Yet Persicaria polymorpha is not listed as synonymous with Koenigia alpina with sources I have viewed, nor on the WP page (though this site describes it as "also sold as Persicaria polymorpha" - no italics for binomial). Can you shed light on this? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it's not 100% confirmed. Polygonum polymorphum was the first genus in Polygonaceae in which the epithet polymorphum was used; it was subsequently transferred to Aconogonon polymorphum. Although the name Persicaria polymorpha seems to have been used as another synonym in horticulture (the boundaries between the genera of Polygonaceae have long been unclear), it doesn't seem to have been formally published. Here it's given as a synonym of Polygonum polymorphum (but with the wrong author; Nakai transferred it from this name to Aconogonon) and of "Aconogonum polymorpha" (although Aconogonum is an orthographic variant of Aconogonon, it's neuter either way so it should be polymorphum). It's also possible that it's a name only used for a cultivar "Aconogonon 'Johanneswolke'" (search for that name). However, that only muddles the situation further, because the species of 'Johanneswolke' is given as Aconogonon speciosum in some sources, but that's a synonym of Bistorta amplexicaulis, which doesn't look anything like the illustrations of 'Johanneswolke'.
So the line of argument is: (1) there are horticultural sources, such as the one you gave above and the one I've given above, that say that Persicaria polymorpha (with no authority given) is a synonym of Polygonum polymorphum; (2) there are sources, such as the one used in the article, that say that Polygonum polymorphum is a synonym of Koenigia alpina; (3) if both of these are correct, then it follows that Persicaria polymorpha is indeed a synonym of Koenigia alpina. I could add this to the Koenigia alpina article, if you think it would be worthwhile. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that might be useful - my (admittedly rather casual) impression is that in the horticultural trade Persicaria polymorpha is used quite commonly - e.g. [1] [2]. Some suppliers list it as Persicaria alpina, and say that that is a synonym of Persicaria polymorpha - [3] [4]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@PaleCloudedWhite: feel free to add it yourself if I don't for a while – I'm working more generally on Polygonoideae (an article I've just created) – the generic names and placements in the English Wikipedia are considerably out of date in some cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

plural/singular usage of higher taxon names

Hi, Peter. I see that you thanked me for my edit on Solifugae. If we are in agreement as to proper grammatical usage of higher taxon names, then I'd like to point out that this same editor is engaged in changing a large number of WP articles in the exact same way ([5]); they've already made some 30 edits in less than an hour, and if they keep up this pace, it stands to be extremely disruptive. I've left a note on their talk page, they appear to have ignored it. Not sure how best to handle this. Dyanega (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for animals, as far as I know, there's no policy or guideline we can use as leverage (for plants, there's WP:PLANTS/TAXONNUMBER). So it's difficult to make a case to get an admin to act. I guess you could ask for admin help at WP:ANIMALS. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
More unfortunately, the comment at WP:PLANTS/TAXONNUMBER is incorrect, as it states:

"Some facts are not disputed:

  • The botanical name of a taxon higher than genus (i.e. from family upwards) is plural in Latin.
  • A genus name (and hence a species or infraspecies name) is singular in Latin."
This certainly is (or should be) disputed, because ALL names from genus upwards are collective nouns (they all refer to a group with multiple members), and all follow the same rules, those being the rules for collective nouns; collective nouns are singular or plural depending upon context. You can easily assess by mentally adding the phrase "members of" in front of the taxon name, and seeing if it makes sense. For example, "Members of Cactaceae are a family" makes no sense, nor does "Members of Cactaceae are the sister taxon to Portulacaceae", but "Members of Cactaceae are typically fleshy and possess spines" does make sense. The former usages are clearly and unequivocally singular ("family" is singular, as is "sister taxon"), the latter usage is just as clearly plural. Similarly, "Orussidae are parasitic" is fine, but so is "Orussidae is the only parasitic lineage within Symphyta" or "Orussidae contains the only parasitic species within Symphyta". The problem is that while you can easily get scientists (at least American ones) to agree that this is the practice, it is extremely difficult to track down published resources that spell this out. Besides, it is entirely unclear where, exactly, in the WP:ANIMALS hierarchy such a discussion and policy would be best employed. Frankly, it applies to all living things that have scientific names - and, as I said, I disagree with what is said at WP:PLANTS. Just because something has the weight of tradition doesn't mean it's grammatically correct. What is REALLY needed is an actual expert in grammatical forms. Here is an example I found that matches my understanding: [6] - it even uses the same technique I was taught to use, by seeing how it sounds by adding "members". Dyanega (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dyanega: I'm afraid I have to very strongly disagree with you.
  • There's no "grammatical authority" that can define what is or is not correct English; it's a matter of established usage. (As it happens, I taught grammar as part of Natural Language Processing modules up to MSc level for many years.)
  • Very well respected and standard textbooks on botany show both uses, as we found out when discussing this.
  • There are differences in how collective nouns are treated in different varieties of English, but most allow either the singular or the plural depending on context (and that's the crucial point). For example, "committee" can be used in either the singular or the plural (as Google Ngrams show – somewhat less used in the plural in American English than British English). "The committee has decided ..." – singular usually, because it was a collective decision. "The committee have been arguing among themselves ..." – plural, because here a collection of individuals is meant. (See e.g. [7].)
  • Particularly because there are WP:ENGVAR differences in usage, as well as clear differences of use in reliable secondary sources, no editor should be changing from one form to another, unless the context makes one not fit.
Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dyanega: sorry, in what I wrote above it may not be clear where I'm saying we disagree: it's about an actual expert in grammatical forms. (You seemed also to be challenging the number of the nouns in Latin, but this is beyond dispute.) We agree about context dependency. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for airing this, the vagaries of collective or singular give me a lot of pause when composing content and and the use of common names plays into the consideration I give these things. Prompt me for where my consideration of this began @Hesperian:, and what I have thought since, if I can can expand on what I regard as a valuable discussion. cygnis insignis 13:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Not to prolong it unnecessarily, then, I would focus on two things Peter just said: (1) "no editor should be changing from one form to another, unless the context makes one not fit." THIS argument would mitigate against the edits of the editor I mentioned earlier, as most of their edits changed ONLY this, and nothing else. I'll note that this person hasn't edited again in the last day and a half, so maybe they did see my cautionary message. (2) if you are claiming still that a genus is singular and a family is plural, this is not true; both are collective nouns, and can be either singular or plural. In fact, I wrote somewhat in haste earlier and failed to note that ALL scientific names, including species and subspecies names, are collective nouns. The phrase "Homo sapiens are often violently aggressive towards conspecifics" is grammatically acceptable. There is a substantial difference between the ICZN stating (in Article 11,8) that genus names are "nouns in the nominative singular" for nomenclatural purposes, and how they are treated grammatically. When I've explained this to people the example I give is a sports team name; just because a team name is written as a plural doesn't mean you must universally treat it as a plural, as in the phrase "The Houston Rockets is an NBA franchise." What's odd is that the names of bands don't seem to work the same way, and I don't know why; "Queen is going on tour" is fine, but you wouldn't say "The Rolling Stones is going on tour". In true English fashion, there always seem to be exceptions to certain rules. Dyanega (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dyanega: you're not reading what is actually written: in Latin, genus names are singular and names of higher taxa are plural. This is just a fact. When biologists wrote in Latin, they obeyed this rule all the time. The point being made at the WP:PLANTS guidance is that we are not writing in Latin, so, yes, in English, all taxon names can be treated as collective nouns in context.
Re "The Rolling Stones", the important issue here is the presence of "the". English marks singular proper names by omitting determiners ("Peter is here" not "the Peter is here") and plural proper nouns by allowing or requiring determiners ("the Smiths came to dinner" not "Smiths came to dinner"). So "the Rolling Stones", like "the Beatles", will naturally appear to be plural to an native English speaker, whereas "Queen" will not. That's why the WP:PLANTS guidance says use e.g. "The Asparagaceae are..." or "Asparagaceae is..." Peter coxhead (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
LOL. Maybe I should have used singular band names starting with "the", like "The Clash" or "The Cure" as examples instead. There's always something to contradict any rule. Dyanega (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dyanega: yes, in English, there are few statements about how English is used by speakers who don't consider they made a mistake that are sufficiently without exceptions to call them "rules".
Back to scientific names. I work on spiders when not distracted by other issues. The great arachnologist Eugène Simon, who described more spider taxa than anyone else, wrote his formal descriptions of new taxa in Latin and then discussed them in French. In Latin, I've always seen agreement between the singular genus name and the plural names of higher taxa and any adjectives and the following verb. So on p.128 of Histoire Naturelle des Araigneés, he writes, as usual, "Euthyacaelus .. a Leptopelmati differt (Euthyacaelus .. from Leptopelmatus differs)". But in French, he varies. So on p. 130 of Histoire Naturelle des Araigneés he writes "Les Sason sont (the [plural] Sason are)". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What is the story with Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates?

I figured you might know the story with Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. Can these templates be nominated for deletion? Are there any that should be kept for any reason? A couple of other editors and I are working on a list of about 28,000 templates with no transclusions, and that report led me to this category. Thanks for any info you can provide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: the "story" with the category is that attempts in the past to have unnecessary (and unused) taxonomy templates deleted by some fast process failed (as per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Should a 4th CSD for unused templates be added?). The bureaucracy involved in at TfD is too time-wasting for most of us, so the tradition is to blank unused and unnecessary taxonomy templates and put them in this category.
I would be glad if they could all be deleted. What I'm not prepared to do is to spend time explaining why each one should be deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it accurate to say that all of the templates in that category are unnecessary and unused? If so, I'll be happy to nominate them for deletion. Do you anticipate any objections to that mass nomination? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, all those I've put there have been blanked, i.e. all the content replaced by Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates, so they must be unused. If you look at the content before deletion and it doesn't start with {{Don't edit this line ...}}, they must be unused. All those I've placed there are unnecessary; I can't speak for other editors.
I certainly wouldn't expect any objections; indeed, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 2#How to delete taxonomy that is no longer valid? suggests that other editors are even more willing to delete unused taxonomy templates that aren't in this category than I am. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I commented at that thread. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Lack of edit summaries; unexplained blanking of substantive content on my talk page

Peter.....can you look at my talk page and explain to me why these 2 editors are upset....I can't figure out why.....thanks …..Pvmoutside (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Commented there. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my page....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

taxonbar/maps

Taxonbar

Hi @Peter coxhead: I notice the Swedes have now taken up the taxonbar, but it is not yet widely used for biota on svwiki, in contrast to enwiki. I am wondering how to go about drawing it to the attention of all wikis. I find it almost indispensable in composing biota articles, and in checking them. And find it a great pity that other wikis fail to use them (obviously default sets of plant ids would differ among wikis). Who should I speak to? Who should I try to persuade? MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's anybody "above" all the individual wikis; on the contrary, my impression is that they guard their independence. So I'm not sure how it could be done. See also my comments below. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Maps

Hi Peter. The Swedes automatically slide the image from wikidata into their plant species boxes. Would you have any suggestions as to who I should solicit to enable the putting of the "taxon range map image" into the infobox on commons and into the species/taxoboxes in the various wikis. It seems silly to be putting them up by hand, when they exist in wikidata. MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I spend what I think is a highly disproportionate amount of time trying to fix taxon items in Wikidata. I've been working on the genera and species of Polygonoideae lately. In the past, I could just create articles on species here on Wikipedia. Now I have to create and correct Wikidata entries as well, which I resent. (If I don't do this, the taxonbar will be missing or wrong.) Wikidata is riddled with errors, in my experience, at least in relation to organisms, partly because most of the entries have been created by bots, like Succubot, and haven't been checked by humans, and partly because Wikidata exists to reproduce other databases, whether or not they are inconsistent or in error.
Here's a very small example I'm trying to get fixed in the underlying databases. Look at the taxonbar at Muehlenbeckia axillaris as of 09:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC). There's a link to Plants of the World Online, but not to IPNI. So I went to add one to IPNI. But the obvious link, to the IPNI entry at the same ID as PoWO, 694740-1, would be wrong: it has a differently expressed authority, which is not the earliest. The correct authority appears to be at the IPNI entry at 151752-3. So do I put this into Wikidata? I can't put both, because it won't allow me. I'm trying to get IPNI and PoWO to agree, when Wikidata can be updated correctly. Wikidata has built-in assumptions and limitations which are simply wrong for taxa.
Wikimedia Commons is also full of mis-identified images, obsolete taxonomic names and classifications, etc. Again, I resent the amount of time I've had to spend trying to fix the wrong Wikimedia Commons categories as a side-effect of working on Reynoutria – and I can't fix them all because I don't have file moving powers on Commons. As for maps, who would ensure that they are kept up-to-date? Spider articles, which I also work on, frequently have out-of-date maps that are inconsistent with the text of the article, partly because there are fewer people creating and maintaining maps than articles – also perhaps because editors update distributions without noticing that the maps also need fixing.
So I'm afraid you've asked the wrong person. I would very strongly oppose any further automatic importation from either Wikidata or Commons. Manually initiated imports, fine; automatic, no. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Reyesia draft review request

Hello Peter coxhead

Thank you for your kind comments and recent additions to the page Streptosolen that I've been adding to recently.

Could I ask you the favour of reviewing my recently-created page on the Solanaceous genus Reyesia ? I foolishly left it unreferenced for a couple of hours, only to find, on my return, that it had been banished to 'Drafts' by the slightly overzealous user Discospinster, before I had a chance to add the references I had ready and waiting. I understand drafts can languish in limbo for 8 weeks or more, before being reviewed, and the page is now, I think, as up-to-scratch as others I've had accepted.

In case you're too busy, I've already asked the (similarly kindly-disposed) Plantdrew the same favour - happy if either of you were kind enough to oblige.

kind regards

Flobbadob

@Flobbadob: I see that Loopy30 made the move. I've done some more copy-editing. Some points you might like to note:
  • There's a template at WP:PLANTS/Template that gives the normal section order. (To my mind, much of the template is over-detailed, but we do almost always stick to the sections and their order.)
  • Watch spaces after commas; you seem to omit them.
  • Wikipedia style for units is to use   between the figure and the unit, e.g. 4 cm not 4cm.
  • The Plant List is very out-of-date as a reference now; Plants of the World Online is in effect the replacement for those plant families not covered by the World Checklist of Plant Families.
  • I suspect that many editors would say that your Description section is too technical and ask for it to be "wikified" (i.e. written in less technical language and more connected prose).
Peter coxhead (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead:...yes indeed - hats off to loopy30 and your good self.Thank you for the pointers - particularly re. The Plant List vs POTWO - duly noted. Re. spaces after commas : I am now a little confused. Some time ago I was upbraided by another Wikipedian for NOT leaving spaces after commas, so I started leaving spaces after commas and decided that that style of punctuation did indeed look more aesthetically pleasing...then, the other day I was pulled up someone else for LEAVING spaces after commas. Ever eager to toe the line and have a quiet life, I duly reverted to NO spaces, although I thought the result looked pretty horrible.
May I take this opportunity to say how wonderful it is to receive some prompt and constructive feedback and even some actual praise from you - such a contrast to the usual negative feedback and occasional borderline vandalism I've had in the past. Naming no names, but there is a breed of Wikipedian that seems to take a positive delight in deleting great swathes of others' contributions - not because they are badly-referenced or poorly-written, but simply because of a highly subjective dislike of the info presented. ( I'm thinking particularly of one instance in which an editor of a highly scientific bent took grave exception to my adding some relevant folklore ( duly referenced ) to the page about Mount Etna...) I make it a rule always to try and be constructive and leave a page richer than when I found it.
As regards coding - all pointers gratefully received - I'm a total novice and have picked up such meagre skills as I have by trying to imitate what I have observed on others' pages. I suspect the finer points may continue to elude me. I do however have a lot to offer Wikipedia, not least because I have quite a large and esoteric library upon which to draw for references.
To the begrudgers I say : 'I do this for love not recompense and my sole aim is to please'.
Once again, heartfelt thanks for the friendly voice.
cordially yours
Flobbadob
@Flobbadob: well, there are some editors around with very odd views, I agree. For example, you wrote I have quite a large and esoteric library upon which to draw for references. Great, say I. However, I was once reprimanded when a quite new editor for using a reference not available on the internet. Fortunately, SMcCandlish responded (in their usual robust manner I seem to remember) that the critic could always go to a library, or even buy the book, as SMcC had sometimes done in order to edit. So use your sources, always being careful not to plagiarize, and keep on – but do remember to try to paraphrase the technical stuff as best you can, since our target audience isn't specialists in the subject of the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep. WP:V and WP:RS tell us that sources don't have to be online, just published by a reputable publisher and available one way or another (interlibrary loan is often very handy for expensive academic works one wouldn't want to burn $250 on, heh). It's really nice when they are available online (at least in abstract form, as is most often the case with journal papers, unless you have full-text access through a journal-search site's paywall, via one's university or employer). Some disputes about contentious things (medical claims about e-cigarettes, that sort of thing) tend to drag on when sources are cited but not readily available. For the average article, books are fine, and often better sources than online alternatives (self-published blogs, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Monotypic genera at binomial title

Peter, there are several monotypic Araliaceae genera using binomial titles. Could you please move them?

I've verified monotypy for these 4 with POWO.Plantdrew (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Plantdrew:  Done – with the very minimum of post-move fixing, which I leave to you. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Traditional medicine - what is appropriate?

Hello, I appreciate your edits to the Pajanelia page. One thing I noticed from your edits is that you removed most parts referring to Ayurveda. According to this source, "A decoction of the leaves is used as a treatment against fever. A hot decoction of the leaves is used externally against stomach disorders."[1] Obviously this material is most likely false as it relates to traditional medicine, however these methods are still apparently used by native people. According to WP:MEDRS Wikipedia should not be used for medicinal advice; considering this, how does one report on the fact that some natives do use these methods? Should we find a source which explicitly proves them as right or wrong, or just not include this section all together, as they could be misconstrued as advice rather than reporting? Thanks, RussianAfroMan (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@RussianAfroMan: well, the key policy and guidance is set out in WP:MEDRS and related pages, so anything I say must be subject to those. For me the important point is not ever to imply efficacy without the support of reliable review sources. The problem with the text I removed is that "treatment against fever" and "used ... against stomach disorders" clearly implies, to me anyway, that it works. Where there have been reviews, you can say that there is or is not evidence to support effectiveness. Where there are no reviews, I think you should just say that it is used in traditional medicine, or perhaps that within that system it is used in cases of whatever. Zefr does a lot of good work in this area and may be able to offer more specific advice – I usually point out problem text to Zefr. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Ok thanks. I'll adjust the article to explicitly state that this is used only for traditional purposes and should not be taken for legit medicine. I'm definitely not trying to legitimise fake medicine, In all honesty I was just padding out content from all sources I could find. Thanks for advice, it's appreciated. RussianAfroMan (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@RussianAfroMan: no, sure, I appreciate that your edits are in good faith. The problem is that you can't say that it should not be taken any more than you can say that it should be taken, unless there are reliable sources (and even then we can't say what should be taken, only what is known to be effective or known not to be effective). You just have to say, with a reliable source, that it's used in traditional medicine. If in doubt, do as I do – leave a note at User talk:Zefr (note that they like to keep this page 'clean' so remove messages after action). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Useful Tropical Plants, retrieved 11 March 2019
Hello Peter and RussianAfroMan. Your discussion is on the right track as Peter states, although with a caveat in this instance concerning the use of Pajanelia in traditional medicine – the sources for its supposed therapeutic uses are from thinly-sourced plant and agroforestry databases (references here), which one can conclude are not rigorous for making statements about such uses. In this case, I suggest excluding mention of it altogether. RussianAfroMan, fyi, the articles on Alternative medicine and Herbalism contain high-quality, critical reviews on traditional medicine practices. Thanks for the link into your conversation! --Zefr (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Viruses Barnstar

WikiProject Viruses Barnstar
I know this is a little late, but thank you for all the work you've done on the {{virusbox}} template, and elsewhere. Nessie (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

soliciting opinion

Hi Peter, hope all is well, it generally is my way to save you enquiring :) May I, solicit an opinion on a merge/deletion of a contentious species? I created the article, so my citations are only that. No!—without meaning to second-guess your next question—I haven't provided a link, the question is is it okay to solicit an opinion? You are one of those users who I try to posit "what would X say", but that was unpredictable based on your past statements in these matters, so I have to take up your time instead. cygnis insignis 14:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm always happy to express an opinion! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
LOL. The taxon, a siphonophore, is one of those boundaries where workers have to say we start diagnosing species or throw away the concept (IMO). My sources identify more than one species and papers are proposing further taxons, which I agree is crystal-balling (sort of), but the state-based (Australian gov) authority says such and such (taxon and authority and cited justifications) are recognised (a legitimate secondary reference). cygnis insignis 15:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
So polite. I usually just ping Peter coxhead and expect him to come running! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Is this about Physalia utriculus? --Nessie (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Australians seem pretty fond of having semi-formal provisional names such as Brachychiton sp. Ormeau (L.H.Bird AQ435851) (and we have an article describing this practice, although I can't remember what it is called). Are the siphonophore species formally described? Plantdrew (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Plantdrew, [grrr] for very good reasons, I am currently working on mammals that had provisional names for taxa that was likely to more diverse than the scant research had indicated, the evidence that emerged showed that to be a gross underestimate. cygnis insignis 17:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC) And yes, they are formally described, good grief. cygnis insignis 17:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
NessieVL, not especially, but that prompted the discussion. I requested that you respond on this particular article and that was seemingly overlooked or ignored. If you have anything to say on that I would prefer you reopen the discussion. cygnis insignis 17:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: I was unaware the discussion was closed. I have "reopened" it there. --Nessie (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
NessieVL, I'm trying to evaluate whether your decision to delete my article was warranted, for future reference, you will have seen the reply to the pings and perhaps appreciate that I have no interest in investing more than I already I have with that response 'deleted now?, oh good, thanks everyone!'. cygnis insignis 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Peter, I'll focus on improvements elsewhere. cygnis insignis 17:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis, NessieVL, and Plantdrew: I'll avoid commenting on any specific case, and what I say below should not be taken to apply to any such. However, I would like to make some general points.

  • The opening paragraph of WP:SCIRS encapsulates the problems we face. It says "Scientific information .. should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge", but also that "ideal sources .. include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources". Sometimes these coincide, but in the case of taxonomic changes, they often don't, since "comprehensive reviews" are frequently years behind what appears to the "current state of knowledge", and where taxonomic changes have been driven by molecular phylogenetic studies, by the time reviews appear, they have often been overtaken.
  • In some groups, there are regularly and reliably maintained taxonomic databases. (Although they probably aren't exactly what WP:SCIRS means by "reliable published sources".) Thus for spiders, the World Spider Catalog is such a taxonomic database: it's regularly updated; gives explicit references to the taxonomic literature (which it also ensures is available); and has staff who rapidly respond to queries and are willing to fix issues that are identified. So, for spiders, I will always support the view that we should not create articles or move them until the WSC signals acceptance. (Another such database, in my experience, is WCSP, but sadly not PoWO.)
  • However, such databases are the exception, and for most groups, we only have a range of secondary sources of differing and sometimes suspect reliability, leading to difficult choices when they differ. I've only used WoRMS, for example, when trying to sort out problematic taxonomy templates, and quickly realized that it has serious limitations. When I started Wikipedia editing, I was more 'activist' in making changes based on phylogenetic studies in journals; now I try to be more cautious.
  • Caution should definitely apply to supposedly new species that don't have names published under the appropriate nomenclature code plus evidence of support from at least one other reliable source. I would certainly support any move to delete Brachychiton sp. Ormeau – mention it at the genus article, sure, but don't have a separate article.
  • Where it just can't be settled as to whether two names are synonyms, I now tend to favour 'lumping' as one article, with full discussion and redirects. Splitting later is easier than merging and fixing references to the different names in other articles.

Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I spoiled the example, got carried away, its quite a notable species as it turns out (or conservationally significant unit, or whatever that term is) I'm inclined to remove the taxobox, assuming an article was otherwise notable would you do the same? cygnis insignis 16:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

POWO is untrustworthy

Hi Peter, I'm still busy with Rheum. POWO is proving a really terrible resource: their list of accepted species includes taxa later treated as synonyms on their species pages, their references are opaque, their distributional data is either incorrect or flawed... see Draft:Rheum spiciforme. I think what has happened is they are largely using the just out English translations of the 1989 Plants of Central Asia (I assume its a straight-up translation judging from the publishers description, I only have the originals), not realising the author changed her mind 25 years later when she worked on the Flora of China, but only for individual species treatments; how they arrived upon their list of accepted species is a mystery, it doesn't appear to follow any one work.

The Plant List 1.1 appears best, 1.0 is also flawed.

I'm thinking about chopping my draft up into 6 species. Also about disregarding the POWO list of accepted species and adding taxa which I think should be recognised (moorcroftianum). Thoughts? Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, PoWO is still a very flawed database overall. Some parts are based on the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, and are, in my experience, both up to date and well curated; others are neither. I worked downwards from Polygonoideae to its genera. I've looked at the key phylogenetic papers underlying the changes to genera, and PoWO is the only database I've found that has a set of genera that is both self-consistent and in agreement with modern phylogenetic work, such as the cladogram in the Polygonoideae article. However, for these genera there are problems at the species level, I agree. I haven't looked into Rheum, but I do know that as of now, PoWO treats Muehlenbeckia adpressa and Muehlenbeckia australis as the same species, whereas there are good sources that indicate that this isn't correct. (I can say more about PoWO if you want, but you'll need to e-mail me.) So if you can support a different set of species with sources that meet WP:SCIRS, go ahead is my view.
(By the way, the well-known problem with all versions of TPL is that they imported data from Tropicos badly, treating names as "accepted" when Tropicos says no such thing. So TPL can only be trusted without further investigation if it doesn't rely on Tropicos for that taxon.) Peter coxhead (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I want to add the usual disclaimer about "not an exhaustive list" to Rheum spp., add moorcroftianum to Rheum spp., and chop up my draft. Annoying. Yes, Govaerts is a taxonomic deity and WCPF is still fantastic, TPL disappointed me the moment it came out (TROPICOS is actually better, as they include a bibliography), and PoWO isn't any better. Regarding Rheum & "set of species with sources": there is no universal monograph I can rely on. I think for China things look good (would use the 2017 China Plants Checklist), for the Soviet regions I have a 1990's book which can be used taking into account the newer Chinese stuff, but that does leave some taxa hanging out to dry, i.e. khorasanicum, neyshabourense, rhaponticum and palaestinum (first two in Flora Iranica?). And I haven't yet taken a proper look at India (the Forestry Department eFlora has been down for over a month now & I don't want to use the google groups eFlora). It would mean a synthesis of at least 5 sources... wouldn't it just be easier to say "not an exhaustive list" and leave it at that? I don't mind mixing sources, but it might be harder for others to follow. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
(I certainly agree about RG.) Yes, I think that under the circumstances "not an exhaustive list" is the best approach. (In case it's not clear, I wasn't implying any problems with Tropicos itself, given that its remit doesn't include attempting to provide a "accepted" list; the problem lies in the way that TPL incorrectly combined its data with other databases.) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Great, I will do as I proposed then. Ha, just wasted some time reading through your talk, apparently my whinging about PoWO is somewhat redundant -looks like we agree on many things (also the Wikimedia Commons stuff -am noting a few misidentified plants). Anyway, thanks for the prompt reply! 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, my family consider me a classic example of a grumpy old man, so agreeing with me may not be a point in your favour. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Paraphyly and monkeys

The monkey edit you reverted is part of one editors ongoing anti-paraphyly crusade. I've been working on prehistoric cephalopod taxoboxes over the last couple of days. Prehistoric cephalopod classification is blatantly paraphyletic. One example: "The Tornoceratinae form the root stock of the tornoceratids and are derived from Anarcestida. Tornoceratinae in turn gave rise to Aulatornoceratinae and Falcitornoceratinae" (from Tornoceratidae). Ha. That will make some anti-paraphyly heads explode. Plantdrew (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: yes, I'm aware of their activities elsewhere, including the changes to taxonomy templates that made "Plantae" disappear from plant taxoboxes. I've tried discussing this, but to no avail. The issue isn't just pro or anti paraphyly, but the need to recognize and explain neutrally common language usage of terms like "monkey", "ape", "human" – or indeed "plant". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_coxhead/Archive_19&oldid=896234514"