User talk:Plantdrew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Drosera brevifolia picture is wrong[edit]

Hey Drew the picture on the D. brevifolia page is acctually D. capillaris. I dont know how to edit it but if you would like an accurate picture please email me at and i can provide you with one Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

taxoboxes and wikidata[edit]

Hello Drew! Happy New Years Eve! I was playing around reptiles and noticed that many of the genera in Gekkonidae need to be moved around.....if any of the auto taxoboxes become empty, do I need to let you or Peter know or can you see them as they are done and can delete accordingly? ......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside: Happy New Years to you as well. You're asking about what to do with the taxonomy template when a genus using an automatic taxobox is sunk into synonymy? I don't know of a way to see/find unused taxonomy templates. I assume it's possible to do so somehow; a couple months back somebody was thinking about protecting taxonomy templates, and was able to compile a list of them by number of transclusions. That would be a useful search to figure out. For now, we've been dealing with no longer needed taxonomy templates by placing them in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates, and commenting out or blanking the template code. Peter goes through the category every so often and gets them deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pvmoutside: I don't know either how to find templates by transclusion count: it would be useful! Editors do create taxonomy templates in advance of their use, so that currently unused ones are not necessarily wrong. As Plantdrew says, just comment out or blank the code and then add Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. It's necessary to blank the existing code or it causes errors elsewhere. This seems the simplest approach since going through the TfD process individually is tedious, and admins often don't understand taxonomy templates and ask questions. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Plants portal[edit]

Why are you removing the plants portal from relevant articles? Abyssal (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Abyssal (talk)12:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I entirely support the removals; they aren't relevant articles – unless you believe that every plant article should have the portal added, which I would strongly oppose. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that is my opinion unless there are more specific plant-related portals (e.g. for individual taxonomic families) in use on the article. Abyssal (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see the consensus for including the portal on all of the roughly 71,500 plant articles. Since a "portal should be associated with a WikiProject" according to Wikipedia:Portal guidelines, consensus at WP:PLANTS would seem to be essential. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Peter and Plantdrew, seems like a lot of work with maybe better time spent on other things?....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, hope you had a good New Year. When I am editing lists of species I always, if I remember, ensure that the naming authorities are in small text and I thought this was a standard convention in Wikipedia. Some users, however, disagree and are changing all the naming authorities to normal text. To my eyes, this looks strange. Is there such a formal convention or is it an informal one? For example see the page I created Ceratonereis. Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see if Plantdrew knows of somewhere 'official' in which this is documented. It's covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms#Sources and authorities, but this hasn't yet been adopted. Where authorities are formatted automatically, e.g. in taxoboxes or templates like {{Taxon list}}, they are always put in small text, so this can be said to be the normal style. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Quetzal1964: I don't know of anything more official than the draft MoS for organisms Peter linked. Small text authorities are also mentioned at the plant article template, but I'm not finding any discussion of small authorities in the ToL archives. I do regard small authorities as the standard convention myself; while I don't often make the effort to add the mark-up for small text when it is absent, I certainly never remove that mark-up when it is present. Plantdrew (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. There is an editor who is single handedly removing the small text from the authorities in Annelida articles because he doesn't like that style and says Wikipedia "is not a newspaper", whatever that means. I believe he is editing in good faith but also that what he's doing should be reverted. He is an experienced editor but doesn't seem to have a biology background and I do not want to single handedly go on a campaign to revert these edits, especially now it sounds like there is no formal policy. However, I will leave him a message pointing him to the draft Manual of Style.Quetzal1964 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Quetzal1964: I would also point out that this is the agreed style in taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for cleaning up the stubs I created recently. I've been working on the flora distribution categories, as you may have seen. Ideally I'd like to create, and at least minimally populate, all the Level 3 categories in the WGSRPD. I'm never sure whether working on categories is a waste of time or not; they seem to attract editors who love to "fiddle" with them. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you for cleaning after me when I forget to Latinize ranks in taxonomy templates. I think it's worth finishing the set of Level 3 categories, but I have pretty mixed feelings about categories on Wikipedia. They work OK for some defining characteristics that inherently have a hierarchical nature (e.g. membership in a taxon at a particular rank). WGSRPD give us a hiearchy, but the way Wikipedia diffuses (or don't diffuse) renders the categories not so useful to a reader; I think readers would generally expect the contents of a Level 3 category to include all the plants found in that place, not just the plants that were diffused from a higher level (and not diffused to a lower level). Not really much that can be done about it though; we're stuck with how Wikipedia categories work. Plantdrew (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree about the diffusing issue. It has several bad consequences. For example, the IUCN uses the lowest levels of the WGSRPD scheme, but combines them differently, making more use of country boundaries, and ending up with different continents (e.g. Oceania rather than Australasia and Pacific). If we didn't diffuse, we could use these lowest levels for plants and animals and categories like "Biota of ..." would always work, whereas now they are too often based on different definitions. I looked at sorting out Category:Biota of North America – the overlaps and inconsistencies could be improved, but it would still not work properly because of the diffusion to different higher levels.
One thing I would like to do is to change Category:Flora of North America to Category:Flora of northern America (and ditto for southern America). I remember this being discussed before, with no consensus to change. But it's hopeless to expect new editors to know that "Flora of North America" refers to the different, non-traditional WGSRPD definition, whereas "Fauna of North America" refers to the traditional definition. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Silky oak (disambiguation)[edit]

I don't think that moving the page to Silky oak (disambiguation) was a good idea; a single-non plant meaning could have been handled by a hatnote. However, given that it has been moved, what should be the WP:PLANTS template on the talk page? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It can always be moved back, but that's a lot of genera to do by hatnote (unless they fit in family, subfamily, or higher taxa somehow). Plus there is an unrelated non-biological page attached.......and since there is a non plant attached to the disambig page, a simple disambig on the talk page is warranted (that is, unless you want to hatnote the family, subfamily, or higher taxa, then the non-biological page).....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
If there are non-plant meanings, I do class=disambig for the WP:PLANTS banner. A single non-plant meaning does make it a bit of edge case, and a hatnote might have been a better solution. 17:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT Pvmoutside, silky oak is a redirect to Grevillea robusta. So the hatnote could be at that species and would simply link the city and list of plants known as silky oak (rather than enumerating all the other plants in the hatnote itself). Plantdrew (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Brassicaceae and Felicia (genus)[edit]

Hi Plantdrew, perhaps you may want to look at Brassicaceae and Felicia (genus). I have expanded them substantially and I guess their current quality rating is inadequate. I'm considering whether these two in fact would be candidates for GAN, and would appreciate your opinion. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje: Wow, excellent work on both of those. I've upgraded them to B class. I don't really have any experience with GAN, but I think you should try taking the articles there. Plantdrew (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


I thought of going lower than the family at Template:Taxonomy/Argythamnia, but the sourcing for the tribes and subfamilies of Euphorbiaceae seems poor to me. It definitely needs improving for this quite important family. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: While I haven't been totally consistent, my general rule of thumb for intrafamilial ranks is not to remove (or add) this detail from Wikipedia when it can be confirmed. Confirmation is via GRIN, NCBI and/or APWeb (ideally all three are in agreement). I am somewhat leery of including red-linked intrafamilial ranks (so I didn't go down to subtribe for Argrythamnia), and I will note that GRIN and NCBI don't agree for this genus (NCBI has it as Euphorbiaceae incertae sedis). I have intentions of going through the taxonomy templates for plant subfamilies, tribes, and subtribes and adding references (to APWeb and/or GRIN); I'll probably take that on within a month. Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm guilty (and often feel guilty, but time is an issue) of creating taxonomy templates without completing |ref=, but this is the best approach, I'm sure. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Verticordia sect. Cooloomia[edit]

If Verticordia sect. Cooloomia is monotypic, it shouldn't have an article, surely? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, probably not, but I didn't want to take them time to merge it. The article on the section is very well developed (as far as articles on sections go, that is) and it would be a bit of a hassle to integrate the information into the species article. There are also 5 other monotypic Verticordia sections with articles; I've put them all in Category:Monotypic plant taxa for now. Plantdrew (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Parents in taxonomy templates[edit]

I'm increasingly reluctant to use ranks lower than family for genera in taxonomy templates unless there's a really up-to-date reference (no more than 5 years ago at most), since the "churn" in intra-familial classifications seems very high – every new molecular phylogenetic study in some groups contradicts the previous ones. On the other hand, with very large families, it is important to subdivide. I know nothing about the taxonomy of the Asteraceae (I did some work on Pericallis only because I had been scanning some of my old slides in preparation for a talk on the flora of Tenerife); however I note that GRIN ref you used at Template:Taxonomy/Pericallis for the tribe was revised in 2011, which is quite a while ago now. Are we sure this is still ok? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, the latest studies dealing with intra-familial classification of Asteraceae date from 2008 and 2009 (e.g. APWeb is following this tribal arrangement). However, that paper doesn't list the tribal placement for each genus, so other sources are needed. Aside from GRIN, the Global Compositae Checklist also has Pericallis in Senecioneae (record last updated 2010). I'm not finding anything that suggests that a 2010 database record is likely to be out of date regarding Asteraceae intra-familial classification. Plantdrew (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Seems fine then. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Lists of orchids by genus[edit]

Hello Plantdrew - thanks for your work (which helps me almost daily).

Re. the category "Lists of orchids by genus" - this leaves out smaller orchid genera (eg. Genoplesium, Corunastylis, Eriochilus). Should all orchid genera have a separate species list then? Happy to oblige with the ones I'm working on, if so. Gderrin (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Separate species lists aren't needed for smaller genera. For very large genera, it is probably better to split the species off into a separate list. I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line between smaller/very large genera; I guess maybe when there are several hundred or more species? I'm not sure about orchids particularly, but I do know we have some articles on large plant genera where there isn't a complete list of species anywhere on Wikipedia (making a List of Eugenia species is on my to do list). There's often a "Selected species" section, and I do make some effort to ensure that all the species that have articles are included in the "Selected species". But in the long run, it would be better to start separate lists of all species for the largest genera and "select" the species that are particularly important (i.e., those that are cultivated, are very well known in the wild) to be listed in the genus article. Plantdrew (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay - I'm fine with that. Thanks. Gderrin (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Henri de Peyerimhoff (entomologist)[edit]

I see you rated this article "Start" class: most readers will need more, soon after it was created. See Wikipedia:Assessing articles. It would be helpful if you could leave notes on the article's talk page (not here) saying what would be needed to bring it up to C class - useful to the casual reader. The subject is rather obscure. Are you aware of other sources that could have information? A list on the article's talk page would be useful. If there are none the Start rating, which signals to project members that more research will bear fruit, may be misleading. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aymatth2:, I've re-rated it as C-class. I'm pretty mystified by your comment on my talk page. You created it with the edit summary "stub", and made it slightly longer before I rated it. I've read the article assessment guidelines, and believe that quality ratings are generally applied more conservatively than the wording of the assessment guidelines suggests, and with more emphasis on article length than actual quality. I thought I was being generous (as far as quality ratings usually go) in rating it a Start at the time I rated it. You then managed to add more content and references.
I've never seen any suggestion that is the responsibility of people rating new pages to suggest specific areas needing improvement or additional useful references. I understand that it would surely be helpful to article creators if this was done, and am trying to read your comment in light of a request for assistance of this nature (initially I felt pretty attacked). I'm sorry, I'm not able to help with additional references for this individual. If you feel that you've done due diligence and additional references are unlikely to be found, please consider rating your own articles as C (or better) so that nobody is mislead to think that further research will bear fruit. I take the essay User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs to heart, and certainly consider C-class appropriate even for very short articles on sufficiently obscure subjects. Plantdrew (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I did not mean my comment as an attack, although I am concerned that rapid assessments like this may turn off new editors. See Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers "It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticise." The first version of most articles is often quite sketchy. I have scraped together everything I could find online on this obscure subject, which is not much. Perhaps there is a promising offline source, a Biographical Dictionary of Alsatian Entomologists or something. If that exists, a note on the article talk page could be useful to someone with access to a library that may hold the source. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The Croughton-London rule of stubs is new to me. I do not fully agree with it. The quality rating says how close the article is to being as good as possible, unrelated to its importance. I would say that if an article presents all available information, like Beornred of Mercia, it is potentially A class however short or important it is. Maybe the Croughton-London rule kicks in when the subject is really obscure but there is a mass of available information. No reasonable reader would want a huge article on a trivial subject. That is not the case with Henri de Peyerimhoff (entomologist). If there were a source of more complete information it would be reasonable to rate the article Start and give a pointer to the source on its talk page. But if this is the best that can be done, it is at least a C. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: you seem to be treating article assessment as though it assessed the editor. That's not its purpose. It is solely for the use of the Wikiproject in whose template it appears. (Different Wikiprojects can quite reasonably make different assessments; a plant article with both botanical and horticultural interest could quite rightly be rated differently based on the content.) In this case, I'd expect an article about an entomologist to say more about his work than is there now. Did he name any species? Were species named after him? Did he work on any particular family of micromoths? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Assessment rates the article in terms of importance and quality. Each project may have its own importance scale, but usually they all follow the standard quality scale. Quality includes technical aspects like organization, readability, citations, wikilinks, etc. and completeness. Completeness measures how close the article comes to presenting the available information, so how close it is to being "done" from a project viewpoint. An article may be complete even if it omits information a reader would typically expect. Beornred of Mercia, an article about a king, does not give parents, birth date or death date because this information is not known. From a project viewpoint the article is "done", complete. It is closer to B than to Stub. A reader may wish there were more, but that is all they are going to get. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: I don't meant to be rude, but your answer seems a bit arrogant to me. How do you know "that is all they are going to get"? Are you a professional historian of this era perhaps? Who knows what may be discovered in the future, or what information is lurking in old paper sources. It's also arguable (though I don't intend to put it forward) that if that's all that is known about this individual, he's not notable. Anyway, we must agree to disagree. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: All that is currently known of Beornred of Mercia comes from one short entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, virtually the only source for English history of that period. New information might emerge in the future, but the article provides all available information. There is a rule somewhere that "all kings are presumed to be notable." With Henri de Peyerimhoff (entomologist), the links to the article could be mined for a partial list of species he named or that were named after him, but that seems like original research. Perhaps there is a database somewhere? The question is whether we have good reason to believe that more could be added to the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Convallaria[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Convallaria—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. mettokki (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for catching that JarrahTree 21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fish project tagging has been tedious, but... JarrahTree 22:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: I've been noticing your efforts in the quality log report lately. I tagged various plant and spider categories for their respective WikiProjects a few years back, but never got around to working on categories for any other groups of organisms. Thank you for working on this. Plantdrew (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thanks for the thanks, hope the errors are as low statistically as the truck item JarrahTree 22:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@JarrahTree:, regarding bizarre tagging, that editor was exactly who came to my mind. Plantdrew (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
yup :( JarrahTree 22:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Automatic italicization of taxon names[edit]

Hi, you may recall that I tried to add automatic italicization of taxon names to {{Species list}} and related templates, but took far too simplistic an approach and had to remove it. I've now drafted some Lua code that I think works safely. There's a table of tests at User:Peter coxhead/Test/T3. I've taken a conservative approach and tried only to "fix" botanical connecting terms that are in four 'word' names and are not already italicized. Italicization code needs to be added to the Lua underlying {{Taxonbar}}, because when there are multiple |from= and one links to a botanical infraspecies in Wikidata (as at Syrmatium veatchii) the connecting term is italicized.

Could you please have a look at the table, and add any tests of your own if you think I've missed any? Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added some tests. Several are errors in formatting connecting terms, so I wouldn't expect them to be supported anyway. Alpha beta'' subsp. ''delta exists in the wild, but is being italicized correctly.
Do you want get into six word names (i.e. with both varietas and subspecies)? Or making subg. and sect. unitalicized in three word names? It is unlikely that {{Species list}} is used often in these cases, so may not be worth the bother. Plantdrew (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree re {{Species list}}, but I'd like the Lua module to work elsewhere, so supporting subg. and sect. is worthwhile; thanks, I'll add this. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Re the other additions (thanks again):
  • I think that "ssp." should be supported and expanded automatically to "subsp." (I always use "ssp." outside of Wikipedia and sometimes forget here)
  • "forma" and other full words (e.g. "subspecies") should clearly be supported
  • variants without full stops – um... I suppose there are no cases where "subsp" or "var", etc. could be part of a real taxon name?
  • "var. purpurea", etc. (i.e. without a binomial) I regard as an error, so not to be supported
Peter coxhead (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I've now fixed the code so that 3rd word connecting term variants are normalized, e.g. "subspecies", "subsp.", "subsp", "ssp." and "ssp" all get output as "subsp." Peter coxhead (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I've now also fixed the code to support the 2nd of three words being a connecting term or "cf." or variants. I need to reorganize the tests into groups. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
There seem to be two options with strings that already have italic markup. At present, if there's italic markup outside the whole string, I do nothing. So ''Alpha beta subsp. gamma'' is left alone by the italicizing code, and would appear as "Alpha beta subsp. gamma". The alternative would be to strip off all italic markup and put it back as seems correct. However, this could mess up special cases that have been italicized correctly, remembering that I want this to work not just in {{Species list}}. I'm also concerned about the other codes, e.g. "Candidatus" for bacteria and the very different treatment of virus names. Trying to cope with bacterial and virus names defeated the editors who originally automated italic names in manual and then automated taxoboxes, so I'm not going to try! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Another wrinkle {{Genus list}} redirects to {{Species list}}. It should be italicizing one word genus entries, but should it be a redirect or an independent template? And I'm being dumb and missing what I need to change to get {{Linked species list}} displayed in the See also of Template:Species list/doc] (what's with the comment tags at the ends of each line?); all of these taxon list templates need to get reciprocally linked in their See alsos (this has been a barrier in my making use of them more often). Plantdrew (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten this (yet!) but have got distracted with some other stuff – see below. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Please have a look at the table I added to the documentation for {{Species list}}. The "Genus" aliases are also mentioned now in the See also section. Both "Species list" and "Genus list" really mean "Italic taxon list"; it's arbitrary which of the three is chosen as the template title. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking good, thanks for your work on this. 23:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Syrmatium names[edit]

I can't work out exactly what is going on with some names in Syrmatium ascribed by IPNI to Greene. Look at this entry for example and click through to this one. Considering only the epithet cytisoides, I would expect to see Syrmatium cytisoides (Benth.) Greene, not just "Greene". It's not the only example: all the pairs with the same epithet in the second list at Acmispon appear to be like this. It seems to have confused other sources into treating the placement in Syrmatium and the placement in Acmispon as separate species, rather than IPNI's synonyms (assuming IPNI is right). The latest Jepson puts all Syrmatium into Acmispon, which would solve the problem here, I guess.

This is more in your area than mine, I think. Can you throw any light on it? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be some problem with IPNI's database structure, not anything nomenclatural/taxonomic.
I notice that IPNI has GCI derived records for Hosackia combinations lacking a citation for the publication of the description/combination for a several species corresponding to your second list: namely H. cytisoides, H. juncea, H. micrantha, H. decumbens and H. prostrata. And there are a bunch of duplicated GCI entries from several Syrmatium, where one has a publication citation and screws up the combining authority, and the other has the correct authority, but doesn't cite a publication (Syrmatium veatchii is one of these). It seems to me that a missing publication citation may be screwing up IPNI's processing of these records. Plantdrew (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right now I look at it again. However, it's not just IPNI, it seems. The problem has fed through into other taxonomic databases. I'll compose an e-mail to IPNI when I have time. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


Happy to be of help.

I hear you on the placement of taxonbars. The trouble is, what I'm doing right now is a simple addition of the template to the bottom of the screen. What you're talking about likely will require some kind of substitution in the main body of the text. I'd prefer a substitution for various reasons, but haven't been able to come up with an effective one. Do you have any suggestions? Meantime, let me do a little bit of musing and see what I can think of. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You're talking something like this, correct? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I have an idea that I can try out tonight. It's not perfect (if there's a DEFAULTSORT then the taxobox will likely be filled in after it), but it should take care of the rest of the issue. And cosmetically it will be better. That's the best I can think of right now - please let me know if you've got a better idea. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) If you leave the |from= parameter blank, I will eventually place it correctly on the page, à la WP:GENFIXES, when I add the WD QID.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  21:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Awesome. Let me try a little something tonight that can get us halfway, and that should leave only a few that need to be moved. I'll let you know whether or not my experiment turns into an abject failure. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding:I think what I'm doing is going to work. Have a look at Anaxyrina and tell me if that'll do the trick. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Could you do this? Thing is, WP:GenFixes doesn't care whether or not there's a preceded empty line b/w {{Taxonbar}} & the last bulleted reflist entry, unless it moves {{Taxonbar}} there. If you're running AWB, I would actually consider putting {{Taxonbar}} at the bottom of the page on purpose, but leave GenFixes on to take care of the proper movement in the same edit (b/c anticipating all the possible text that could/should come after & before it is a lot of work, and has been done already, so no need to reinvent the complicatedly-shaped wheel).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  02:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Sure, I'll see what I can do. About to step away for a bit, but I'm going to try a few more before bed and see what I can do. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Did a few more, trying out the new model. Will those work? Or shall I go back to planting it at the bottom? Or something else? The problem with GenFixes is, I don't think they work on a new edit - they only work on what's already there. So to use the tool to put things in proper order I'd basically have to start the set again once I've done. Unless I'm missing something? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: the module actually fires before genfixes do, so if you put ArticleText += "\n" + @"{{Taxonbar}}"; in your module, genfixes will do the rest!   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Nice, thanks. I'll give that a try tonight when I'm back by AWB. Thanks for your patience with me...there's a lot about AWB that I've never learned, not being of really technical bent. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: I think I've got it, by gadfry. Please let me know if you spot anything I'm doing wrong. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 07:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: only weird thing I see are 2 empty lines b/w {{Reflist}} & {{Taxonbar}}, which genfixes will gradually remove in the next few days as a piggyback fix to my QID additions, so nbd.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Awesome, thanks. I still might take a look tonight, see if I can find out what's causing it, just to learn a bit more about modules. Thanks for your help - I think I can bend this new information to some other purposes as well. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I'm still curious though, are you adding the template via the AWB module, by an advanced find & replace rule, or something else? The module should simply be:

public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)
	Skip = false;
	Summary = "";
	ArticleText += "\n" + @"{{Taxonbar}}";
	return ArticleText;

Let me know if you have any questions or problems.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
You also need to check "Enabled", then click "Make module", in the "Module" window fyi.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: No, I'm using the module. Everything seemed fine last night when I was using it. I'll take a look again tonight to be sure, but right now I'm pretty certain everything is in place as it should be. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Disregard; no problem! AWB diffs, um, differ from browser diffs, and they do some whitespace compression, so that was the inconsistency I was noticing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: No worries. I definitely can't differentiate between the different definitive diffs, either. Diffidently or otherwise. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Bambusa albolineata[edit]

What do you think? Artix Kreiger (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger:, looks pretty good. I caught a couple misspellings of the scientific name, and you had the wrong parameter in the taxobox for the synonym, which prevented the synonym from displaying. Plantdrew (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

About Rubus gunnianus[edit]

Hi Plantdrew, and yet again thank you for all your help.
Could you possibly have a little look at that article?
The clever men and women at The Plant List really do know all that there is to be knowed, but I've jumped in and said "none of them know one half as much, as intelligent Mr Shirt58"
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Shirt58: I've spruced it up some. Rubus is apomictic, with hundreds of described microspecies, which some taxonomist lump, while others split. The Plant List has many unresolved Rubus species; it appears that their data source made little effort to resolve the taxonomic complexities in the genus. Rubus gunnianus appears to be a low-hanging fruit (haha) as far as resolving the status of Rubus species goes. Unless there are a bunch of other tiny herbaceous Rubus species described from Tasmania, it should be accepted (and it is accepted by APNI). Plantdrew (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Having read up on it a little further, it's one of two Rubus species native to Tasmania, and it's quite different from the other one (which is more typical of the genus). It certainly should be accepted. It's an extremely low hanging fruit that The Plant List failed to harvest. Plantdrew (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Penstemon barrettiae EoL discrepancy[edit]

Fyi this {{Taxonbar}}'s pre-existing |eol=578247 is different from WD's EoL of 1701233. Pinging the originating editor Nedst3r too.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  18:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

When searching the EoL for Penstemon barrettiae, the only result is the 578247. I was unaware that there was an entry for it on WD. Nedst3r (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
EoL appears to have a redirect at #1701233 since this leads to #578247. (Which makes, yet again, my point that many of the taxonomic databases do not have unique identifier for a taxon/taxon name.) I've changed the Wikidata item. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like having a tracking Category:Taxonbar templates using manual IDs might be useful (I'm using similar wording to Category:Taxonbar templates using multiple Wikidata items since neither of them would be considered errors). Do yall agree?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
And/or Category:Taxonbar templates with manual IDs desynced from Wikidata Category:Taxonbar templates with manual IDs differing from Wikidata, which may or may not be an error.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  18:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding:, sure, these seem like potentially useful categories. Plantdrew (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Artix Kreiger/Chusquea tonduzii[edit]


I tried to add {{Taxobar}} with theplantlist. What did I do wrong? Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Happened to see this. I fixed User:Artix Kreiger/Chusquea tonduzii – it's good practice to include |from= anyway, but it's essential when, as for drafts, the Wikidata item doesn't link to our article. The Plant List parameter is |plantlist= – see the list at Template:Taxonbar#Taxon identifiers. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Scan results - IUCN statuses on non-IUCN pages[edit]

If the article's infobox/title binomial DNE on IUCN (title is used as a last-resort), I then used its WP #Rs, and then IUCN synonyms of those #Rs, if necessary (i.e. if the #R itself failed the IUCN check), to validate IUCN existence. I used IUCN's weblink api as my validation mechanism, as long as it didn't say "species not found". The more #Rs a page has, the more IUCN attempts were made, so generally the more valid the outcome (i.e. if 10 #Rs couldn't be found on IUCN, it's very likely not on IUCN). {{Infraspeciesbox}}, {{Subspeciesbox}}, infoboxes with text in |binomial2=, |trinomial=, |subspecies=, & |subdivision= were all excluded from the parent scan, and so are also excluded here.

Per the original discussion/request, now archived, I found ~200 such pages with 1 or more #Rs which have a supposed IUCN status on Wikipedia, but probably don't even exist on IUCN, for manual follow up.

= 27 pages with persistent HTML errors in at least one of their queries; not sure why yet, but these might be suspect. Sorted by # of #Rs:

Partial scan (K-Z): ~200 pages with IUCN status that probably don't exist on IUCN
  1. Libidibia paraguariensis (10 #Rs)
  2. Lophius americanus (10 #Rs)
  3. Patagonian toothfish (10 #Rs)
  4. Paubrasilia (10 #Rs)
  5. Penaeus monodon (10 #Rs)
  6. Phyllostachys nigra (10 #Rs)
  7. Rose fish (10 #Rs)
  8. Silaum silaus (10 #Rs)
  9. Ostorhinchus cookii (10 #Rs)
  10. Powelliphanta gilliesi (10 #Rs)
  11. Trimeresurus stejnegeri (10 #Rs)
  12. Luzula sylvatica (9 #Rs)
  13. Ocotea bullata (9 #Rs)
  14. Paraponera clavata (9 #Rs)
  15. Ryukyu kingfisher (9 #Rs)
  16. Russian tortoise (9 #Rs)
  17. Leucospermum conocarpodendron (8 #Rs)
  18. Madagascar hissing cockroach (8 #Rs)
  19. Visayan bulbul (8 #Rs)
  20. Mindoro bulbul (7 #Rs)
  21. New Caledonian thicketbird (7 #Rs)
  22. Olive-flanked ground robin (7 #Rs)
  23. Solomons cuckooshrike (7 #Rs)
  24. Tropical boubou (7 #Rs)
  25. Rufous-fronted babbler (7 #Rs)
  26. Moluccan boobook (6 #Rs)
  27. New Zealand fernbird (6 #Rs)
  28. New Zealand owlet-nightjar (6 #Rs)
  29. Orange roughy (6 #Rs)
  30. Pompadour green pigeon (6 #Rs)
  31. Red-headed macaw (6 #Rs)
  32. Sardinella tawilis (6 #Rs)
  33. Solanum pseudoquina (6 #Rs)
  34. Western warbling vireo (6 #Rs)
  35. Whiteleg shrimp (6 #Rs)
  36. Olive tanager (6 #Rs)
  37. Madeiran scops owl (5 #Rs)
  38. Photuris pensylvanica (5 #Rs)
  39. Red-throated wood rail (5 #Rs)
  40. Rinderpest (5 #Rs)
  41. Ringed warbling finch (5 #Rs)
  42. Ruellia tuberosa (5 #Rs)
  43. Ruwenzori duiker (5 #Rs)
  44. Sabal causiarum (5 #Rs)
  45. Saint Helena dove (5 #Rs)
  46. Sphagnum cuspidatum (5 #Rs)
  47. White-browed shama (5 #Rs)
  48. Melicope saint-johnii (5 #Rs)
  49. Pelophylax kl. grafi (5 #Rs)
  50. Lycaena epixanthe (4 #Rs)
  51. Nectomys magdalenae (4 #Rs)
  52. New Zealand torpedo (4 #Rs)
  53. Quercus deserticola (4 #Rs)
  54. Raja stellulata (4 #Rs)
  55. San Esteban chuckwalla (4 #Rs)
  56. Scissor-billed koa finch (4 #Rs)
  57. Senecio cambrensis (4 #Rs)
  58. Sphagnum fuscum (4 #Rs)
  59. Spot-legged wood turtle (4 #Rs)
  60. Starksia y-lineata (4 #Rs)
  61. Striated swallow (4 #Rs)
  62. São Miguel scops owl (4 #Rs)
  63. Tyto pollens (4 #Rs)
  64. Viti Levu giant pigeon (4 #Rs)
  65. Vitreorana oyampiensis (4 #Rs)
  66. Wahlenbergia roxburghii (4 #Rs)
  67. White-legged duiker (4 #Rs)
  68. Peacock monitor (4 #Rs)
  69. Williams' mud turtle (4 #Rs)
  70. Large-spined bell toad (3 #Rs)
  71. Malawi bushbaby (3 #Rs)
  72. Mammuthus creticus (3 #Rs)
  73. Mountain galaxias (3 #Rs)
  74. Palaeoloxodon chaniensis (3 #Rs)
  75. Parides chabrias (3 #Rs)
  76. Pterocarpus erinaceus (3 #Rs)
  77. Ruwenzori vlei rat (3 #Rs)
  78. Sierra newt (3 #Rs)
  79. Somalian slender mongoose (3 #Rs)
  80. Speyeria zerene (3 #Rs)
  81. Spotted catbird (3 #Rs)
  82. Suaeda vera (3 #Rs)
  83. Thismia americana (3 #Rs)
  84. Tillandsia cyanea (3 #Rs)
  85. Tulista kingiana (3 #Rs)
  86. Twist-necked turtle (3 #Rs)
  87. Upemba lechwe (3 #Rs)
  88. Uvaria rufa (3 #Rs)
  89. White-rumped shama (3 #Rs)
  90. Wood harrier (3 #Rs)
  91. Yellow clown goby (3 #Rs)
  92. Mud adder (3 #Rs)
  93. Rhoads's Oldfield mouse (3 #Rs)
  94. Kerilia jerdonii (2 #Rs)
  95. Lavender waxbill (2 #Rs)
  96. Long-fin bonefish (2 #Rs)
  97. Maracaibo wood turtle (2 #Rs)
  98. Melicope elleryana (2 #Rs)
  99. Molelike mouse (2 #Rs)
  100. Mount Elgon vlei rat (2 #Rs)
  101. Muenster yellow-toothed cavy (2 #Rs)
  102. Muli pika (2 #Rs)
  103. Multispine giant stingray (2 #Rs)
  104. Nerine masoniorum (2 #Rs)
  105. Owenia cepiodora (2 #Rs)
  106. Palaeoloxodon mnaidriensis (2 #Rs)
  107. Panorpa communis (2 #Rs)
  108. Paschalococos (2 #Rs)
  109. Peninsular chuckwalla (2 #Rs)
  110. Perplexing scrubwren (2 #Rs)
  111. Pogogyne abramsii (2 #Rs)
  112. Poor cod (2 #Rs)
  113. Pterostylis taurus (2 #Rs)
  114. Puerto Rican flower bat (2 #Rs)
  115. Raja texana (2 #Rs)
  116. Red three-striped opossum (2 #Rs)
  117. Red-capped tamarin (2 #Rs)
  118. Rhodeus suigensis (2 #Rs)
  119. Rodrigues bulbul (2 #Rs)
  120. Rosa blanda (2 #Rs)
  121. Rufous-bellied swallow (2 #Rs)
  122. Réunion seahorse (2 #Rs)
  123. Sabal domingensis (2 #Rs)
  124. Sakhalin myotis (2 #Rs)
  125. Sauromalus slevini (2 #Rs)
  126. Scarlet minivet (2 #Rs)
  127. Sea pony (2 #Rs)
  128. Seagrass wrasse (2 #Rs)
  129. Serruria aemula (2 #Rs)
  130. Solanum abutiloides (2 #Rs)
  131. Solanum ferox (2 #Rs)
  132. Sorbus decipiens (2 #Rs)
  133. Stout-legged wren (2 #Rs)
  134. Streaked tuftedcheek (2 #Rs)
  135. Streaked xenops (2 #Rs)
  136. Sunda warbler (2 #Rs)
  137. Tawny grassbird (2 #Rs)
  138. Two-toed earless skink (2 #Rs)
  139. Udine shrew (2 #Rs)
  140. Uzungwe vlei rat (2 #Rs)
  141. Vietnamese three-striped box turtle (2 #Rs)
  142. Vitex pinnata (2 #Rs)
  143. Yellow-bellied flowerpecker (2 #Rs)
  144. Lichtenstein's seahorse (2 #Rs)
  145. Nosferatu steindachneri (2 #Rs)
  146. Sinoto's lorikeet (2 #Rs)
  147. Smith's fruit bat (2 #Rs)
  148. Thomas's yellow-shouldered bat (2 #Rs)
  149. Verhoeven's giant tree rat (2 #Rs)
  150. Negev tortoise (2 #Rs)
  151. Kaloula nonggangensis (1 #R)
  152. Kumara haemanthifolia (1 #R)
  153. Labeobarbus osseensis (1 #R)
  154. Lecanorchis tabugawaensis (1 #R)
  155. Lespesia archippivora (1 #R)
  156. Limnonectes bannaensis (1 #R)
  157. Lycaena helle (1 #R)
  158. Malapterurus tanoensis (1 #R)
  159. Mangaia swiftlet (1 #R)
  160. Megophrys parallela (1 #R)
  161. Miniopterus fuliginosus (1 #R)
  162. Monopterus desilvai (1 #R)
  163. Napo saki (1 #R)
  164. Negro stipple-throated antwren (1 #R)
  165. Nesoluma st.-johnianum (1 #R)
  166. Niedzwedzkia (1 #R)
  167. Nomia aurata (1 #R)
  168. Northern death adder (1 #R)
  169. Northern snapping turtle (1 #R)
  170. Oebalus pugnax (1 #R)
  171. Oreobambos (1 #R)
  172. Ornate skink (1 #R)
  173. Oval electric ray (1 #R)
  174. Paracanthocobitis abutwebi (1 #R)
  175. Paracanthocobitis adelaideae (1 #R)
  176. Paracanthocobitis canicula (1 #R)
  177. Paracanthocobitis linypha (1 #R)
  178. Paracanthocobitis maekhlongensis (1 #R)
  179. Paracanthocobitis mandalayensis (1 #R)
  180. Paralithodes platypus (1 #R)
  181. Parnassius acco (1 #R)
  182. Partula protea (1 #R)
  183. Perritos de sandia (1 #R)
  184. Pitted stingray (1 #R)
  185. Poecilotheria ornata (1 #R)
  186. Poecilotheria smithi (1 #R)
  187. Poecilotheria subfusca (1 #R)
  188. Poekilocerus pictus (1 #R)
  189. Polylepis crista-galli (1 #R)
  190. Polyscias maraisiana (1 #R)
  191. Potamonautes isimangaliso (1 #R)
  192. Protocheirodon (1 #R)
  193. Ranitomeya rubrocephala (1 #R)
  194. Rosa azerbaidshanica (1 #R)
  195. Roystonea borinquena (1 #R)
  196. Sailfin sculpin (1 #R)
  197. Samwell Cave cricket (1 #R)
  198. Scinax x-signatus (1 #R)
  199. Senecio cadiscus (1 #R)
  200. Seriola dorsalis (1 #R)
  201. Seven-banded wrasse (1 #R)
  202. Shinyrayed pocketbook (1 #R)
  203. Siamese mud carp (1 #R)
  204. Simandoa conserfariam (1 #R)
  205. Sphagnum novo-caledoniae (1 #R)
  206. Squalius pyrenaicus (1 #R)
  207. Sterculia apetala (1 #R)
  208. Tetronarce macneilli (1 #R)
  209. Vachellia natalitia (1 #R)
  210. Vachellia nubica (1 #R)
  211. Vanda falcata (1 #R)
  212. Vespula atropilosa (1 #R)
  213. West African black turtle (1 #R)
  214. Zombia (1 #R)
  215. Pseudophilautus bambaradeniyai (1 #R)
  216. Pseudophilautus dayawansai (1 #R)
  217. Pseudophilautus jagathgunawardanai (1 #R)
  218. Pseudophilautus karunarathnai (1 #R)
  219. Pseudophilautus newtonjayawardanei (1 #R)
  220. Pseudophilautus puranappu (1 #R)
  221. Pseudophilautus schneideri (1 #R)
  222. Pseudophilautus sirilwijesundarai (1 #R)

Let me know if/when you want the other 200 :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  20:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I took a look at a couple.....sierra newt, for example, has an IUCN ref and is classified as LC, but the IUCN ref is not inline.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Pvmoutside: thanks for taking a look. If you resolve the issues with any of these, please strike them out (if you're interested in collaborating on this extensively, I'll probably move the results to a sub page where we can work through them together). Before Tom ran the search, I was expecting that most of cases where a species had an IUCN status on Wikipedia, but wasn't actually listed in IUCN would be the result of people creating the page with a copy-pasted taxobox and failing to remove the IUCN status (that is a situation I've encountered a bunch). But now that I have the results, I'm seeing all kinds of different problems, and many of which can't be simply resolved by removing a mistaken IUCN status. With Sierra newt, the problem is pretty minor; IUCN spells it Taricha sierra, and Wikipedia/AmphibaWeb/ASW spell it Taricha sierrae. It could certainly use a note about the spelling, and an inline citation for IUCN status, but there's nothing actually wrong with the IUCN status in this case. Plantdrew (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Known issue: some #Rs don't show up via the API. For the case of Libidibia paraguariensis, the missing #R happens to be the exact one that shows up on IUCN... I've brought this up at mw:API talk:Main page#Some redirects are not being produced, and I struck the entry in the list.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  19:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Resolved - issue only affected pages listed as having 10 #Rs, and the only remaining non-struck #R = 10 is still not on IUCN.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I've found a few in the list above with <10 #Rs that have a straightforward IUCN match. Melicope saint-johnii and Starksia y-lineata are the two I remember (perhaps theres a hyphen/endash mismatch between Wikipedia and IUCN?), but there have been some others as well. There are also ones with "status = EX" and "status_system = " on the list (I've been removing the status_system parameter entirely for these, but don't know if that will keep them out of your search). Of the first 100 that I haven't struck yet, I have a good idea WHY (almost all of them) display an IUCN status, but the appropriate fixes aren't super simple. Plantdrew (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Full dedicated scan[edit]

This seems to be going well! Y'all might have noticed there aren't any pages starting before "L". I think that's just when I started keeping track of these (it was a while ago...). With my code now more robust, I'm making a dedicated scan of all ~50,000 pages under Category:Species by IUCN Red List category, which I think will be much more useful than the remaining lower-probability 200 that I didn't post here. Will take a few days due to throttling & vetting.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  00:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I had indeed noticed that (although there are a couple starting with "K") Plantdrew (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Full scan of Category:Species by IUCN Red List category: 234 remaining pages that probably don't exist on IUCN (>= 1 #R)
  1. Chinese high-fin banded shark (23 #Rs)
  2. Eastern long-necked turtle (18 #Rs)
  3. Madagascan cuckooshrike (15 #Rs)
  4. Asian giant hornet (14 #Rs)
  5. Common cicadabird (14 #Rs)
  6. Cotula mexicana (13 #Rs)
  7. Annobón paradise flycatcher (12 #Rs)
  8. Haast's eagle (12 #Rs)
  9. Hooded crow (12 #Rs)
  10. Eryx johnii (11 #Rs)
  11. Diospyros discolor (10 #Rs)
  12. Ovine rinderpest (10 #Rs)
  13. Blue grenadier (9 #Rs)
  14. Ocellaris clownfish (9 #Rs)
  15. African reed warbler (8 #Rs)
  16. Bombus sylvarum (8 #Rs)
  17. Colias philodice (8 #Rs)
  18. Dendrophylax lindenii (8 #Rs)
  19. Indian prawn (8 #Rs)
  20. Phengaris alcon (8 #Rs)
  21. African helmeted turtle (7 #Rs)
  22. Aloiampelos commixta (7 #Rs)
  23. Amomum tsao-ko (7 #Rs)
  24. Ancistrocheirus (7 #Rs)
  25. Astroloba rubriflora (7 #Rs)
  26. Black-eared hemispingus (7 #Rs)
  27. Curtisia (7 #Rs)
  28. Grey-cheeked tit-babbler (7 #Rs)
  29. Pieris rapae (7 #Rs)
  30. Cape bushbuck (6 #Rs)
  31. Early bumblebee (6 #Rs)
  32. Elephantopus scaber (6 #Rs)
  33. Erica ventricosa (6 #Rs)
  34. Hammerhead shark (6 #Rs)
  35. Masai giraffe (6 #Rs)
  36. Reticulated giraffe (6 #Rs)
  37. White-lipped mud turtle (6 #Rs)
  38. Antarctic toothfish (5 #Rs)
  39. Black-capped hemispingus (5 #Rs)
  40. Brahmaea europaea (5 #Rs)
  41. Broken-belted bumblebee (5 #Rs)
  42. Chaetodon falcula (5 #Rs)
  43. Chlamydia trachomatis (5 #Rs)
  44. Free State pygmy mouse (5 #Rs)
  45. Haliichthys taeniophorus (5 #Rs)
  46. Thorntail stingray (5 #Rs)
  47. Vespula vulgaris (5 #Rs)
  48. Agathis australis (4 #Rs)
  49. Agrotis melanoneura (4 #Rs)
  50. Agrotis tephrias (4 #Rs)
  51. Aristaloe (4 #Rs)
  52. Ascension night heron (4 #Rs)
  53. Balearic shrew (4 #Rs)
  54. Blepsias cirrhosus (4 #Rs)
  55. Blue-black grosbeak (4 #Rs)
  56. Boomslang (4 #Rs)
  57. Chelemys delfini (4 #Rs)
  58. Cyphostemma mappia (4 #Rs)
  59. Eastern Australian sawshark (4 #Rs)
  60. Erica urna-viridis (4 #Rs)
  61. Erica verticillata (4 #Rs)
  62. Euclea crispa (4 #Rs)
  63. European stonechat (4 #Rs)
  64. Gonialoe variegata (4 #Rs)
  65. Gray-cheeked flying squirrel (4 #Rs)
  66. Hosea lobbii (4 #Rs)
  67. Isla De La Juventud tree hutia (4 #Rs)
  68. Italian edible frog (4 #Rs)
  69. Juglans hindsii (4 #Rs)
  70. Kalinowski's chat-tyrant (4 #Rs)
  71. Migratory locust (4 #Rs)
  72. Oryzomys peninsulae (4 #Rs)
  73. Paratrygon (4 #Rs)
  74. Phengaris rebeli (4 #Rs)
  75. Abies borisii-regis (3 #Rs)
  76. Aloiampelos decumbens (3 #Rs)
  77. Astyanax jordani (3 #Rs)
  78. Auckland Islands shore plover (3 #Rs)
  79. Balkan pond turtle (3 #Rs)
  80. Capperia trichodactyla (3 #Rs)
  81. Cat flea (3 #Rs)
  82. Central leaf-eared mouse (3 #Rs)
  83. Chelodina expansa (3 #Rs)
  84. Coppery brushtail possum (3 #Rs)
  85. Cream-bellied munia (3 #Rs)
  86. Damara canary (3 #Rs)
  87. Dasyatis ushiei (3 #Rs)
  88. Desert locust (3 #Rs)
  89. Dichapetalum cymosum (3 #Rs)
  90. Dracula wallisii (3 #Rs)
  91. Dryobalanops aromatica (3 #Rs)
  92. Eurasian baskettail (3 #Rs)
  93. Flores cave rat (3 #Rs)
  94. Gazella erlangeri (3 #Rs)
  95. Great Maui crake (3 #Rs)
  96. Greater hairy-winged bat (3 #Rs)
  97. Ismene amancaes (3 #Rs)
  98. Jamaican red macaw (3 #Rs)
  99. Miahuatlán cotton rat (3 #Rs)
  100. Pethia cumingii (3 #Rs)
  101. Senegalia caffra (3 #Rs)
  102. Vermilion flycatcher (3 #Rs)
  103. Afroalpine vlei rat (2 #Rs)
  104. Agrotis microreas (2 #Rs)
  105. Agrotis panoplias (2 #Rs)
  106. Amblyodipsas microphthalma (2 #Rs)
  107. American three-toed woodpecker (2 #Rs)
  108. Argiagrion leoninum (2 #Rs)
  109. Arrow flying squirrel (2 #Rs)
  110. Arrow loach (2 #Rs)
  111. Ashambu laughingthrush (2 #Rs)
  112. Baloghia marmorata (2 #Rs)
  113. Banded pitta (2 #Rs)
  114. Bangweulu tsessebe (2 #Rs)
  115. Bennu heron (2 #Rs)
  116. Black pika (2 #Rs)
  117. Black-spotted ridge-tailed monitor (2 #Rs)
  118. Boiga multomaculata (2 #Rs)
  119. Bombus balteatus (2 #Rs)
  120. Bombus ruderarius (2 #Rs)
  121. Bornean spiderhunter (2 #Rs)
  122. Brown-banded carder bee (2 #Rs)
  123. Chaetopelma olivaceum (2 #Rs)
  124. Chestnut-winged babbler (2 #Rs)
  125. Chinese false-eyed turtle (2 #Rs)
  126. Cinnamomum cebuense (2 #Rs)
  127. Colombian wood turtle (2 #Rs)
  128. Cuban bullfinch (2 #Rs)
  129. Des Murs's wiretail (2 #Rs)
  130. Encephalartos friderici-guilielmi (2 #Rs)
  131. Erica capensis (2 #Rs)
  132. Erica pyramidalis (2 #Rs)
  133. Forest bug (2 #Rs)
  134. Frerea (2 #Rs)
  135. Gaoligong pika (2 #Rs)
  136. Gorgeous barb (2 #Rs)
  137. Greenland halibut (2 #Rs)
  138. Gymnocalycium baldianum (2 #Rs)
  139. Heliotropium indicum (2 #Rs)
  140. High-billed crow (2 #Rs)
  141. Hobomok skipper (2 #Rs)
  142. Hylomyscus endorobae (2 #Rs)
  143. Lecomtella (2 #Rs)
  144. Oligocentria pinalensis (2 #Rs)
  145. Opuntia echios (2 #Rs)
  146. Perizoma albulata (2 #Rs)
  147. Polistes dominula (2 #Rs)
  148. Pyrus cordata (2 #Rs)
  149. Quercus john-tuckeri (2 #Rs)
  150. Red-billed oxpecker (2 #Rs)
  151. Red-toothed shrew (2 #Rs)
  152. Réunion Island ornate day gecko (2 #Rs)
  153. Rodrigues day gecko (2 #Rs)
  154. Stichocotyle (2 #Rs)
  155. Tansy beetle (2 #Rs)
  156. Triboniophorus aff. graeffei (2 #Rs)
  157. Aciagrion fragilis (1 #R)
  158. Aerides odorata (1 #R)
  159. African keeled mud turtle (1 #R)
  160. Afrocanthium pseudoverticillatum (1 #R)
  161. Agriocnemis splendidissima (1 #R)
  162. Agrotis cremata (1 #R)
  163. Aloe purpurea (1 #R)
  164. Aloiampelos juddii (1 #R)
  165. Amamiichthys (1 #R)
  166. Aplocheilus parvus (1 #R)
  167. Aquarius remigis (1 #R)
  168. Archiargiolestes pusillissimus (1 #R)
  169. Archiargiolestes pusillus (1 #R)
  170. Archimantis latistyla (1 #R)
  171. Babelomurex wormaldi (1 #R)
  172. Babiana stricta (1 #R)
  173. Balanophyllia europaea (1 #R)
  174. Banahaw tree mouse (1 #R)
  175. Betadevario ramachandrani (1 #R)
  176. Bleasdalea bleasdalei (1 #R)
  177. Blepsias bilobus (1 #R)
  178. Bombus armeniacus (1 #R)
  179. Bombus rupestris (1 #R)
  180. Boswellia dioscoridis (1 #R)
  181. Bulimulus sp. nov. 'josevillani' (1 #R)
  182. Cambaroides sachalinensis (1 #R)
  183. Cambaroides wladiwostokensis (1 #R)
  184. Central African mud turtle (1 #R)
  185. Chalcides ocellatus (1 #R)
  186. Chamaecyparis taiwanensis (1 #R)
  187. Chelodina burrungandjii (1 #R)
  188. Chelodina steindachneri (1 #R)
  189. Chiapas swordtail (1 #R)
  190. Chrysis ignita (1 #R)
  191. Chrysopelea taprobanica (1 #R)
  192. Cratoxylum sumatranum (1 #R)
  193. Ctenobrycon spilurus (1 #R)
  194. Djokoiskandarus (1 #R)
  195. Durio testudinarum (1 #R)
  196. Elseya albagula (1 #R)
  197. Episynlestes albicauda (1 #R)
  198. Erica jasminiflora (1 #R)
  199. Eriosemopsis (1 #R)
  200. Euphorbia cap-saintemariensis (1 #R)
  201. Euphorbia caput-aureum (1 #R)
  202. Fejervarya frithii (1 #R)
  203. Georgimarinus barbatus (1 #R)
  204. Giant ghost-faced bat (1 #R)
  205. Glacicavicola bathysciodes (1 #R)
  206. Grand Cayman bullfinch (1 #R)
  207. Gymneleotris seminuda (1 #R)
  208. Haworthiopsis pungens (1 #R)
  209. Heuglin's wheatear (1 #R)
  210. Hieracium snowdoniense (1 #R)
  211. Hyrcanogobius bergi (1 #R)
  212. Ixora euosmia (1 #R)
  213. Kinyongia ulugurensis (1 #R)
  214. Livistona speciosa (1 #R)
  215. Mangifera austro-indica (1 #R)
  216. Nepenthes burkei (1 #R)
  217. Niau kingfisher (1 #R)
  218. Nososticta solitaria (1 #R)
  219. Oedodera marmorata (1 #R)
  220. Oryzomys nelsoni (1 #R)
  221. Pacific halibut (1 #R)
  222. Pandanus conglomeratus (1 #R)
  223. Paracercion malayanum (1 #R)
  224. Partula fusca (1 #R)
  225. Prionotes (1 #R)
  226. Quercus cornelius-mulleri (1 #R)
  227. Senegalia ataxacantha (1 #R)
  228. Sepia ivanovi (1 #R)
  229. Sepia peterseni (1 #R)
  230. Tulipa sprengeri (1 #R)
  231. Viburnum stellato-tomentosum (1 #R)
  232. Xenotilapia nasus (1 #R)
  233. Xiphophorus montezumae (1 #R)
  234. Zyxomma multinervorum (1 #R)

It might be worth noting that both Guppy & Erica turgida showed up on the list but, since the scan takes a while, have since had their erroneous IUCN cat removed. Also, the HTML error was eliminated (the IUCN API doesn't take kindly to apostrophes, even when url-encoded, so #Rs containing them were not used).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

William Oakes[edit]

I have probably got a lot wrong even though William Oakes is a stub - I seem to recall having problems with correct botanical naming, for example, when I wrote John Horsefield. I've no idea if the guy is even a minor figure in world botany but he does appear to have had a significant local impact. I am probably not going to be able to develop the article much further because my knowledge of the topic area is, well, about on a par with what is apocryphally used to feed mushrooms. However, I have kept it on my watchlist because I am interested to learn from any mistakes I may have made. Thanks for doing the VIAF etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Well, it was not a VIAF but you know what I mean. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush:, well I've now added {{Authority control}} with the VIAF link since you mentioned it. Biography articles aren't my forte; I don't really know where to look for information about people. If a person worked as a botanist I know where to look to confirm that they existed, their birth/death year and their standard abbreviation, but that's about it. Thanks for writing the article. It's a fine beginning with no problems as far as I can tell. Plantdrew (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Artix Kreiger/Archive 2[edit]

Hey Plantdrew,

I had submitted a few entries and several were published. Wanted to let you know. Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye out for more publications of your drafts. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Historically recognized monogeneric plant families[edit]

Looking at Category:Monogeneric plant families, which you helpfully added to the Frankeniaceae redirect, I noticed quite a few articles which would appear to need merging and replacing with redirects to the genus article. I don't recall a discussion on whether the policy on monogeneric families applies to historically recognized families, like Alangiaceae. I'd be interested in your comments on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any previous discussion regarding historically recognized monogeneric families. I think deal with them on a case by case basis. There may be previous circumscriptions that weren't monotypic. Based on what's currently in the Alangiaceae article, I'd merge it with the genus, but Watson & Dallwitz include Metteniusa in Alangiaceae; I guess that is based on morphology, not DNA? It's certainly quite a different view than APGIV has. And an order Alangiales has been published; I do wonder what had been included there.Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think case by case is sound advice. Re Watson & Dallwitz, unfortunately this website doesn't seem to be kept up to date; e.g. for Frankeniaceae, by 2003 even Kubitzki (usually a conservative splitter in my experience) had only 2 genera in the family, but Watson & Dallwitz still show 4. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea where Watson & Dallwitz get their circumscriptions, but they do mention APGIV synonymies for Alangiaceae, and APGIV ordinal placement for Frankeniaceae. It is being kept up to date in some fashion, it's just not clear what system they are following. At any rate, a polygeneric circumscription of Alangiaceae seems to be quite rare (Airy Shaw 1966 proposed including Metteniusa, but Cronquist and Takhtajan reject this). Probably fine just to merge to the genus. Plantdrew (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
My impression is that they have just added bits to the end of these articles without updating circumscriptions. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Rate of decription[edit]

Hi Plantdrew, I am quite happy to take your word that species are being described faster than they are being added to WP. I had my doubts about the validity of Chris Troutman's objection, but the RfC is now closed in favour of a trial anyway. I hope it goes well as I find it much less hassle to add a little bit to an existing stub than to create the article from scratch. My interests include marine ecology, and recording sightings, and often check what is available on Wikipedia and find nothing, but don't have the time to create an article, but maybe do have the time to upload a photo and add a few sentences from my references. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I got the last comment in before the RfC closed; I'd intended to comment some more on common name issues. I don't buy Chris Troutman's objections in terms of bot-created stubs making it impossible for human editors to get an internal award that very few care about. I do agree that it is easier for human editors to add information to a well-crafted stub than it is for them to create the stub in the first place (especially so for people who don't have much experience editing Wikipedia). Plantdrew (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Policy mentioned in an edit[edit]

Hiya 😊 You recently reverted an edit to Violin plot, with the reason "Remove xkcd spam per WP:xkcd". However, as you can see, WP:xkcd is redlinked. Is there another name for it that perhaps WP:xkcd should redirect to? Xmoogle (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xmoogle:; oops, that should have been WP:XKCD. Plantdrew (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Didn't realise that'd be case sensitive! But it does seem like maybe WP:xkcd should also be a redirect, given the webcomic's proper title is lowercase. I might "be bold" and add one in later 😊 And thanks! Xmoogle (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Help : review article[edit]

Hi Let me introduce myself. I am Felix and I’m a novice in Wikipedia ! I wrote an article recently, it’s a biography of a french-american journalist : Laura Haim. Now, I’m waiting for validation from wikipedian reviewer. Would you be able to help me? I have no idea how long it could take… Many thanks for your help. Best

Felix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybon (talkcontribs) 17:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for your tireless dedication to gnoming new articles on plants, animals, and fossils. Your work does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. ♠PMC(talk) 02:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Plantdrew (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


should we nominate ennuigi for deletion?-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 06:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Species box or taxobox[edit]

Hi Plantdrew, some plant articles have species box and some have taxobox templates. I'm presently creating a few plant stubs. What would be appropriate to use? Thanks in advance. AshLin (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

Since a year ago you participated in a rename discussion at Talk:Mandarin orange (fruit) you may want to participate in a merge discussion regarding the same pages at Talk:Mandarin orange. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
Thanks for the taxobox my friend. One day I will learn. Jacob4111 (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

How to bump things to a Start[edit]

Hello Drew, I had made some changes (I admit not the best changes) to Dorymyrmex insanus , which is currently a stub, and I was wondering how to boost it to a Start. :D thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob4111 (talkcontribs) 07:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Is there a reason I have to force italics on Podonephelium subaequilaterum? --QEDK () 18:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@QEDK: there's coding in {{taxobox}} that usually automatically inserts {{italic title}} when the target of the taxobox is a genus or species, so the manual italicization isn't strictly needed. On the other hand, it does no harm. Using {{Speciesbox}} is, in my view, a better solution and definitely doesn't need italics to be forced. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Yep, that I know, but why does it fail in this case I don't understand. --QEDK () 17:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Nvm, just saw your edit. Thanks a lot! --QEDK () 17:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about "new" species[edit]

The article Mesoleptus hibernica claims that M. hibernica is a new species "discovered" in 2008. The only references are news reports such as BBC and Wales Online. None of the major databases (ITIS, BugGuide, GBIF, EoL, and iNaturalist) include it. All results from a Google search were news reports from the original 2008 announcement, with nothing since. The species name is not mentioned in any books or scholarly articles. This review of wasp genera states "One of the Mesoleptus specimens reared by Dr. Williams in Ireland might represent a new species, but this needs to be assured in the future when more specimens are available for the study." So basically, he called it a new species, but in the 10 years since, nobody has really agreed with him.

There are enough of what I'd call "layman's sources" like BBC and so on that I think it might qualify for a GNG pass, but I don't know that those are really reliable enough to be worth using in a scientific article. Do you have any suggestions about what to do in this case? Should we even have an article while the "species" is still in this kind of limbo state? ♠PMC(talk) 22:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


I see that you corrected my removal of the italic title there, but I've done further research and the issue is that the name of the article Macroelongatoolithus does not match the taxon in the oobox. That is what puts the article into Category:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications. I know nothing about the Taxon vs. Article info, so I'm reaching out to you who apparently does.Naraht (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, for Sauropus (ichnogenus), except for that for ichnobox, it may be the name field. If you do a preview, you will see what it is trying to match to the titleNaraht (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10[edit]

Hello Plantdrew, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!


  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.


  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Please could you provide me with guidance on how to create a speciesbox for a monotypic genus, in this case Nemanthias? Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Cwmhiraeth, you could use Caribisis as an example. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I have done it now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Several Leucospermum species may need evaluation of their quality rating[edit]

Hi Plantdrew, Perhaps you could have a look at Leucospermum conocarpodendron, Leucospermum cordifolium, Leucospermum hamatum, Leucospermum prostratum, Leucospermum reflexum and Leucospermum truncatum. Thank you in advance! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


Hi! Why are you going round changing the spellings called by Template:Infobox sheep breed? I suggest that MOS:RETAIN applies there as elsewhere. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Different spellings of parameter names show up in different rows of the Template Parameter report. While Infobox sheep breed does support both spellings for wool and face tint, I don't really see the point in having many variant parameter names in infobox templates. I guess I'm just OCD about it, but it's messy. Should all infobox template have support added for all possible ENGVAR permutations of the parameter names? There is a (currently unused in any article) |color= in the template, but no |colour=. Plantdrew (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, that sort of makes sense; but if the way the data is reported isn't how you want it to be, why not fix the reporting (or ask someone else to)? The point of having both American and international spellings available in animal breed infoboxes is to be able to match the language variant used in the articles; many other infoboxes allow the same choice, and yes, I think all should do so. There is no |color= parameter in the sheep breed infobox – as you can see from the template code – so I didn't introduce an alternative spelling for it, nor ask for that alternative to be created in {{Infobox animal breed}}. It looks as if we need a hair colour field, though, for hair sheep and most goats. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ham Wall[edit]

You appear to have removed the Wikiproject Birds tag from this article, presumably in error given your editorial experience, but just in case, please note that this reserve is managed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, primarily to create habitat for the Bittern, and is nationally known for its breeding herons and egrets.

The bird project doesn't only curate bird species, we include other bird-related articles, including ornithologists and nature reserves, several of which have reached FA under the project's banner.

If you do not think that this RSPB reserve has anything to do with birds, or if you think the project should not cover RSPB or other reserves managed primarily for birds, please discuss at the project talk page, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: My bad. RSPB management of the area certainly seems like a valid reason in tag the article for WikiProject Birds.Plantdrew (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talkcontribs) 03:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Real Life Barnstar.jpg The Real Life Barnstar
Thanks for your help Bubblesorg (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


Where exactly is the consensus to remove sister links from dozens of articles? GMGtalk 20:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Where exactly was the consensus to add it in the first place? It was used in ~100 out of 360,000 articles with taxoboxes; far from widespread adoption. Taxon articles usually have equivalents on Wikispecies, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikidata (all of which are automatically linked on the left hand sidebar). Many taxon articles have additional links to sister project through templates {{Wikispecies}} and {{Commonscat}}; these are still redundant to the sidebar, but are far more commonly used than {{Sister project links}}. Most of the instances of Sister project links I removed didn't have links to irrelevant sister projects supressed; what is the point of linking to a search on Wikiversity or Wikisource? In the few instances that Wikiversity had anything relevant, it was less developed than the main article. Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The consensus to include them was that they were long standing on articles that hundreds of editors had contributed to. If you think some of the links are less than helpful, that's not a reason to run scorched earth through a hundred articles, and being redundant with the sidebar generated from wikidata has never been a valid reason to remove sister links from the external links section. If you wan't to make a bold change, then by all means do so. If you want to make a mass removal of information across scores of high profile article, then you need to get consensus for it. GMGtalk 21:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

If you're going to edit a ton of articles that don't actually change what the article looks like from the readers' perspective (your "taxobox cleanup" edits mostly just change spacing, parameter order, parameter names, etc in the infoboxes and only affect the code not how the article looks), is there a way you can mark these edits as minor? Thanks Umimmak (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to get in the habit of marking them as minor. Plantdrew (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you; it would be greatly appreciated. Umimmak (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Protanthea simplex[edit]

I have made a complete hash of trying to move Protanthea simplex to Protanthea because it is a monotypic taxon. The very first move I made in the round robin change was wrong and each move I tried to make after that made things worse. Can you help sort it out? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry! When I stepped back and thought about the problem a bit more, I realised what needed to be done, and it's OK now, although the article's history is a bit of a mess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Year of first description[edit]

@Plantdrew, @Faendalimas: I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of what is meant by "year of first description" in the current WT:TOL thread, where I had hoped for a consensus to start some overall guidelines on categorizing organisms by year of formal description. (However, it looks at present as though there won't be enough participants to give any real strength to guidelines.)

The issue of what year to use is tricky. Consider Gibbaranea bituberculata. Its taxonomic history is given in the World Spider Catalog entry:

  • Lepechin, 1774 used Aranea abdomine bicorni, but this was an unavailable trinomen
  • Martini & Goeze, 1778 used Aranea bicornuta, but this is a nomen oblitum
  • Gmelin, 1789 used Aranea bicornis, but this is another nomen oblitum
  • Finally Walckenaer, 1802 used Aranea bituberculata, the first available name under the ICZN
  • Archer, 1951 transferred the species to Gibbaranea as Gibbaranea bituberculata

Currently it's categorized under Category:Spiders described in 1802, because what the "described in YEAR" categories seem to mean is "first given a usable name [="legitimate name" or "available name", depending on the code] under the appropriate nomenclature code in YEAR". They don't mean "first scientifically described in YEAR" as most readers (and editors?) would be likely to interpret "described"; Gibbaranea bituberculata was first identified as a distinct taxon and described scientifically in 1774.

For ICZN names, the current practice amounts to the rule: use the year in the authority after the name, whether or not there are parentheses and whether or not this is a replacement name. For ICNafp names, it's more difficult, but there is advice available at WP:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories (e.g. the example of Muscari racemosum), whereas I can find none for animals.

At some stage, if this system of categories is to have any meaningful use, we will need to clarify precisely how to handle cases like Gibbaranea bituberculata and so define precisely what the categories mean. But I see that as a task for the future. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead and Plantdrew:, yes of course the year described is the year the species is formally recognised in nomenclature, per whatever code. Should we list the Green Sea Turtle as Chelonia mydas Aristotle c. 350B.C.? He named it, Linnaeus copied it. The common prey items of our species have probably had some sort of name for 100000 years maybe more. Formal description is by definition when a species meets the code and a name is assigned. Any name that does not meet the codes never actually existed in science, hence names that are unavailable for whatever (using ICZN definition of unavailable here) reason can be reused even for other species. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: one problem is with the title of the categories. Formal description is by definition when a species meets the code and a name is assigned – I think you mean "species name" not "species". It isn't quite so simple. A taxon can be given a scientific description/diagnosis and a name which turns out not to be acceptable, e.g. because it's a homonym. Later someone else realizes the name issue needs to be fixed, and without adding to or changing the description publishes an acceptable name, referring to the earlier description/diagnosis. Any taxonomic discussion of the taxon has to refer to the first description/diagnosis, regardless of the problem with the name. So "description/diagnosis" and "acceptable naming" aren't always simultaneous.
Plantdrew highlighted the issue of replacement names, which illustrates this point. For plants, Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories says to use the earliest date, giving the example of Hyacinthus muscari L. (1753), which can't be transferred to Muscari as Muscari muscari under the ICNafp, hence Muscari racemosum Mill. (1768) is needed as a replacement name. Muscari racemosum is put into Category:Plants described in 1753.
Should this be followed for animals? The sequence Bulimus cinereus Mortillet, 1851 (junior homonym) → Bulimus psarolenus Bourguignat, 1859 (nom. nov.) → Solatopupa psarolena (Bourguignat, 1859) is discussed at Nomen novum#Zoology. Solatopupa psarolena is currently in Category:Gastropods described in 1859 not Category:Gastropods described in 1851. Is this right? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
In Zoology a species is described formally when it meets the code, as diagnosis is a part of this if any part of the description is unavailable it all is. So a statement of when a species is described in zoology is when it is acceptably named, so the gastropod should be in 1859, not 1851. The Mata mata was first described in 1741, but it was formally named in 1792. The different codes do not always agree. Where they dont we have to accept it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: um... So a statement of when a species is described in zoology is when it is acceptably named – that's not quite what Art. 13.1 says. Unlike other names, a replacement name does not have to be accompanied by a "description or diagnosis" or a reference to one (see 13.1.13); its description is the one published with the name that is being replaced. Hence I would argue that so long as the categories are called "described in", the right date to use for ICZN replacement names is the same as for ICNafp names, i.e. the date of the name being replaced. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I guess I should chime in since this is my talk page. I basically don't do any work categorizing taxa by year because this of the issues here. The ICZN and ICNafp both have situations where names are "available" from their earliest description, but where subsequent placement requires a replacement name; the details differ under the codes, but it is an issue for both. Simplest solution, if we were starting over would just be to go with the year given in references for the name in question; that is, the year a replacement name was published, or the year of a subsequent combination in botany. Those years are easy to find in sources. Finding the year of "first description" requires digging deeper, and isn't always adequately presented in our articles (there's nothing currently in Muscari racemosum that indicates ANY year of description, although the 1753 date can be found if the sources are examined). Plantdrew (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I have a lot of sympathy with your view; it's the simplest and most straightforward approach. (I'm not quite sure why I decided to try to clarify this categorization system after years of regarding it as a waste of time. I'm beginning to revert to my former position!) The name of the category is a large part of the problem; if it were, say, "Scientific names published in year", it would be much clearer. But we're stuck with a naming system that doesn't make it clear what the criteria are for the date, doesn't make it clear that only species are to be included, and doesn't make it clear whether articles at English names should be included or only their scientific name redirects. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
That can be solved relatively painlessly by creating a template like {{Taxa described in year header}}, {{Taxa by year header}}, etc., to put at the top of each of the categories that describes their function and these restrictions. Once created, I can help place it on all required cats.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  21:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: I see two problems: firstly, we'd have to agree on how the categories should be used in order to write the header, and I'm doubtful there will be a consensus; secondly, editors don't often look at category descriptions when they add categories. But if we could reach agreement, it would be a good idea. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Peter, I agree that "described in" in the category names is a big part of the problem. "Decribed in" is probably of more interest to the general public (assuming Wikipedia eventually covers all species with a year category on each article, it would be quite interesting to look at rate of species description by year). "Published in" would be more useful to people with some taxonomy background (I'm assuming "published in" aligns more closely with the year relevant for priority purposes). Plantdrew (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Peter coxhead, I've made some very carefully created sortkey instructions regarding minor planet categorization a few years back (partially for my own sake, so I could keep track...), and I have to say it's worth the effort - yes, there'll be people who ignore the instructions (either by accident or on purpose), but the # of editors who see discrepancies and fix them vastly outweighs the former over time. And the good part is that if consensus does change, mass-updating all the cats is no big deal.
What is the top-most cat that would/could get such a template? (for naming consideration purposes)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  22:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: well, if there is enough support for my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description, which it looks to me as if there is, then the top level should become Category:Species by year of formal description. At present, there's a bit of a mess at that level, with some groups leading up to categories with names including "by century of" and some to "Taxa by ...". Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: or perhaps {{Category in year header}}, to intuitively compliment the existing {{Category in year}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I get your points, jhowever, in zoology a species is described and linked to a name when it fulfls all the requirements of the code. Some of that can be by reference to earlier works, ie in replacement names, however it is only when the code is saticfied that the species is described. Sorry I cannot agree that the date of the replacement name is superceded by the first mention of the species. The name is available when it meets the code, the species is described when it has a valid name. Art 13 is referring to a previous reference yes, but this does make is valid until all requirements are met. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: we'll have to agree to disagree in the end, I think, but let me pose one more question to you. It concerns secondary homonyms. As the example at ICZN Art. 59.4 shows, renamed secondary homonyms are cited with the date of publication of the name: Aus niger Smith, 1950 becomes Bus ater Jones, 1970, if transferred to Bus, to avoid the clash with Bus niger Dupont, 1940. Aus niger and Bus ater are two names with different publication dates, but they are one species. The species was first described and named under the ICZN in 1950. If there were an article at Bus ater, in what year should it be categorized? Ultimately under Category:Species described in 1950 or Category:Species described in 1970? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Australasian Virtual Herbarium[edit]

@Plantdrew: Any chance while you are at it of removing the now (I think) false banners on Australasian Virtual Herbarium, stating that the article reads like self-advertisement, does not satisfy guidelines and is inadequately referenced. That might have been true when true when it was first created & when its sole reference was AVH, but I believe it is no longer true. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: Done. The sentence "Of the 8 million and upwards specimens available (as of 1 May 2018) more than five million specimens have been databased" could use some clarification. 8 million is, I gather, the total holdings, including specimens not yet databased (and thus not yet "available" in AVH). But it's not clear if 8 million is all holdings in AU/NZ institutions, or only in those institutions participating in AVH. 5 million specimens databased is mentioned here, but that is as of 12/08/14. Plantdrew (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Plantdrew:Nice point, and one which is not clarified on the AVH website. I think the 8 million is all holdings in participating AU/NZ institutions, and from the participating institutions I listed, which could change tomorrow. I will change the as of date.... Thanks for drawing attention to their press releases. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata proposed change to P1420 "taxon synonym"[edit]

Hello. This message is to mention that there is a proposed change to the Wikidata property "taxon synonym" to use strings instead of separate items. Perhaps you would like to comment. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018[edit]

Hello Plantdrew, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!


  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.


  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.


  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Stubs to review[edit]

Hey thanks for helping clean up all the plant stubs / taxobox change I made. :) Here are two more new ones it'd be good for you to check and make sure are correct:

  1. Sansevieria suffruticosa
  2. Sansevieria masoniana

Steven Walling • talk 20:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Steven Walling:, thanks for creating plant articles. I made a couple edits to the Sansevieria articles. You should usually omit |name= in taxoboxes (both manual and automatic). Taxoboxes have some capacity to sense whether the article title should be italicized; when |name= is non-blank, it overrides the italics sensing. And if the name parameter is omitted, then you want need to have {{Italic title}} either. The name parameter can be used to display a common name, but it's not needed when the article title is a scientific name and displaying a common name at the top of the taxobox isn't desired. Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips! Much appreciated. Steven Walling • talk 21:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Aerides leeana vs. Aerides leeanum[edit]

Thought you might be interested in cleaning these up along with their WD counterparts Aerides leeana (Q4688053) (linked to Aerides leeana currently) & (Q4688058) (linked to Aerides leeanum currently).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

When {{Automatic taxobox}} doesn’t recognize the name[edit]

What do you do with something like Inticetus, that the taxobox doesn’t recognize? This is way out of the bounds of my knowledge (I’m into rocks, myself), so I’m not sure how to go about getting it fixed. NotARabbit (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@NotARabbit: You need to create a template. Click on "fix", and the page Template:Taxonomy/Inticetus will be created and you fill in the blanks.Once its created follow the link back to the original page, often the new Taxobox is up but you my have to click on "edit" and then "publish" to make the taxobox show the changes.Quetzal1964 (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Quetzal1964: Thanks, but I wouldn’t have the first clue as to what to put in there. I just ran across this in a search for something else. NotARabbit (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@NotARabbit: I have completed the templates so you can see what you would have been able to do. There was also more information than required in the Automatic Taxobox as once the templates are completed they autofill the higher level taxonomy into an Automatic Taxobox.Quetzal1964 (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

Hello Plantdrew, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Trees portal[edit]

Hello Plantdrew,

Thanks for your work - agree with your removing the Trees portal thing and other stuff (esp. on the Melaleuca pages I'm interested in). Curious about why you removed the external links to Commons and Wikispecies tho'. I've put similar links on hundreds of other plant pages. Should they come off? Gderrin (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to say that I too agree with removing the trees portal. (I have a view on the links to Commons and Wikispecies, but will let Plantdrew reply first.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Gderrin:, in my view, the Commons and Wikispecies external link templates are redundant to the links to these resources that show up in the sidebar on the left side of the screen (and which are served by Wikidata). The sidebar links are always present and always in the same place. The Commons/Wikispecies templates are often absent, even when there is a corresponding page on the other project (en.Wiki has ~388,000 articles on taxa, but only around ~50,000 article are using a Wikispecies link template). When present, Commons/Wikispecies templates are not consistently placed; they may be right after the taxobox, under See also, External links, or References (and when under References they may be before or after the actual list of references).
I haven't really made a habit of removing Commons/Wikispecies templates prior to yesterday, and I don't see myself making the effort to edit articles solely to remove these templates (I've just been removing them when I had another reason to edit, e.g. Portal Trees). I do think Wikispecies templates may have some utility in the case of monotypic taxa, as only one Wikidata item can be linked to the article, but multiple Wikidata items may be relevant (however, I haven't really seen Wikispecies templates being used in this way). The other somewhat useful aspect of Commons/Wikispecies templates is that they do show up in mobile view, while the left hand side bar does not.
I suppose the next step really ought to be taking the Wikispecies template to a deletion discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Not exactly sure what you mean by "links to these resources that show up in the sidebar on the left side of the screen". Maybe those links (templates?) are useful to dummies like me. I tend to learn like a monkey and have simply copied what the prodigious Orchi does on orchid pages. Gderrin (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC) AHA! Found the Wikispecies thingy in the sidebar. Now I know what you mean. Gderrin (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again - have learned much today. Gderrin (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I would support taking the Wikispecies template to a deletion discussion; it's redundant now. Commons is slightly different as there's an issue over whether to link to a page on Commons (which often doesn't exist) or to a category. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI I made a suggestion at Template talk:Taxonbar to automatically display the Wikispecies link next to Wikidata (if it exists or is forced via |wikispecies=). Was thinking about doing this soon per WP:SILENT consensus. I completed the preliminary portion about a week ago, which is to spell out 'Wikidata' in the taxonbar.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  18:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Did you turn this on briefly and then turn it back off? I swear I saw a Wikispecies link in the taxonbar a couple days ago. Including Wikispecies in the taxonbar seems redundant to the link in the left hand sidebar, but if a taxonbar link to Wikispecies could help convince people that the Wikispecies link template could be deleted, I'd support the taxonbar link. Plantdrew (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Nope, automatic-Wikispecies has been live continuously since Saturday, June 23rd. Yes, it is technically redundant, but so is the Wikidata link on 1-line {{Taxonbar}}s, and having all related links within a mouse-swipe of each other is rather convenient. We can still vote on it though.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  21:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I am in favor of some Wikispecies link at the bottom of the page, and indifferent (all other things being equal) to whether or not that happens via {{Wikispecies}} or {{Taxonbar}}, but it's already been done via {{Taxonbar}} so... I suspect {{Wikispecies}} is still useful on non-taxonomic articles though, e.g. articles where {{Taxonbar}} would/should not be placed?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: I can't say I'm very familiar with our articles on non-taxon subjects that would be covered by Wikispecies, but I don't think I've ever seen a Wikispecies template on any of these articles. Wikispecies covers museums/specimen repositories (e.g. species:AMNH), journals/publications (e.g. species:ISSN 0040-0262) and taxonomists (e.g. species:Carolus Linnaeus). I'm not sure that adding the Wikispecies template to these articles on is very useful. We do have a number of articles on "folk taxa" such as herring, but Wikispecies doesn't have corresponding articles unless it was at one time treated as a scientific taxon (worm/vermes/species:vermes). Plantdrew (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Plantdrew - are you able to tell me why the Wikispecies and Commons links in the sidebar are often not present? In particular, most Eremophila pages and many Melaleuca (eg. M. orbicularis, M. minutifolia and M. pauciflora). The orchids seem to be mostly okay except where Australian authorities take a different view from WCSP (eg. Diuris dendrobioides.) If something needs fixing, I'm happy to help if I am able. Gderrin (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Gderrin, Wikidata contains all of the interwiki links for all pages (other languages, Wikispecies, commons, etc.). If Wikidata doesn't have a link, then it won't display on the Wikipedia page; just like if an obscure language wiki doesn't have a sister page, it won't show up in the sidebar either.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Gderrin: for example, the Wikidata item for Melaleuca orbicularis didn't have a statement for the Wikimedia Commons category, until I added one in this edit. The Commons category now shows up in the sidebar. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Gderrin: Could be a number of reasons. As Peter and Tom mentioned, it could be because no link to Commons/Species was set on Wikidata. Or it could be because then English Wikipedia article was recently created and hasn't been linked to Wikidata itself. Or it could be because Commons/Species don't have a relevant page that could be linked. For Eremophila, Wikispecies only has articles for 17 species, and Commons has categories for 139 species. While there are certainly a bunch of Eremophila categories on Commons that aren't yet linked to Wikidata, there are a bunch of cases where the English Wikipedia has an article on an Eremophila species that doesn't yet have a page/category on Wikispecies or Commons. Plantdrew (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - all three. Bit busy writing Wikipedia pages to edit Wikdata or Wikispecies, so in the meantime, I'll just add or leave the old links. Gderrin (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Tree distribution categories[edit]

In addition to the trees portal, I wish we could get rid of the tree distribution categories. What counts as a tree is in some cases disputed. The system used (see Category:Trees by continent) is not actually consistent with the WGSRPD system used for flora generally, particularly at the top level, so it makes navigating flora distribution categories problematic. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the tree categories, and they do include things that I'd call shrubs rather than trees. Plantdrew (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Fagraea berteroana[edit]

Hi Plantdrew. I did the move, but the only source listed in the article that is visible online (the Whistler paper) spells the name as 'berteriana'. This may suggest that a further source ought to be added. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: you could use any of the reliable databases linked from the taxonbar. ITIS here has perhaps the clearest statement. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I updated the article about the spelling issue. Anyone may improve this further. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for moving and adding a note about the spelling. Plantdrew (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Vachellia farnesiana var. farnesiana[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Vachellia farnesiana var. farnesiana—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Leo

Slimy cusk eel[edit]

I noted that you reversed my move of Brosmophyciops pautzkei to its vernacular name. I was moving it to comply with WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. I think the use of the generic name for extant monotypic taxa is not the best way to entitle articles about those taxa. If a vernacular name is available, and attested, then surely it is better to use that, as Slimy cusk eel was in this case. If you were not use the vernacular name then the article title should be Brosmophyciops. If you look at my edits I will retain the binomial as the title if there is no available vernacular name for an existing article but have started to follow the policy when creating a new article about species in monotypic genera.Quetzal1964 (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Quetzal1964:, it was Gigemag76 who moved B. pautzkei to "slimy cuskeel", not you. They moved many articles on obscure species to poorly attested vernacular names; sometimes the names they used didn't appear anywhere outside of Wikipedia. And when a species did have multiple attested vernacular names, they made no effort to determine which vernacular name was most commonly used (or whether there were additional vernacular names not yet listed in Wikipedia). They were eventually banned for these moves. I reversed Gigemag76's move as they hadn't looked for additional vernacular names (e.g. free-tailed reef brotula). At FishBase, "slimy cuskeel" is attested to two different field guides; that is rather weak sourcing. More widely used vernacular names are usually attributed to FAO or AFS on FishBase.
I don't have extended pagemover rights, so I wasn't able to move it to the genus title (after Gigemag76's move, a bot fixed the double redirect from the genus). Monotypic genera should indeed be at the genus title, but this practice is frequently not followed for fishes. Plantdrew (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. gives the vernacular name of slimy cusk. Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please don't dablink Trigonidium[edit]

Hi. Trigonidium is the type genus of a massive subfamily. PLEASE do not convert it into a dablink. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It does seem to me that the orchid genus name is much better known, at least as shown by searches, than the cricket, so making "Trigonidium" the title of the orchid article with a hatnote for the cricket at "Trigonidium (cricket)" could be justified. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dyanega: The first step I take when I come across a genus name that's shared between codes is to put it into a search engine and see if what the search engine thinks I'm looking for. In this case, it's the orchid, hands down. That doesn't surprise me much, as the orchid has entered cultivation, and there are more orchid enthusiasts than there are people interested in Hawaiian insects (if it the plant genus were a moss instead of an orchid, I'd expect the insects would be of more interest). Species count is (and thus the number of links that would need to be made to a disambiguated title) is one thing to consider, but it's not the only thing.
You moved the page by copy-pasting content on the orchid to the new title. That is a bad practice, as it splits the page history, which is necessary for copyright attribution (see WP:CPMOVE. I think you should have been able to move the article directly to Trigonidium (orchid). If you were prevented from doing so, you could have asked to have it moved at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests. Another downside of copy-paste moves is that it can break interwiki links. There are articles on the orchid genus in 11 other languages as well as Wikispecies and Commons. By copy-pasting, you created a situation where the English article on the insect genus was linked to articles on the orchid in other languages.Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Many times when I've tried to move pages, I am told I cannot do so because a page by that name already exists - 9 times out of 10, it's a pre-existing redirect, as in this case. I would be happy to learn that there is an easy fix to this particular roadblock, as I have always simply overwritten the redirect. Wikispecies and Commons do not have pages for the "naked" genus name, they both list "Trigonidium (Orchidaceae)". As for the argument regarding species counts, all of the species listed under the orchid genus were redlinks, so there was no evidence that anyone was interested in them. I'd sooner give a non-dablinked genus article to one with 160 species than one with 18, when both are essentially all redlinks. Without googling, everything else did appear equal, so I saw no reason to give the orchids priority. Dyanega (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Dyanega: Wikispecies does have a page at the "naked" genus name, but it's a disambiguation page. I've set up the same situation here; both plant and insect genera have a disambiguated title, and Trigonidium is now a disambiguation page. I also set up Template:Taxonomy/Trigonidium to be used in the automatic taxobox system for the insect genus. I think there's a stronger argument to be made that the more speciose genus should get the "naked" genus name when it comes to taxonomy templates. Plantdrew (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Dyanega (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I suspect that the editors who work at WP:AT wouldn't find the "speciosity" argument convincing as compared to the normal criteria for article titles, but I won't argue. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Peter, you had previously said that you didn't think it was necessary to disambiguate all taxonomy templates. I don't remember the genus in question at the time, but it was exactly this situation. An inter-code "homonym" where neither the plant nor the animal genus was the primary topic (the base title was a dab page), but the taxonomy template for one of them didn't have a disambiguator. Plantdrew (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, my comment wasn't clear then. It's the article that I don't think needs to be disambiguated, based on WP:AT, given the frequency that searches find the orchid, as per my first post above. Personally, I'm happy with the situation as it is, but I know from experience that there's pressure to choose one of the uses of an ambiguous term as "primary". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


Im having a bit of trouble with Morus in speciesboxes and automatic taxoboxes. I cant remember how to make both work when you have both a plant and an animal with the same genus name. Morus is the genus name for gannet as well as the plant…..Pvmoutside (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside:, I have created Template:Taxonomy/Morus (bird) to solve this. If a taxon name is shared across multiple taxonomic codes, automatic taxoboxes will generally need to call a disambiguated taxonomy template. Using |taxon= in a speciesbox will not work when the genus name needs disambiguation. You will need to use |genus= )with a parenthetical dab term and |species= in these cases rather than |taxon=. From what I've noticed you are already using |species=/|genus= rather than |taxon= for species level automatic taxoboxes, so it's mostly a matter of setting up the appropriate taxonomy templates for ambiguous genera rather than changing automatic taxobox parameters to get everything working. Plantdrew (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"Automatic axobox"[edit]

I was amazed that {{Automatic axobox}} actually worked at Recluse spider before you corrected it, and surprised to see that I must have known this at one time since I added the R template to the redirect! Good catch. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's worth keeping redirects for misspelled templates, but I guess they're not really harmful. Links to misspellings in main space show up in Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, but not links outside of main space. My single most frequent template error is changing {{Taxobox}} to {{Species}} (I try to highlight just "Taxo" and replace it with "Species", but sometimes I end up highlighting the whole line); {{Species}} is itself a template, so it produces some ugly code. Plantdrew (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

An iridescent dancing eight-legged critter shaped barnstar for you![edit]

MalePeacockSpider.jpg The barnstar of constantly helping me out and fixing my mistakes - in spider form
Thank you yet again, this time at Maratus unicup. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
It's a pleasure. Thank you for the nifty barnstar. Plantdrew (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Cornus unalaschkensis[edit]

Hi Plantdrew;

I'm not convinced that the move to Cornus × unalaschkensis was a good idea.[1] The regional floras, e.g., WTU Herbarium and e-flora-BC treat it as Cornus unalaschkensis, as do the national FNA and GRIN.[2][3][4][5] Shouldn't Wikipedia be consistent with these sources that most would consider reliable? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wsiegmund:. E-Flora BC says it is a hybrid, and GRIN says it is probably a hybrid, although neither includes the hybrid sign. When I moved it, Cornus was inconsistent; in the species list it was given as Cornus × unalaschkensis, but there was a caption on an image that omitted the hybrid sign. My motivation in moving was to make it consistent with the species list in the genus article, but it can be moved back. Plantdrew (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Newtonia (bird)[edit]

another one for you...….Newtonia is both a plant and a bird genus..….Pvmoutside (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside:, there two links you can click that take you into creating a taxonomy template (when previewing, or after saving). The first link is in the "Automatic taxobox help" box. The second link is the automatic taxobox itself; it shows as "Unrecognized taxon (fix)" where "(fix)" is a link taking you into creating the taxonomic template. When you have a disambiguated taxonomy template, use the second link to create it. The first link tries to create a taxonomic template with no disambiguator, but the second link can handle disambiguators. Plantdrew (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

An issue that follows from this is what should be displayed when a taxonomy template is missing. I've long thought that the text produced by {{Automatic taxobox/floating intro}} is confusing – it attempts to explain, but is insufficient for a beginner, and unnecessary for an experienced user. I think that it would be better to have a message that highlights the "fix" link more prominently, and links to some part of the documentation of the system in lieu of an explanation. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that the two links go to different places to create the taxonomy template is a bug (which I hadn't noticed before since I always used the "Fix" link). The link at "Click here" doesn't fix the space in a 'genus' name like "Newtonia (bird)" in the URL, so the URL is wrong. I'll correct this. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done If, for example, you go to Newtonia (bird), edit the taxobox to change "Newtonia (bird)" to "Newtonia (animal)", the two links now both open the correct partially filled taxonomy template. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There's a revised version of the help text that would be displayed when a taxonomy template doesn't exist at Template:Automatic taxobox/floating intro/sandbox. Comments, please. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Peter. I don't have suggestions for the help text at the moment. What you have in the sandbox looks good. Plantdrew (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox[edit]

Hello Plantdrew, I was surprised to see that the automatic taxobox for Acanthastrea was working fine without any entry under |taxon =. Is this a mistake or should we omit this line in automatic taxoboxes for brevity? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Loopy30:, automatic taxoboxes will look for a taxonomy template with the same name as the page title if |taxon= is not specified. I understand it takes more processing if |taxon= is omitted, and the parameter must be specified when the article title is not the taxon name (e.g. when a vernacular name is the title). I think it is good practice to always specify |taxon= even when the automatic taxobox is technically able to function without it. Plantdrew (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Loopy30: as Plantdrew says, automated taxoboxes (including {{Speciesbox}}) will try to pick up the taxon name from the page name, but it's not good practice to rely on this, for several reasons, including the problems that arise if the page is moved (e.g. to the English name, or to a disambiguated title when the taxonomy template isn't disambiguated). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, thanks. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something new. The possibility of the taxobox breaking if the page name changes (which will certainly happen in some cases) is enough rationale in itself. Still plodding through the cnidarians..., 'Cheers again, Loopy30 (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


Why (or how) is GBIF so much more likely to list more synonyms than the other databases? Abductive (reasoning) 08:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abductive: Any particular examples of taxa where you're noticing lots of synonyms in GBIF, or examples of other databases with fewer synonyms than GBIF? GBIF scrapes everything it can get it hands on. One aspect is that GBIF includes typos/misspellings on specimen labels; provided a human takes the time to review them, misspellings will get linked to the proper spelling. Another aspect is that other databases that are nominally comprehensive aren't actually so. TROPICOS aims to be comprehensive, but is missing many species and synonyms from parts of the world such as Europe and Australia, where Missouri Botanical Garden doesn't have active research programs. POWO aims to be comprehensive, but is still largely based on the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (key word "Selected"). GBIF takes all the bits and pieces from semi-comprehensive databases and stitches them together. Plantdrew (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It's systemic to GBIF. Perhaps I should phrase it a different way: What is the consensus on WP Plants for proper sourcing for synonyms, especially if the databases disagree? Abductive (reasoning) 05:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Abductive:, I wouldn't consider GBIF particularly reliable, but I'm not sure if this has directly discussed at WP Plants. If GBIF says something is accepted that other databases treat as a synonym (or vice versa), I'd go with the other databases. If GBIF lists a synonym (that's not an obvious typo) that other databases don't mention at all, I'm willing to believe that GBIF has uncovered an obscurity that perhaps should be included in a synonym list. Plantdrew (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup St. Louis 15
Fleur de Arch.svg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are invited to attend the 15th St. Louis Wikipedia and WikiProject Meetup. We are doing a quick touch-base to gather current interest and make a plan for more regular meetups in the future. The meetup is next Thursday, August 16 from 5-6 PM with more structure and from 6-7 PM social time. This all takes part during Venture Cafe's Thursday Gatherings at Cortex in the The District in St. Louis. There are free drinks. Please do visit 15th St. Louis Wikipedia and WikiProject Meetup and add your name if you plan to attend. THANKS :)

I hope to see you there! Jon Phillips (talk) - via Jon Phillips (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Join our WikiProject St. Louis Page and add your name as a participant

Correct template to use for a hybrid[edit]


I would be grateful if you could advise please if Hybridbox is the (most) correct template to be used for Ulmus × hollandica, eg.

Ulmus × hollandica
Scientific classification e
Kingdom: Plantae
Clade: Angiosperms
Clade: Eudicots
Clade: Rosids
Order: Rosales
Family: Ulmaceae
Genus: Ulmus
Species: U. minor × U. glabra

Currently we have infobox cultivar which is not really correct except for cultivars of U. × hollandica.

Thank you, Tom_elmtalk 11:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tom elm: {{Hybridbox}} is meant for animal hybrids where there isn't a nothospecies name. For plant hybrids you would just use {{Speciesbox}} as per Template:Speciesbox#Hybrid species. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Thank you, I have changed the Ulmus × hollandica page now.

Keesingia (redirects) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Keesingia (redirects). Since you had some involvement with the Keesingia (redirects) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

the lions[edit]

Hi Plantdrew. Since you recently updated the WikiProject assessment of the Northern lion, you are perhaps one of the most resourceful persons in regards to solving a mistake that I just came across: the taxon identifiers at the very bottom of this article link to North East Congo lion at wikidata, and to Panthera leo azandica at eol and MSW3. I suppose this is due to the many redirects and renaming that this page received recently? Another issue is that the name Northern lion has to date not been used in ANY publication for this subspecies. On the other hand, ''Panthera leo leo is redirected to Barbary lion. Southern lion, another name not used in the literature, is linked to Transvaal lion at wikidata, whereas Panthera leo melanochaita redirects to Cape lion, which is also the name used at wikidata. Isn't this quite a hodgepodge? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani:, it is indeed quite a hodgepodge. I'm not sure what the best solution is. Both Central African lion and Northern lion have a taxonbar that links to Wikidata item d:Q3893464 (North East Congo lion/Panthera leo azandica). Central African lion is the English Wikipedia article linked to that Wikidata item. Northern lion and Central African lion both list P. l. azandica as a synonym in the taxobox. I'm inclined to remove the taxonbar from Northen lion, as Central African lion appears to be closer to the concept embodied by P. l. azandica. But it's tough mapping these concepts when Wikipedia and Wikidata use a mixture of common and scientific names, and some of the scientific names are deprecated. Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


I see that you were involved in setting up the titles of the article and disambiguation pages relating to "spinifex". I understand the logic of using "Spinifex (genus)" in this case rather than the expected "Spinifex (plant)" on the grounds that the English name "spinifex" is used for Spinifex but more often for Triodia.

However, this clearly wasn't working as intended; many if not most of the links concerned with "spinifex" either ended up, directly or indirectly, at the disambiguation page or at the wrong genus (in particular most wikilinks given as [[Spinifex (genus)|spinifex]] appear to mean the spinifex found in arid areas, i.e. Triodia spp.) In some cases it seems to me clear that editors familiar with the usual naming policy expected "Spinifex (plant)" to go to the genus Spinifex.

So I've changed to the usual naming system and am trying to fix all the "spinifex" links manually. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember how I had it set up. I would've thought I'd had left "Spinifex (plant)" pointing to the disambiguation page, as I usually have done in the rare cases where I think another plant related meaning of the term merits breaking with the usual pattern and using (genus) as a disambiguator.
If you want to make more moves away from (genus), see User:Plantdrew/Moveprep#(genus) dab term. Some of them are moves I can't make myself, some of them I'm not completely sure that (plant) is the best disambiguator. Plantdrew (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Portal trimming[edit]

Hi there Plantdrew. I've noticed that you've started trimming portals from many articles. While obviously irrelevant should be removed, and less relevant portals could arguably be removed, can you please take care not to remove obviously relevant portals – such as removing Portal:Forestry from Forestry [6]. If you have any issues with specific portals, or portals in general, you are welcome to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. Cheers - Evad37 [talk] 03:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Just, in passing, to say that I would certainly remove Portal:Forestry from Forestry, on the grounds of duplication/nonredundancy if nothing else. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
It might be wise to discuss and obtain consensus before carrying out further bulk edits to remove portal boxes. Edit summaries such as "taxobox cleanup" and "removed unmaintained Portal Trees" are simply incorrect. That portal has improved significantly with 18 edits this year, three in the last month. It could remain useful and current even without ongoing maintenance, as it's not the fastest moving area of study. Of course, you would be very welcome to enhance the portal yourself. Certes (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Taxonomy templates with qualified names[edit]

I wouldn't myself put Category:Taxonomy templates with qualified names in Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup, since as far as I can see the templates are as they should be. Did you have a particular reason or example in mind? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess I meant to put it in Category:Taxobox cleanup, which has a bunch of subcategories that seem more for tracking than for error correction (I mean, it's worth checking them for errors now and then, but they're going to have a bunch of errorless permanent members), Plantdrew (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Dreamy Jazz. I noticed that you recently removed content from Category:Individual trees in Australia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please explain why you are removing the links to portals in categories in your WP:EDITSUMMARY. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

RfD notification[edit]

Hi Plantdrew, there are several redirects related to plant taxonomy for discussion today. Your input on these is always appreciated. --BDD (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"good faith" list article created on rodents[edit]

I posted this on wikiproject rodents, but it seems to be very quiet there.

List_of_largest_rodents was created by an editor who has experienced some difficulties with correct sourcing and imaging of articles. Please check it for accuracy and policy conformity. If you know any experts in the field of rodents it would be great if you could notify them. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Petscan searches[edit]

Hello Plantdrew, could you help explain to me why this search for articles in the class Anthozoa brings up an apparently random list that includes a mammal (Insular flying fox), a plant (Glochidion comitum), a bird (Blue-crowned lorikeet), and a mollusc (Mitra testacea), among others? Decreasing the depth from 9 to 6 reduced the list from 30 down to 10, but there are still oddities like Clarion snake eel included. Even decreasing the depth down to 1 leaves two entries, one of which is not a cnidarian. Puzzled, Loopy30 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

One immediate problem is that Category:Anthozoa has the subcategory Category:Coral reefs. If you follow this latter category down you get to individual islands which have then their flora and fauna as subcategories. The underlying problem is that much of the category system is broken beyond repair, given the editor time that would be required to fix it. Articles and (sub)categories are put into categories on the basis of any old connection between them, whereas to put A into category B should require "A is a B" or "A is part of B" or the like. Result: many if not most category searches don't work as they should. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


Since your name has plants, we have new info about how plants work, can you add info in the article that plants glow when being attacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018[edit]

Hello Plantdrew, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

  • Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
  • In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
  • MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
  • User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
  • User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi Plantdrew. Since you put so much effort into designing the template subspeciesbox and adding it to hundreds of pages, I figure you are one of the most knowledgeable wikipedians regarding classification. Therefore I have another question and would appreciate your comment: is it justified to keep this template in wiki pages on populations that are no longer considered as distinct subspecies? Like West African lion, Bengal tiger, Siberian tiger, South China tiger, Bali tiger and a few more on tiger populations; whereas this template is not used in South American jaguar, which is neither considered a subspecies any longer. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)