User talk:Plantdrew

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

Amphicarpy and several Asterid articles[edit]

Thank you once again for your evaluations of plant articles. I've been editing some articles lately, which you may want to review. Amphicarpy has now grown beyond a dictionary description. Scolymus maculatus and particularly Scolymus and Gymnarrhena have been substantially extended and have outgrown their stub status. Warionia was reviewed shortly, but after a few further improvements and DYK, perhaps deserves a bit more than "start". Finally, I feel that Gundelia is now a very interesting article, that brings together information from a wide range of disciplines. Could you give me some suggestions as to how we may raise it from C to B or perhaps even A. I mean, when comparing it to all those Banksia articles with FA status, there most be some perspective.

Thank you in advance, kind regards! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje:. Done. I've rated a couple as B class, and I think Gundelia is basically there as well, but since you asked for specifics, I have a few minor nitpicks. Most importantly, there's no citation supporting the view that there is only one species (and The Plant List has two species; we usually follow The Plant List, so their position is worth mentioning if even it's not strictly followed). A few sections don't have any citations. I corrected some grammar errors, but it would be good if somebody else went over the article and looked at improving some of the phrasing. Thanks for your work on these articles and happy New Year. Plantdrew (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Side note; like most WikiProjects, WikiProject Plants doesn't use the A class rating. Plantdrew (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the rating, I've done the suggested further sourcing in Gundelia and balanced the text on the number of species as required. Happy New Year to you!
By the way, I note that the taxonomy at Wikispecies is at odds with all literature I have seen, but it does not quote sources, so I'm hesitant to change anything there.Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: Concerning the number of taxa, Hind writes: "Kupicha (1975) and Rechinger (1989), in their flora accounts, and Bremer (1994) and Jeffrey [2006] (2007) in their generic treatments, treated Gundelia as monospecific and the apparently wide variation in corolla colour unrelated to gross morphology. Al-Taey & Hossain (1984) studied material in some detail and recognized that Bornmüller's and Tournefort's variants were in fact a second species, G. rosea Hossain & Al-Taey. Vitek et al. (2010) studied much material, especially live, in nature, and came to the conclusion that there are perfectly recognisable units that can be treated as separate species; the genus now has at least three, possibly four species! The typification of the genus by Vitek & Jarvis (2007) anchored the cream/yellowish corolla'd plants as typical Gundelia tournefortii, a corolla colour that can be found throughout the species distribution—alongside that of the darker corollas. Whilst there is little doubt that there is a significant variation in corolla colour I have one observation, and that stems directly from the writing of this article. Işık Güner's colour plate is from material collected in Turkey (from near Ankara), a considerable distance from the nearest similar coloured corolla'd taxon provided with a name by Vitek et al. (2010) — Gundelia aragatsi Vitek et al.; Işık Güner's plant is most certainly G. tournefortii. Clearly, much more detailed studies are still needed into this complex.". Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Ooh, that's a nice summary from Hind. Any chance of paraphrasing a little more of that into the article? I'm ready to to upgrade it to B-class for now though. Plantdrew (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll give it a go. Thank you so much! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Pachyphytum oviferum[edit]

Hi again. Ran across this article, part of which reads like gardening instructions. If you want to tag or just fix. MB 02:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look at it. Plantdrew (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
That was quick! MB 05:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Neophoca - (not) monotypic[edit]

Resolved

You're entirely right, I did miss the extinct species. However, using all measures, the extant species is WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, with the extinct secondary (the qualifier for disambiguation+hatnotes). Furthermore, the extinct isn't mentioned in Sea lion at all, making the redirect useless for the few people looking for it and this was the very reason I initially missed the non-monotyopic status. IMO the best solution would be to change the redirect to the primary species (the extant - without monotypic tags) and change mention of the extinct to a hatnote in that article (e.g., {{for|the extinct species from Pleistocene New Zealand|Neophoca palatina}}). Of course one could also start a genus article, but it would likely remain one of those single-sentence articles (+taxobox+species list). Would you object to redirect to extant+hatnote for extinct, or do you have an idea for a better solution than the current, highly unspecific redirect? Cheers, 80.62.117.252 (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If you reply, please do it here (keeping discussion together). I'm watching. 80.62.117.252 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
As I'm sure you've seen, this has been dealt with by someone starting a genus page. Cheers, 87.49.147.25 (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I've looked at Australian sea lion and it looks as if the October 2015 expansion resulted in some problematic content - original research and contradictory claims. I don't know enough to fix these myself without spending time on a literature search. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Plebejus hesperica[edit]

Hi, Plantdrew. Happy New Year!

I notice you reverted my move of Plebejus hesperica back in June. The reason I undertook this move is that the naming conventions for fauna specify that the most common vernacular name is to be preferred.

That said, I find Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Use the most common name when possible somewhat confusing, not to say contradictory: it cites WP:COMMONNAME as its basis for preferring the vernacular name, but WP:COMMONNAME says nothing about preferring vernacular names: it simply mandates using the most name commonly used name in English.

As to the original question of whether Plebejus hesperica is more commonly used than Spanish zephyr blue, I have no opinion and defer to others' better-informed judgment. But on the larger question, don't you think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) should harmonize with WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)? -- Rrburke (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as one who has mostly edited plant articles, I agree that WP:NCFAUNA confuses the two meanings of "common name" (i.e. 'the name most commonly used' and 'the vernacular name') and that it would be better if it were worded like WP:NCFLORA, but I would be amazed if there were a consensus for this change. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Problematic gastropod taxoboxes[edit]

Happy New Year!

As you are good at sorting out bad taxoboxes, you might want to look at Arminidae as just one example of some strange gastropod taxoboxes. It seems a never-ending task to keep taxoboxes in good order.

As an aside, I've made a minor change to the way that taxon links appear in automated taxoboxes. Previously, you would see something like "†Megacheira (?)", with the † and (?) inside the wikilink. Now it's formatted as "†Megacheira (?)", with the † and (?) outside the wikilink, which seems to me more how it would be done manually in running text. See, e.g., Actaeus (genus). I wonder if anyone will notice? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Megalopyge opercularis'[edit]

Please do not delete the section about popular references to the comparison between Megalopyge opercularis and Donald Trump's hair again without giving proper reference. You stated that the photos and videos of the Trumpapillar are not of Megalopyge opercularis but each article referenced attributes it to Megalopyge opercularis. See LiveScience for instance. If you intend to press your opinion that it isn't Megalopyge opercularis you will need to provide references validating your opinion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthfirstbiologicaldiversity (talkcontribs) 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

For another reference, little is actually known about the geographic distribution of Megalopyge opercularis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18344102 If you would like to claim that the biologist that identified the species in Peru as Megalopyge opercularis is indeed not Megalopyge opercularis could you please provide evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthfirstbiologicaldiversity (talkcontribs) 20:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Antarctic fishes[edit]

I think this should be singular, so would be appreciated if you can move Antarctic fishes over redirect Antarctic fish. JMK (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Divaricating plant category[edit]

You appear to be removing the category "Divaricating plants" from many (most ?, all?) articles to which it has been applied. Can you please provide a rationale for this. I established the category and have also found it very useful when identifying small twiggy shrubs here on the Banks Peninsular. It is a term in widespread use in New Zealand and it is used as a diagnostic feature in Flora of New Zealand. Your comments would be welcome.  Velella  Velella Talk   04:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Taxobox cleanup opportunity[edit]

Hi, if you're looking for more taxoboxes to clean up :-) I've come across some like the one at Nalacetus that have a {{Harvnb}} template as the value of the authority parameter. Apart from the use of a primary source for the authority, it displays without the comma that is standard for ICZN authors. I've cleaned up some as I passed them, but I'm currently on a mission to sort out species taxoboxes that use {{Automatic taxobox}} instead of {{Speciesbox}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, I'll look into the {{Harvnb}} more thoroughly eventually; I caught a few as part of some other work. I came across another weird way to do authorities; see Category:Taxon authority templates. There's a handful of articles using these templates, which link to articles on taxonomists from their abbreviation. Some of the linked articles are on Wikipedia, others on Wikispecies. I think all of these templates should be delinked and deleted.
Great work sorting out the species taxoboxes; I'd noted {{Automatic taxobox}} using |binomial= on my taxobox cleanup to-do list, thanks for clearing that out. Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Query re placement of authority in species taxoboxes[edit]

There seems to be an oddity in where the authority is placed in a taxobox for a species, depending on how it's coded.

  • If you use {{Speciesbox}}, then |authority= and |binomial_authority= are equivalent, and place the authority in the "binomial box" (as at e.g. Allium unifolium).
  • If you use {{Automatic taxobox}}, perhaps because the species is placed in a section or subgenus, then |authority= puts the authority in the species line (as at e.g. Acer palaeorufinerve), but |binomial_authority= behaves as it does in {{Speciesbox}}, putting the authority in the binomial box (as at e.g. Halictus? savenyei. This means that it's possible to have two different authorities for the species by using both parameters, which is clearly undesirable.
  • If you use {{Taxobox}}, then |binomial_authority= puts the authority in the binomial box (as at e.g. Agaricus bisporus), but |species_authority= puts in the species line (as at e.g. Cucurbita maxima). Again, this could allow two different authorities; I haven't found an example, but some pages do have both parameters so the authority appears in both places (as at e.g. Neocorynura electra).

Where is the authority for a species supposed to go? In the body of the taxobox, in the binomial box, or both? Or should editors be able to choose? Do you know if this has been discussed anywhere?

If the answer is not that editors can choose, then the taxobox templates need to be fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The taxobox at Dracovenator raises the issue of monotypic taxa; it looks a bit odd to me to have the authority in the body of the taxobox for the genus but not for the species. Um... Clearly this whole issue needs wider discussion, but I'd welcome your views first. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(Butting in. Sorry about my lack of other infobox work in spite of promises, I've been absent a lot more than expected due to health reasons.)
My gut feeling is that the proper location for the binomial authority is the binomial box, even if just to avoid good-faith-but-clueless editors adding the authority of every single taxon listed in the infobox as well. No clue if there's ever been any discussion, though.
Regarding monotypic taxa, there is the additional issue that even though genus and species authorities usually are the same, they don't always are—e.g. if the species was originally described under a different genus and later transferred to its own genus by someone else, though also if the genus originally held more than one species and all but one of them were transferred out to different genera. I've got no examples ready at the top of my head, but I've seen cases of both when it comes to Lepidoptera. As we use a single article to serve both subjects, at least in case of monotypic species the taxobox should ideally allow for two different authorities if necessary. (Though, much as with authorities of synonyms, it's always possible to work around it by simply adding it as Authority, year. Not ideal, though). This really is mostly an issue because at some point it was decided that monotypic species and their genera (sensibly) ought to share a page. (Not like there is enough content to support two separate articles without most of it duplicating each other in most cases) Using a taxobox there is a bit of a compromise between using a species-level and a genus-level taxobox, since adding both would be incredibly silly if ostensibly correct. Alternatively, it might be an option to create a {{monotypicspeciesbox}} which allows for both a binomial box and a genus box, so that both authorities can be given without one of them ending up in the infobox-body and one in the separate box. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, via |parent_authority=, |grandparent_authority=, etc., all the automated taxoboxes allow authorities for all the monotypic taxa treated in a single article. The issue, as you point out, is that if the authority is put in the binomial box it looks odd because the others aren't. One argument against putting the authority there is that the extinct dagger normally appears only in the main part of the taxobox, so the binomial box might be seen as literally just for the binomial. Clearly we need a wider discussion, but I was trying to find out whether there had been any previous discussion. I've only been working intensively with taxobox code in the last few months. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Those parameters only work for the autoboxes, though, yes? I'm not as well-versed in the automatic taxoboxes as in the 'plain' ones and I suspect you're more intensively familiar with both kinds anyway, at least from the technical side of things.
True about the extinct dagger, and a good point.
Yeah, it's one of those awkward aspects about monotypic genera and their sole species occupying the same article. Not the only one, redirects to monotypic genera (and esp. their categorization and tagging) results in some awkward solutions as well.
Wider discussion would be good. I did a bit of quick digging for you and the closest match I could find for the discussion you're looking for is this one from May 2016. Probably you're aware of that one, since you participated in it, though. Otherwise, I mostly found off-hand mentions and a bunch of 2007 and 2008 discussions across various WikiProjects under the Tree of Life umbrella that are/were halfway applicable. Well-possible I overlooked something, though. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, apologies for my recent unresponsiveness. I'm not aware of any previous discussion beyond the May 2016 one @AddWittyNameHere: linked, where I suggested that higher ranks should have there own binomial box style boxes to set off the focal rank of the article and it's authority (recognizing that monotypic taxa represent a difficulty for achieving a consistent format).

Monotypy aside, in my opinion, the species authority should be in the binomial box, and editors shouldn't be able to choose otherwise. Looking into Automatic taxoboxes/Speciesboxes using |binomial_authority= and Taxoboxes using |species_authority= is on my taxobox cleanup to-do list. Plantdrew (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think that regardless of where is the best place to put the authority, taxoboxes should be consistent. So my inclination is to fix the code for now so that authorities always go in the binomial or trinomial box where present. Then we can try to have a wider discussion on this issue, although few editors currently seem interested, and if there's a different consensus, that can be implemented.
I've almost finished working through unnecessary and unused species taxonomy templates, then I'll try to get back to this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Peter coxhead If/when such a discussion gets started, please do ping me there? Consistency would be good, if possible—though I'd be willing to settle for merely a limited number of different acceptable formats a bit like ENGVAR and MOSDATE and such. (And yeah, sad thing that probably the main difference between this conversation and a wider discussion will be the venue it's held and maybe one or two more participants). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ursus Dolinensis[edit]

Thanks for your Expert support! I am actually not from the Bio department, i am more in history and Geography and did many caves lately. This is where i came across the Ursus. All the best Wikirictor 01:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Me again, Ursus deningeri and Ursus etruscus have also the "Tribe" classifier, which i guess don't belong there either.All the best Wikirictor 01:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I have inserted the See also sections to counter the the Orphan tag of U. dolinensis. Now only the Atapuerca Mountains article links to U. dolinensis. I know, See also lists are rather unpopular. Do you have a better idea to unorphan it? All the best Wikirictor 02:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
OK - i made an entry into the Ursus (genus) article, which BTW has the red "Tribe" in it. All the best Wikirictor 02:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Wikirictor:, apologies for not responding right away. Thanks for your work on the bear articles. With rare exceptions, taxoboxes should only display minor ranks below the next highest major rank of the subject of the article. However, people often create taxoboxes for species by copy pasting the taxobox from the genus, and end up including some minor ranks that should be in the genus article but not in the species article. Major ranks are the KPCOFGS that you probably learned a mnemonic for at some point. So a genus article such as Ursus could include minor ranks between family and genus (such as subfamily and tribe). Species articles could include minor ranks between species and genus (such as subgenus), but not minor ranks higher than genus. Plantdrew (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Culture article in Tree of Life[edit]

Hi, did you mean to put Living things in culture in the Tree of Life project? If so it has a wider scope than I imagined, could be a good thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:, yes, that was intentional. But I didn't intend to apply a particularly wider scope. TOL is mostly a forum for discussion of issues that cut across it's daughter projects. Beyond that, it's a collection of tagged articles on the science of taxonomy and nomenclature. But it does include some articles that are above the scope of the daughter projects; eukaryote, life, organism. I figured living things in culture fits in with those. Plantdrew (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see. If that's what the project wants, that's of course fine. It seems to me that it goes beyond the eukaryote-life-organism scope, which doesn't extend in the direction of culture, but projects are free to choose their own boundaries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation question[edit]

Hi, here is one that may be "up your alley". I was going to try to disambiguate Green Apple, but most of links are talking about the generic usage "any green cultivar of apple". Not sure of a good way to handle this. There isn't a section in cultivar of apple specifically about green apples. Any suggestions? MB 04:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@MB:, I think what is really needed is an article on green apple flavor (or just disambiguation to that red link). Most of the links to the dab page are artificially flavored candies and beverages, and don't have much to do with apple cultivars that happen to be colored green. "Green apple" could also refer to unripe, sour apples from any cultivar, regardless of color at maturity (the band name "Green Apple Quick Step" is a reference to diarrhea caused by eating unripe apples). It's not clear to me whether artificial green apple flavoring is supposed to be inspired by unripe apples or a ripe green skinned apple that stays somewhat sour (e.g. Granny Smiths). Ethyl valerate is apparently one of the main ingredients in green apple flavoring, but there are other apple-flavored chemicals such as pentyl pentanoate and green apple flavoring is usual sour, so I assume has an acid (perhaps malic acid) included as well; there's not a one to one link relation the flavor and a single chemical. We have articles on artificial butter flavoring and blue raspberry flavor, a dab page at strawberry flavor, a redirect with artificial banana flavor, and wintergreen is sort of about a flavor, so there would be some precedent for a page on green apple flavor.

Aside from the artificially flavored stuff, I see a few links to the dab page on wines with a natural green apple flavor. Per acids in wine, those links could perhaps go to malic acid (and the green apple link from "acids in wine" itself could be changed "unripe apple"). Plantdrew (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I did a lot of searching and learned a lot. You can buy green apple flavoring from many sources, and it seems to be added to e-cigarettes and is either an intentional or unintentional flavor in home-brew beers. I couldn't find enough info to cite as sources for a article on green apple flavor. I could probably write a stub based on Original Research summarizing what I can glean from searching. I think I found some other chemicals besides those you mentioned above too. I could not conclude if it was meant to taste like unripe apples, or ripe Granny Smiths. (I'm not sure if there is much difference, and since it is not a "standard" flavor - that is probably a distinction that doesn't matter).
I've gone ahead and changed the links in the wine-related articles to "green (unripe) apple". I think this is better than linking to malic acid in context.
For the candy/soda articles, most of them have lists of flavors that link to the actual fruits (e.g. lemon, orange) - not to an article on an artificial flavoring. (The exception is the blue raspberry flavor you mentioned). I think these can link to Granny Smith because that is the most common green apple and certainly has a sour/tart taste. I think this is better that ~20 red links to green apple flavor. MB 05:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@MB:, personally I'd rather the red link to green apple flavor; linking Granny Smith feels a bit like Original Research. But it's up to you. Another option is just to unlink all the various candy flavors. Most people know what common fruits like lemons and oranges are. We don't (I think) usually have links in articles about brands of potato chips to the different flavors, probably at least in part because potato chip flavors tend to be combinations of things that are only notable in combination as a potato chip flavor; we don't have an article for sour cream and onion. Plantdrew (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I just found that in List of Skittles products, green apple is linked to apple. I think that is the best solution. Apple is generic enough to cover it. I agree linking any of these fruits is probably over-linking and not really useful. But there are a lot of links in all these candy/soda type articles to lots of flavors and if I went through the trouble of unlinking them they will probably get relinked eventually.
Did you see in Flavor it says: "The ubiquitous "green apple" aroma is based on hexyl acetate." No link to anything here. Not well sourced either. MB 01:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@MB: I agree, a simple link to apple is a fine solution. I hadn't seen hexyl acetate as being a green apple flavoring chemical. I think there are some people who'd like to know what chemicals go into artificial green apple flavors, but yeah, any article I could produce on that would be mostly a "stub based on Original Research summarizing what I can glean from searching". Personally, I'd like to know what the heck goes into kiwi-strawberry flavor, which has always struck me as an unusual combination. Anyway, thanks for your work getting disambiguation links cleaned up. Plantdrew (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I just found another soft drink Ramune with a big list of flavors, most of which were liked to various fruits and foods and things. In addition to Green Apple, there is a link to Mystery flavor. Do you know of a plant a that tastes like that? MB 04:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@MB:. A plant that tastes like mystery? Haha, no. The mystery flavor I'm familiar with is mentioned at Dum Dums (lollipop); mixed flavors at the transition between batches of an artificially flavored product. I'm not sure that a soda (Ramune) would have the same batch flavor transition issues of a hard candy (Dum Dums), but with other Ramune flavors including Disco Dance, Bubble and Flaming, I don't think all the flavors really need to be linked (and the Dums Dums flavors are kind of overlinked right now as well). Plantdrew (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I once did a participatory experience at an art event with a theme devoted to synasthesia where I was offering people shots of artificially flavored vodka and inviting them to identify the flavor. I had grape, orange, cherry and pineapple flavored vodkas that were originally clear, but I'd added purple, orange, red and yellow food colorings to them. They were not colored in the corresponding order. Grape was red, rather than the customary purple. I would tell people what flavors I had and let them know that the color didn't correspond the flavor. It was amazing how difficult it was for people to identify the flavor when the color cues were off. Plantdrew (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I was unaware of mystery flavor Dum Dums. I'm not sure if the mystery flavor Ramune is static or if it changes like the Dum Dums. I did unlink it as you surely saw. I've since found that AirHeads has a White Mystery flavor that is also from batch changes. And Peeps have yearly mystery flavors (not mentioned in article, but here [1]). Should we start an article on this (e.g. Mystery flavored foods)? MB 05:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@MB: It's an intriguing subject, but I'm not sure there are sources that tie together mystery flavor as a phenomenon across multiple brands. Plantdrew (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Default number of parent taxa displayed in an automated species taxobox[edit]

Please see Template talk:Speciesbox#Default number of parent taxa displayed for a question about the default number of parent taxa to be displayed in an automated taxobox for a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinus rigida example follow-up[edit]

As we seem to be the only editors currently working on taxoboxes in any depth, I'd like to run this past you first. No hurry to reply!

I see two self-consistent approaches to autotaxoboxes for species.

1) If a species uses simple binomial nomenclature and has its genus as its parent, don't create a taxonomy template for the species and use {{Speciesbox}}. In all other cases, create a taxonomy template and use {{Automatic taxobox}}. (The requirement for "simple binomial nomenclature" deals with virus taxonomy and cases like Deinodryinus? aptianus.)

2) If a species uses simple binomial nomenclature and there is one and only one rank between it and its genus, don't create a taxonomy template for the species and use {{Speciesbox}}, putting that rank in the call. In all other cases, create a taxonomy template and use {{Automatic taxobox}}.

In case (2), to deal with any single intermediate rank, not just subgenus, {{Speciesbox}} could be given new parameters, perhaps |parent= and |parent_rank=. I wouldn't have e.g. |subgenus=, |section=, |subsection=, etc. because editors would then be tempted to use more than one of them.

Personally, I much prefer the simplicity and clarity of (1). This would mean fixing all occurrences of {{Speciesbox}} with |subgenus= and then removing the parameter from the template. It's a little tricky to search for such occurrences, but I can easily add a temporary tracking category to {{Speciesbox}}; I think there are well under 100 cases.

What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, given that you've lately being working on collecting species level taxonomy templates for possible deletion, I would've thought you would want to go with 2. If taxonomy templates below genus are fine with you, I'm fine with 1. I will say that it took me a long time to realize that {{Speciesbox}} existed separately from {{automatic_taxobox}}, and my enthusiasm for the automatic system has gone way up since I realized that the most common use case involved using speciesbox without necessarily needing to create any taxonomy templates. Of course, that's presuming a template for a genus exists; it might not, but if taxobox naive editors were comfortable using speciesbox in general with the assumption that somebody else (you, me, ???) would patrol an error category for missing taxonomy templates, I think that would still be an improvement.
There were 47 articles using Speciesbox and |subgenus= at the start of February. There's often no need to hassle with tricky regex searches for occurrences. Use the Template Data Error Report for the various taxobox templates (e.g. Speciesbox); the template data report is what I've been working off in all my recent "taxobox cleanup" edits. I'm willing to create taxonomy templates for infrageneric ranks if you want to go with 1 and deprecate |subgenus=. Plantdrew (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Responding to your "it took me a long time to realize" bit, I think that part of the problem was that all the documentation talked about the "automatic taxobox system", thus stressing the use of {{Automatic taxobox}}, when actually, since there are more species than other ranks, {{Speciesbox}} is the most used. I try now to use "automatED taxobox" or just "autotaxobox".
In view of your comments, I'll think again about allowing one parent taxon in {{Speciesbox}}; it would reduce the need for species taxonomy templates even further. There's also the issue of how to handle virus species – there could be some way of indicating the genus in these cases. Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Having thought about it, and tested out some possible approaches, I decided to be bold and go ahead as explained at Template talk:Speciesbox#New parent parameter. (There seems little point at present in trying to get wider discussion on taxobox issues; when I've tried there have been very few reactions.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: That looks good, thanks for working on it. On another note, take a look at Speirantha in edit mode. It's a monotypic genus where the type species is being treated as a synonym. As far as I'm aware there's nothing wrong with that situation nomenclaturally. But it's going to be a very rare that a speciesbox would need to hold a type species that's different from the binomial (a synonymized type is rare to begin with and only is an issue for speciesboxes when the genus is monotypic). I don't think it's worth adding support for |type_species= to speciesboxes, but I'm not sure what the best solution is. Go with a regular automatic taxobox (which then needs a taxonomy template for the species)? Use a regular taxobox? Just put a note of "(type species)" in the synonymy section of the speciesbox?

An additional complication is that it looks like S. gardenii (the type) should actually have priority over S. convallarioides, but WCSP and Flora of China both have S. gardenii as a synonym. I have no idea what's going on with that. Plantdrew (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Um... This whole business of "type species" is dubious under the ICN, as has been discussed before. Art. 10.1 ("The type of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus is the type of a name of a species") is very clear that there's no such thing as a "type species". The type of a genus name is the type of a species name. However, it's a widely used term, so we're stuck with it.
I'm not sure why anyone wants to put the type species in the taxobox, to be honest. Why does it matter so much that it's worth adding to the taxobox that the type of the genus Speirantha is the type of the name Speirantha convallarioides (which I think it is)?
I'm certainly not in favour of adding support for this parameter to {{Speciesbox}}; it's complicated enough already.
Re the priority issue, the situation as I understand it from the information in the WCSP is set out below. (Initially I was mislead by IPNI which isn't quite right.) I've now added a "Taxonomy" section to the article.
  • The species in question was first described by Hook in 1855 as Albuca gardenii. So whatever happens thereafter, the epithet with priority is gardenii.
  • In 1875 Baker, on the basis of a different type, described Speirantha convallarioides and the genus Speirantha. So whatever happens afterwards, the type of Speirantha convallarioides is the type of Speirantha.
  • Baillon in 1894, in a footnote, synonymized Speirantha gardenii =Albuca gardenii and S. convallarioides. As soon as they were synonymized, the epithet of S. gardenii has priority. But as S. gardenii has a different type to S. convallarioides and this is not the type on which the genus Speirantha was described, it doesn't become the "type species".
So I think the correct name is S. gardenii and the "type species" is S. convallarioides. I noted this against the synonym.
Peter coxhead (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Caytoniales[edit]

Normally I'd expect Caytoniales to be at Caytoniaceae, but contrary to the incorrect reference given at the latter article, there's little or no mention of the family in the literature. However, it does seem to be a monotypic order, so only one article is needed and the taxobox adjusted to show bold for both levels, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:. Well, there may be more families. This book mentions that Corystospermaceae and Peltaspermaceae may be recognized families in Caytoniales and there's no Corystosperm* or Peltasperm* genera listed in the current articles. And there's a genus in Caytoniaceae not in the Caytoniales taxobox. Clearly Wikipedia is incomplete in listing genera. Fossilworks is also (not surprisingly) also incomplete and doesn't even list Caytonia in Caytoniaceae. With the Caytoniales being 8 times more common than Caytoniaceae on Google Scholar and with the sources in the article using the order in their titles, I'd be kind of inclined to IAR and keep it at the order title even if the order turns out to be monotypic; it just doesn't seem right to cite a source that talks about Caytoniales and change that to a statement about Caytoniaceae.
Current practice with regards to handling monotypy is OK for achieving consistency, but I don't think it always yields the best title. Consider Symbion; this genus is probably most notable for being at the bottom of a long chain of monotypy that terminates with Cycliophora, which was for a time the "most recently discovered animal phylum" (and which might still hold most recent status if salami-slicing to avoid paraphyly based on molecular evidence is discounted; the only other hyped possible new phylum since then I'm aware of involved Dendrogramma). Cycliophora gets a lot more Google hits than Symbion and is only slightly behind in Wikipedia page views. If the article were at Cycliophora, I'd bet total page views would increase. With Cycliophora in mind, Caytoniales might be a better title anyway. Plantdrew (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit) OK, I didn't think Peltaspermaceae and Corystospermaceae would be blue-links. Still not confident that I understand the classification here enough to be confident merging Caytoniales to Caytoniaceae.Plantdrew (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I definitely wouldn't merge Caytoniales to Caytoniaceae; I agree that this is a justified exception, because the family has little or no mention in relevant literature. I would suggest simply redirecting Caytoniaceae to Caytoniales. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Genus dab pages[edit]

Is there a style guide of any sort for genus disambiguation pages? Looking at Ervilia, there are a couple of elements that give me pause. One is that the only entries are red links, mentioned in blue-linked articles. They conform with WP:DABRED; but it looks odd to have only red links at the beginning of each line.

I also wonder about the name and year after each entry, such as "Turton 1822". I know enough about biology to tell genus and species in a scientific name, but I am unfamiliar with much else in style or terminology. Considering that dab pages are meant to be for quick navigation, as opposed to information, I have to ask: are those name-year phrases necessary to tell which article is which? I would think that the parenthetical "plant" and "bivalve" would be enough to differentiate.

I'm getting to know dab pages pretty well, but these seem like stylistic outliers. — Gorthian (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gorthian: There's no particular style guide for genus disambiguation pages.
I'll admit having only red links at Ervilia looks weird. I added the red link for the plant because previously the dab page didn't even mention that Vicia/Ervilia was a plant, a fact that will almost certainly be apparent in contexts where Ervillia needs disambiguation. The red link could be avoided with rephrasing the dab page entry. However, I think that if a plant link to Ervilia is disambiguated, it would be better to have the result be [[Ervilia (plant)|Ervilia]] than [[Vicia|Ervilia]]; the latter is less transparent, and may turn out to be a wrong link if later taxonomic opinions decide that Ervilia is not in fact a synonym of Vicia. Another solution to the plant red link is just to create a redirect. I'll do that.
The authority "Turton 1822" is unneeded here; I wouldn't have added it myself, but I wasn't inclined to remove it once it was already present. The majority of our genus disambiguation pages don't include the authority, but the majority are disambiguating one animal and one "plant" ("plant" in this context includes plants, algae, fungi and some other organisms traditionally thought to be such). It's entirely permissible for an animal and a "plant" to share a genus name. However, having two or more animals or "plants" sharing a genus name isn't allowed. Citing the authority is the normal practice in taxonomy to disambiguate ambiguous genus names in the same kingdom. When a genus name is shared within a kingdom the oldest use takes precedence, so including the dates is helpful. See Suarezia for a case where 3 animal genera (and one plant) needed to be disambiguated. Plantdrew (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Turning Ervilia (plant) into a redirect makes the page look much better, though I'm afraid it still might get targeted as a misinterpretation of WP:TWODABS. And now I know not to worry about the authority too much. I appreciate the time you took to make these explanations; thank you! — Gorthian (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Another tidy?[edit]

Shouldn't the section at Lime (fruit)#Plants known as "lime" be a separate SIA? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, hmm, I need to think about this and do some research. I had in my head that Citrus aurantifolia was the "common" lime in US markets (also globally?) and key lime was a cultivar(s) with smaller and rounder than usual fruit. But apparently the "common" lime is Citrus latifolia (USDA nutrition data in lime (fruit) is for C. latifolia, so at least I need to sort out if there's any basis for my having thought C. aurantifolia was the "common" lime. Google thAnd of course the taxonomy of cultivated Citrus is a nightmare that I don't have a firm handle on.
It's interesting linguistically. The etymologies of lime for Tilia and Citrus are totally unrelated. Then there's Spanish lime, which shares the citrus etymology by analogy (it's not a citrus, but fruits are sour and green); I don't think it would ever be referred to as "lime" with no qualifier (neither would Surinam cherry, Java plum or Rose apple). Wild lime is a Rutaceae, but doesn't have lime like fruits; and the title "wild lime" probably itself should be a SIA.
I'm inclined to get rid of anything at lime (fruit) that isn't a citrus (sensu lato). Tilia is best handled along at the lime dab page. I'm not yet sure if it's worth keeping the non citrus/non Tilia entries and making a SIA. And although they are citruses in the broad sense, some of the Australia limes are really weird looking and I'm not quite sure if they'd ever be called "limes" with no qualifier (I'm only familiar with Australian finger limes from their use being used in stock photos for exotic looking fruits in dubious weight loss advertisements). I'll think about it some more before I do anything. Plantdrew (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was well aware when making the suggestion above, and leaving the work to you :-), that this is a difficult area, both as regards the application of English name and the taxonomy of Citrus and related genera. But anything you can do can't fail to be an improvement. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Siganus rivulatus[edit]

Firstly, thank you very much for all your hard work reviewing new articles on organisms, you seem to be ploughing a lonely furrow there. You reviewed the article Siganus rivulatus which I started and classed it as Start Class, I wondered why? Some of the other fish articles I have drafted are shorter but you classed them as C Class articles. Thanks again. Quetzal1964 20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Quetzal1964: Thanks you for all the excellent articles you've contributed. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I reviewed S. rivulatus. I do think it should be C class and will change the rating. I'm going to blame force of habit; 95% of the new articles I see are stubs, 4% might be start and articles deserving C or better are rare enough that sometimes I forget that higher ratings are an option. Honestly, B-class might be appropriate for some of the articles that you've produced, but rating something as B-class is supposed to involve a more detailed review than I am usually willing to spend time on. Plantdrew (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Spider taxonomy[edit]

Re your edit to Template:Taxonomy/Salticidae: I've been reluctant to include many ranks between family and infraorder for spiders, because the classification has been changing so rapidly. Although the latest papers do recognize a clade Dionycha, and do put Salticidae in it, it's not the same as the classically recognized Dionycha, and the article at Dionycha was significantly out of date ("Trionycha" has long been discredited for example, and the cladogram was based on a 1991 source). I've hastily updated it by removing clearly wrong material, but it needs expanding with up to date information. Yet another item on my "to-do" list! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: would you prefer to remove Dionycha from the Salticidae template? If you don't think the classification is stable enough, that's fine with me. I put in because I'm finding genera and species including it as zoosectio and I felt like that information should be preserved somewhere (just not anywhere below the family level). Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
My view has been as per Spider taxonomy#Classification above families, since there's no reliable secondary source for classifying spders above family level. You can get clades from primary sources, but they don't always fit together and being based on sequenced genomes have limited coverage. Even the current best source for Dionycha, now used in the article, doesn't actually give a list of families. I've pieced one together from the article's table of contents, but even so some families are said not to be monophyletic and hence are doubtfully placed.
So on balance I think I would leave out Dionycha at present.
The articles you found need fixing: there seem to be no refs for the classification; I've never seen Dionycha given a rank in any recent publication; other groups shown are even more problematic. Leave it with me – I'll look to see if there are any more recent sources first. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
P.S. if you're interested, the most recent more or less comprehensive classification of spiders is from 2005 here. The articles you found don't even seem consistent with that, and a a lot has been done in the last 12 years. The same problem arises as with plant higher classification: researchers publish phylogenies with clade names but no ranks, and if there were ranks, it's hard to see how they would fit together. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: OK, I'll leave it to you. If Dionycha is a flag indicating there are likely other problems in the classification, the following are other spider articles where I've removed it and other minor ranks without checking on other aspects of the classification: Thomisus onustus, Sibianor aurocinctus, Bavia, Thrandina, Langona, Saitis, Zeuxippus, Philaeus chrysops, Philaeus, Zacorisca, Amerila, Paracles, Lyssomaninae, Zorinae, Bianor, Portia schultzi and ‎ Habronattus. Plantdrew (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Unitalicized article titles and a couple other things.[edit]

I'll attend to that.Many thanks for the clear explanation.All the best Notafly (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation - Lotus[edit]

Hi again,

Two articles about fragrances (La Nuit de Bohème and Secret Wish Magic Romance reference Lotus as a component. I doubt this could ever be tracked to a specific species, it may even by some generic/synthetic manmade equivalent (much like green apple). Would you think it reasonable to just use Lotus (plant) here. I think other articles link to Lotus (genus) or Lotus (plant) when they are not intending to identify a particular species.

Also, on the Lotus DAB page (under Botany), it lists Nelumbo nucifera which probably isn't necessary since it is already in Lotus (plant) (which redirects to List of plants known as lotus). Why should the Lotus DAB page have this one species an not the others? However, Lotus (genus) is in the list of plants too! But that should probably stay. Nelumbo nucifera may be special too because it is the redirect of Lotus flower.

What do you think of this for the Lotus botany section (always using the form that starts with lotus even if it is a redirect). Does it make it clearer?

@MB: That would be an improvement for now. I've been intending to look through incoming links to lotus (plant) for awhile, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Some links could be redirected to a better target, and ultimately I'd like to retarget lotus (plant) to the lotus dab page to ensure that new any links find the appropriate article. Figuring out what plant is supposedly represented in various fragrances will be a challenge though. Plantdrew (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've made that change to Lotus. Good luck going through the incoming links to Lotus (plant) when you get to it. Thanks. MB 06:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Diptera pages[edit]

Hello again I began the Diptera pages to compliment Janet's splendid photos beginning with the Irish species. I have to go back to all to correct lapses and add more on biology etc and put synonyms in the taxoboxes. I will define the categories more closely at the same time.If you look at Hydrophorus oceanus you will see that Hexapoda has gone and the subfamily is added ( a personal judgment and I don't mind if it's removed).You are right about Heteromyza a careless error.All the best and many thanks. Notafly (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

What to do when the databases disagree?[edit]

Many thanks again for all your help editing the new pages that I have been setting-up for significant plant species in Cat Tien National Park. I have been working on one important endemic species here called Colona evecta (Malvaceae: Grewioideae) ... or should that be C. erecta (Pierre) Burret (as in the Plant List and 8 accessions in the Kew herbarium catalogue)?

Swedish WP uses C. evecta, quoting COL, as do all the Vietnamese text books (putting the author as (Pierre) Gagn.). There will obviously be a need for a redirect page as a partial solution, but which one should be the main page do you think? Roy Bateman (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Roy Bateman: Thanks for creating the new pages. As a general rule of thumb, Wikipedia follows the Plant List when other databases disagree. But The Plant List does have some errors and C. erecta looks like it may be an error. Actually, it looks like most of the databases have some sort of error with this species. It apparently was originally described as being in the genus Columbia IPNI has Colona evecta Burret and Columbia evecta Pierre. Tropicos has Colona erecta Burret and Columbia evecta Pierre. The Plant List also has a record for Columbia evecta Pierre. I think the underlying error for all of these stems from Index Kewensis omittting "(Pierre)" from the author citation for Colona evecta. I have no idea how Vietnamese textbooks are getting Gagn. as the combining authority.
As best I can tell, this should be Colona evecta (Pierre) Burret as at COL. @Lavateraguy: is a Malvaceae expert and might have a better idea what's going on with this species. Plantdrew (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't help you with this one - when I set up my database online access to data on south east Asian floras, and on grewioids, was rather sparse, and this species is missing from my database. (I'm not sure how I missed the name, but even the name is missing.) It looks like I now have a little work to do, with a Vietnam checklist now available.
A possibility is that Colona evecta (Pierre) Gagnep. is a nomen superfluum - Burret (1926) and Gagnepain independently transferring the species from one genera to the other. However Gagnepain's 1943 paper is now available at RJBM, and it doesn't mention this species (it just describes a number of new species), and IPNI only has the one paper on the genus by him.
A search for "Colona evecta" Gagnep. finds a 1972 French paper, documenting the species' presence in Cambodia, so there may be some question as to whether it is endemic to Vietnam. The ascription to Gagnepain is also in the report of the Czechoslovak Vietnamese Exhibition on Nam Cat Tien (1989); that's a plausible source for later Vietnamese usage (or it may come from the 1972 flora referenced therein). Lavateraguy (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not just this sort of issue that is a problem, but taxonomic restructurings are a big headache, such as moving sections out as a separate genus. The various databases are in various states of being or not being caught up. HalfGig talk 01:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@HalfGig: well, databases that aim to present a single definitive taxonomy shouldn't be instantly updated with every new taxonomic proposal. It's fine to be out of date for awhile to wait for consensus to emerge in the taxonomic community. Although, the problem with The Plant List isn't that it's taking a measured approach to new proposals; it's that it isn't being updated at all. Plantdrew (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Just a comment on The Plant List. Don't forget that it's been dodgy from the start when either Tropicos or WCSP in review is involved. TPL's algorithms for extracting information from Tropicos were poor, and resulted in names being listed as "accepted" when they weren't. I think because of cuts in government funding, Kew hasn't released the families in "WSCP in review" yet, so we can't check for any updates since 2012. Databases in other areas have problems too. (Yesterday I was writing about a spider based on the World Spider Catalog; I didn't understand their taxonomy, so sent them an e-mail; this morning the entry has changed and I had to move the article and rewrite parts!) At least for Malvaceae we have an expert to hand, thanks to Lavateraguy. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I seem to have started quite a discussion here! Thanks again for all your help and comments: for better or worse (I am an ignorant entomologist and not great at editing WP), I have set up the page and redirect under C. evecta. The Vietnamese know this term and refer to Pierre's original, with his illustration copied in CCVN ... I will endeavour to take some pictures of actual plants here ASAP. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for Taxobox Osborne 17:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Osborne: Thanks for the barnstar, and thank you for your work creating articles on algae species. Plantdrew (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A bit of help, please![edit]

I created Category:Euastacus for the species in the genus, what I want to ask, that if an article is written with a common name title instead of the binomial name, should the category sortkey have the species or the common name. Murray crayfish is appearing under A because I did the former but I am not familiar with this area much so I thought you should know (I've seen you on almost all plant species pages I've edited, so if my assumption is wrong, please forgive me). --QEDK () 16:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@QEDK: Practice varies across different groups of organisms and is often not standardized within a particular group of organisms. Insects and reptiles often don't use sort keys at all in genus categories. Birds usually have sort keys by common name with the more general part of the common name given first (e.g., "crayfish, Murray" would be following the style for birds).
That said, in groups where most articles are titled by scientific name and a handful have common names, the usual practice seems to be not having a sort key for common name titled articles. A scientific name redirect may be placed in the category as well, with the appropriate sort key (I've added Euastacus armatus to the Euastacus category)
Thanks for creating Category:Euastacus. When adding a new, more specific taxonomy category, the broader parent category should be removed. With Category:Euastacus existing, Category:Parastacidae should be removed from Euastacus species. I'll take care of it, just letting you know for future reference. Plantdrew (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha! Thanks a lot. :) --QEDK () 19:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Dipogon lignosus[edit]

Can I ask a favour? I have written an article on Dipogon lignosus and redirected Dipogon (plant) to the new article. I'd be grateful if you could have a look at them and just make sure I have "done it right", should I have amended the talk pages more? (talk) Quetzal1964 21:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Quetzal1964:, your expansion of the article looks great. However, when you want to swap a redirect with an article, you shouldn't cut the content from the article and paste it into the redirect. You should take it to WP:RM#TR and have the page moved. The talk pages are fine, although some people prefer to leave project banners on redirects (if you blank |class= and |importance=, most project banners will automatically detect that a redirect is a redirect); but it's certainly better to remove the banner than leaving class and importance values on a redirect. Category:Monotypic Fabaceae genera should be on the page for the genus (regardless of whether it's a redirect or an article), not the page for the species; see WP:INCOMPATIBLE for more information on this. Plantdrew (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Quetzal1964 20:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wonder how you did that!![edit]

Well, please understand I'm not complaining or taking issue. But BOY, I wonder how you managed in just a few minutes to go through and systematically edit a whole lot of changes that I plodded through a couple of hours to accomplish! I refer to your editing my "Syagrus (palm)" to "Syagrus (plant)." BTW, I did it because there's a beetle genus called Syagrus. Wikipedia has no article on the genus, but it does have articles on about ten or so species in that genus. And in the taxo boxes, the genus name always linked to an ancient Greek poet, which has a hatnote to the palm genus (or was it the other way around--I don't remember now). Uporządnicki (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC) @AzseicsoK: I'm just going through "What links here" at Syagrus (plant) to change the links. Well done moving the plant to a disambiguated title to accommodate the poet and the beetle genus. It's just that (plant), not (palm) is the standard way to disambiguate plant genera (there are a few exceptions, but it's (plant) at least 95% of the time). Plantdrew (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's how I did it. I'm just mildly blown away at how fast you did it. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bunchosia[edit]

Ok, there are three different species going by the name of peanut butter fruit. Do you not see a problem with that? The scientific sources do not deal with common names, only the technical names. It is Bunchosia glandulifera that is overwhelmingly called peanut butter fruit and was also the first to be identified (Nova Genera et Species Plantarum (quarto ed.) 5: 154. 1821[1822]). It would have been the first to be brought to America and Europe and earn the name peanut butter fruit. Only because it was misidentified as B. argentea do you now think that B. argentea has the name peanut butter fruit. As mentioned, B. argentea is totally wild, uncultivated, available absolutely nowhere except in the jungles of South America. These fruit are not endemic to English speaking countries, except Guyana and possibly Belize, and so names have been adapted from Spanish and Portuguese. The mountain qualifier is used for B. argentea and the word friar for B. armeniaca (which was corrupted into monk). As for B. maritima it is called peanut butter fruit in Portuguese. http://www.colecionandofrutas.org/bunchosiamaritima.htm Tell me, who decides the common names for species that have no official names yet? PametUGlavu (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to say, huh? Please, where are your sources that all three of those Bunchosia species have been named 'peanut butter fruit'? Come on, cough up. By the way, do you do this for every fruit? Hey I saw Monstera deliciosa has 11 different common names in the article, and other species have more, why don't you come to the rescue? Or do you just focus mainly on streamlined efforts of disambiguation that have some precedence and decide to regress to a primitive status quo of corrupted and unsourced nomenclature? PametUGlavu (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@PametUGlavu:. Nobody decides the common names for species that have no official common names yet. We don't just make up new common names for Wikipedia. The names "friar's peanut butter fruit" and "mountain peanut butter fruit" appeared nowhere on the internet until you added them to the articles ("friar's plum" and "mountain plum" do exist elsewhere on the internet but are much rarer than their Spanish equivalents). If B. maritima is well known in Brazil as "Fruta da Manteiga de Amendoim" that might be worth mentioning in the article and it may be appropriate to provide a translation into English. But it's not appropriate to make up English names for Wikipedia just by translating names from other languages. The names need to be used in English in other sources before we add them to Wikipedia.
I don't doubt that B. glandulifera may be widely misidentified as B. argentea, but I'm having trouble finding any reliable sources that say so; the best I've found is this, otherwise it's a bunch of chatter on tropical fruit forums. That source says, regarding B. argentea, "In English, we call it Peanut-Butter Fruit", even while noting that it is not cultivated. You added leaf characters that distinguish B. argentea and B. glandulifera and that was helpful. It would also be helpful to mention (in both articles) that the species are frequently misidentified (especially if there's a good source for that claim). Making up new common names is not helpful. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up[edit]

Ah, what would we all do without you going round cleaning up after us? (In this particular case, completing the WikiProject tagging I forgot.) Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for doing some clean up after me related to the Bunchosia discussion above. Does this seem like a reliable source?

Assessment[edit]

Hi, I would like to hear about your views on assessment of taxa where very little information is available. The case in point is Parhoplophryne, which I had assessed as "C", invoking the logic of the Croughton-London rule of stubs, whereas you reassessed it as being "Start" class. I know that the Croughton-London rule of stubs is not an official guideline, and the discussion here is not about a stub, but I think more in general that potential availability of information should be reflected in the assessment. In the case of Parhoplophryne, which is only known from its holotype collected 90 years ago and is quite possibly extinct, the available information is fundamentally limited. In such cases, I think it is fair that the bar for "C" or whatever class is lower than for taxa where much information is available. Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Micromesistius:. My bad. I saw that it was a very short article, but missed that it is only known from a single specimen. I know about the Croughton-London rule, and I think species known from a single digit number of specimens are textbook examples of the Croughton-London rule. I can't remember what it was now, but I rated an article on a grass species known from a single specimen as B-class, that was only slightly longer than Parhoplophryne. The holotype for the grass had been sequenced recently, which clarified its generic placement (and provided a reference that made it possible to write a decent, if short, article). Am I right in thinking that preservation techniques for herps often make it difficult to extract DNA? Plantdrew (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this issue should be mentioned in the Tree of Life assessment instructions? Yes, extracting quality DNA from formalin-preserved specimens is difficult. Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Micromesistius: Perhaps, but there's some variation across ToL daughter projects in terms of how much information may be available on species with few known specimens. Paleontologists often have single specimen species, but they study the hell out of that specimen (Dinheirosaurus is a known from a single specimesn, but has a lengthy GA-class article). Being able to recover DNA can make the difference in whether a single specimen species has been informatively studied in the 21st century or remains a century old description propagated through a fifty year old morphology-based revision and various checklists and databases since then.
Honestly, though, if there is a secondary source (not the primary source for something described last week) providing the number of known specimens for a non-paleontological species, that fact alone could justify Start-class as poorly known species under the Croughton-London rule. "Foous barus is a species of animal in the Fooidae family known from two specimens". Throw in a reference, taxobox and a category, and that's basically a Start class for a poorly known species, given that Wikipedia has plenty of stubs on well-known species with no more content than that. Plantdrew (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Liza (genus)[edit]

I have drafted an article in User:Quetzal1964/sandbox on the mullet genus Liza. According to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes editors are supposed to follow Fishbase for taxonomy. I started from trying to start an article on Liza carinata and this led me into the issues over the taxonomy of the mullets. I noted that you assessed the article for Planiliza but according to the guidelines there either should be no article or that article should be clear that this genus is not accepted by the source relied on by Wikipedia. I would be glad of your thoughts on the matter. (talk) Quetzal1964 20:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Quetzal1964: Hmm. Well, there seems to be quite a mess. Did you notice Liza (genus)? It used to be an article, now it's a redirect. Fishbase is a good source, but the decision to follow it for taxonomy hasn't been discussed in years. I don't know if Fishbase takes a measured approach to new taxonomic proposals, waiting to see whether they are widely accepted (this is good in my opinion), or whether they just don't update at all or are very slow to update (this would be bad). There are a handful of fish editors who are very quick to adopt new proposals, so Wikipedia isn't always following Fishbase anyway.
Catalog of Fishes is much quicker to include new references (while still taking a somewhat measured approach to taxonomy). CoF accepts both Liza and Planiliza, but list the type species of Planiliza as being in Liza. Given that Catalog of Fishes is badly confused and there's no sign of taxonomists agreeing at present, I think the best approach for Wikipedia for now is to include articles on both genera with some notes about the taxonomic disagreement. For Mugilidae, maybe revert the genus list in the taxobox so it follows Fishbase and explain how Durand's research differs with Fishbase's classification in the body of the article? Plantdrew (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It is a mess. I think I will start with replacing the redirects on Liza (genus) with my new article, reverting the redirects on any members of Planiliza then editing the article on Mugilidae to revert to the old genera as per Fishbase as you suggest and making the uncertainty over taxonomy clear. I'll then write a stub, at least, for each genus and make it clear in them what their position is in any "proposed" taxonomy. I also note that the World Register of Marine Species largely seems to follow the older taxonomy and it is, in my experience, usually not as conservative as Fishbase. That should keep me occupied for a while!. (talk) Quetzal1964 07:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Quetzal1964: As far as I know, WoRMS follows Fishbase for fishes. I'd be interested to know if you find any places where Fishbase and WoRMS disagree. Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I have replaced the redirect with the article in my sandbox and reworked Mullet (fish), I hope that does something to clarify the "mess". Quetzal1964 11:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC) (talk)

Polysiphonia elongella[edit]

Thanks for adding the "Taxbox" - I don't know how to do it. I would be grateful however: P. elongella is not included in the list under "Polysiphonia" - I was doubtful about adding it. Thanks.Osborne 09:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Osborne:, Algaebase lists P. elongella as an accepted species (see here), so I've added it to the list of species on the genus page.
I usually create taxoboxes by looking for another species in the same genus, and copy-pasting the taxbox there while changing any appropriate details (binomial, authority, etc.). Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

SIA needed for "Candelabra cactus"[edit]

"Candelabra cactus" is a name used for a variety of cacti (and some non-cactus succulents) – including Jasminocereus thouarsii, which is where I noticed the issue. It should definitely not just redirect to a Euphorbia species. Maybe you could look into an SIA, if you have time among all your other tidying up! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Jews Mallow[edit]

Hello, I was asked a question last week about a plant which I identified as Jew's mallow. So I looked up wiki and found a redirect to Corchorus olitorius. Which unfortunately is not kerria japonica, which I have always known as jew's mallow. Googling I see there is a mixture of the two plants coming up as jew's mallow. It would seem there is a problem here because we aren't mentioning the Kerria under this name. Sandpiper (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The impression I have is the Jew's mallow originally applied to Corchorus olitorius (and perhaps some other jute species) and arose from both it and some species of mallow being used as leaf vegetables in a small way in the Middle East. When Kerria japonica was first described it was mistaken for a Corchorus (based either on a non-flowering specimen, or on the double form, so the author was unaware of the rosaceous flower of the single form), and as a consequence of that the name Jew's mallow also got attached to Kerria. As Kerria is grown in Britain, and Corchorus isn't the name is more often used for Kerria. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Faheatas article[edit]

The Faheatas article is an obvious hoax - a copy of the text of Archaeoceti with a new name. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Blythwood (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Blythwood:, thanks for catching that. It was pretty sloppy of me to miss it. Plantdrew (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries. One thing I've learned from NPP is to watch out for things that don't add up. In this case the big surprise was a new account posting a gigantic article (complete with complex formatting like phylogeny tables!) in its first edit - I've learned that that's almost always a banned editor coming back with a new account or some kind of hoax taking content from another page to make it look plausible. Blythwood (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

R from alternative scientific name switches[edit]

It's absolutely trivial to set up extra switches/subcategories for {{R from scientific name}}, and I'll happily do it on request. (Which is not to discourage you from applying for template editor status and doing it yourself!) All that's necessary is to decide on the two pieces of text to substitute for "an organism" and "organisms" and to create the category "Redirects from alternative scientific names of ..."

Presumably there's no point for groups that are almost all at the English name, like birds and mammals. Looking at invertebrates in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree of Life#Scope and descendant projects, possibilities seem to be:

  • Molluscs – to use for those not covered by the more specific subgroups
    • Bivalves
    • Gastropods
    • Cephalopods
  • Arthropods – again for those with no more specific subgroup

I note there's no WikiProject for crustaceans, but this wouldn't stop there being a subcategory.

However, the real question is "what use are these (sub)categories?". There are enough plant editors at the moment to be able to do some maintenance of Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of plants. I find Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of spiders useful from time to time (and it's not a very big category). But who would maintain and use other categories if they were created? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Peter, yes, I know it's pretty easy to add switches; I was added "fish" before the template was protected (and back when my non-plant editing was more focused on fishes rather than, well, the entire tree of life). I did apply for template editor a few days ago, but was denied because I haven't been doing things by the book. Apparently I need to mock-up changes in the sandbox and formally request edits a few times before I can get the template editor right; asking on your talk page doesn't cut it, but you can expect to see some formal edit requests from me in the next few days.
Generally, I think switches should correspond to WikiProjects. To the extent that there's an active editor base for a particular group of organisms, it usually corresponds to a WikiProject. Crustaceans is a bit of an exception as WikiProject Arthropods effectively is WikiProject Crustaceans; there aren't very many articles on myriapods or non-spider chelicerates. From what I've seen, several of the editors who are adding the Rcat to Lepidoptera do occasionally work on plant redirects, and are adding the switch. I'm in the habit of adding (nonfunctional) switches corresponding to projects on any redirects I edit, and I've noticed a few cases where other editors have done likewise. I think if support for more switches were added, most of the gnomes who bother with rcatting scientific name related redirects would start making use of them going forward.
There is of course the enormous growth in use of these rcats over the last couple years, and there may not be much enthusiasm for revisiting these redirects soley to add a switch for a subcategory. I wonder if a bot could be employed? The Article Alerts report somewhat recently started listing Redirects for Discussion based on WikiProject banners on the talk page of the redirect's target. So somewhere out there, there is code that knows how to associate a redirect with a WikiProject. Maybe a bot could make use of that. Plantdrew (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, when we get the categories set up, it will certainly be worth making a bot request. Won't work for crustaceans, though. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

When making some fixes after the addition of the new switch for crustaceans, I noticed that the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods#Assessment statistics doesn't show redirects and categories. I know that I got extra rows added to other WikiProject tables, but I don't remember offhand how it's done. Presumably they should be added? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You can get categories with "QUALITY_SCALE = extended", but redirects need "QUALITY_SCALE = subpage" with an appropriate subpage (e.g. Template:WikiProject Turtles/class); if going with subpages, "FQS = yes" enables the extended categories and "redirect=yes" enables redirects. There are a bunch of ToL projects that don't even have the extended categories; ToL itself, Lepidoptera, Mammals, Marine life, Fungi, Extinction, Cephalopods and Arthropods. I'll look into enabling extended categories where the templates aren't protected. Plantdrew (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, yes, it begins to come back!
Where are the redirects to alternative scientific names of crustaceans? I only managed to find one to start populating the category. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Category:Redirects from synonyms is where I'm finding crustaceans for now. Plantdrew (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, right. There are some spiders there too, I see. I'd never looked into this category. One of the entries raises the issue we've discussed before: Araneus scenicus redirects to Zebra spider. Araneus scenicus is a synonym of Salticus scenicus, whose article is at the English name (doubtfully in my view, but ignore that for now). So I re-tag it with {{R from scientific name|spider}}, but unhappily, thinking yet again about "R from alternative scientific name to common name". Peter coxhead (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I ran across a few of these as well. I went with {{R from alternative scientific name|crustacean, also unhappily. Given that we chose different solutions it might be worth bringing up "R from alternative scientific name to common name" at ToL (as far as I can remember, it been just you and I discussing this, maybe with some input from Paine Ellsworth on Rcat template talk pages). I see SchrieberBike is apparently going with alternative scientific name (see Bassaris itea). William Avery might be skipping these; I don't see any alt scientific name to common name redirects in his recent edits, which cover ground where he should be encountering some. AddWittyNameHere is working in areas where common name titles are pretty rare, I don't see any recent edits where she would have had to deal with this. Plantdrew (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I looked at Bassaris itea and that must have been a copy-paste error on my part. I meant to use {{R from scientific name}} and I think (hope) that's what I usually use in that case. I've fixed it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
On further looking at it, I may have been thinking that since I wasn't going from the current scientific name, but from a synonym, that {{R from alternative scientific name}} may have been the right one. It is a redirect from an alternative scientific name, but clearly that template is designed to go to another scientific name. I guess it is not clear to me what to do in that case.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@SchreiberBike: It's not clear to any of us. Both of the templates display text that is incorrect in some way when the target is not a scientific name. Should there be another rcat template for these cases? Plantdrew (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, I think there probably should. The consequence of not having one is that different editors quite reasonably use different R cats, which is not helpful to anyone. An alternative is that one of them should have their explanatory text changed. {{R from scientific name}} currently produces "From the scientific name of an organism: This is a redirect from the scientific name of an organism (or group of organisms) to the vernacular ("common") name." Neither "the" is correct. Better would be "From a scientific name of an organism: This is a redirect from a scientific name of an organism (or group of organisms) to a vernacular ("common") name." Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been bold and made the change I suggested immediately above. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: "The" to "a" is an improvement. Here's a thought; rather than a new template, add a second switch to {{R from alternative scientific name}}. Second switch would take values "scientific" or "vernacular" (if left blank it would default to "scientific") and display different text when the target is a vernacular name. I don't think it should do anything different with regards to categorization, although the category description should be changed to account for targets being vernacular names. {{R from alternative language}} could serve as a model; it was changed to add a second switch to describe the language of the target. The monotypic taxa rcat templates might also take a second switch to account for vernacular name targets. Plantdrew (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Bot to fix entries in Category:Redirects from synonyms[edit]

Looking through this category, it's not easy to see that a bot would work, since there are different kinds of redirects involving organisms there.

Drat! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a bot for this category, as it is indeed quite a mix of different types of redirects. I was suggesting a bot to go through Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names, and adding switches. Plantdrew (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
"R from alternative scientific name to monotypic genus", hmm, another complication. I'm not sure what to do there. Maybe two templates is best. I made it through about 350 of the "synonyms" yesterday. I could probably finish off in a week without a bot, although the new Template Data Error Report came out yesterday evening, so I've got that to occupy my time as well. Plantdrew (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of solitary animals[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of solitary animals has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

If done properly, this list will include probably almost all animal species in the world

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy template link parameter[edit]

Hi, if you look at the taxobox at Cephalosphaera usambarensis, you'll see that the genus line in the taxobox looks like this:

Genus: Cephalosphaera Warb.

with a circular wikilink, whereas for a monotypic genus it should look like this:

Genus: Cephalosphaera Warb.

To achieve this, |link= at Template:Taxonomy/Cephalosphaera (plant) must be given the value Cephalosphaera usambarensis|Cephalosphaera and not the value Cephalosphaera (plant)|Cephalosphaera, otherwise in the article's taxobox the Wikimedia software doesn't recognize that it's a circular wikilink and so doesn't replace it by bolding. I haven't corrected the taxonomy template because then you wouldn't be able to see the problem.

The general point is that |link= must be set to have the actual article title as the first value, and not rely on a redirect, otherwise the taxobox formatting won't always be correct. (A point I sometimes forget – apologies if you knew this and also just forgot.)

One of the subtle points about automated taxoboxes, possibly not explained in the documentation. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: thanks for the explanation, but this was an oversight on my part. I know how to set up the taxonomy template to keep circular links from displaying. Just got a little sloppy dealing with an edge case of an edge case (genus monotypic and not at genus title). Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I would probably have assumed it was just an oversight if I hadn't just explained all this at User talk:Quetzal1964#Taxonomy template link parameter. Anyway, explaining it may help me to remember! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks Osborne 14:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)