A belated Happy New Year to you too. I hadn't realized I'd reached 600k edits (it took me a bit to figure out what you were referring to).Plantdrew (talk)19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got a bit fed up with seeing so manyRhododendron articles coming up in searches for manual taxoboxes, so decided to fix them. There doesn't seem to me to be a classification to the level of section that is both well sourced and widely used, so after some study, I went with the one used in World Flora Online (seeUser:Peter coxhead/Work page#WFO Rhododendron classification). It does make the articles I fixed sometimes inconsistent with otherRhododendron articles, but revising them all is a major task.Peter coxhead (talk)16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead:, sounds good. I thinkRhododendron now has more manual taxoboxes than any other genus. I've never really touched it. I know there areRhododendron articles that had manual taxoboxes that had some infrageneric classification that was lost when somebody else converted them to automatic taxoboxes. I had considered tacklingRhododendron following the American Rhododendron Society'sclassification, but that dates to 1997.
I had no idea WFO has started including records for subgenera and sections (and giving species records subgenus/section parents). I looked at a few other genera on WFO where Wikipedia has an infrageneric classification.Quercus on WFO looks to be consistent with Denk/Wikipedia. There are records for somePopulus sections (but notPopulus sect.Populus), but none of the species have a parent other than the genus.Pinus has infrageneric taxa, but they're either clearly synonyms of other genera (Pinus subg.Abies) or unranked, and no species have a parent other than the genus.Vaccinium looks like it may have a complete set of section records, but it they species only have the genus as a parent, and the WFO page forVaccinium only lists the sections as children (i.e., you can't navigate from the genus page to a "placed" species). WFO doesn't have infrageneric records forCornus,Juniperus orTillandsia. I'll look around some more and see if there are any other genera where WFO has a usable infrageneric classification.
It seems to me that WFO suffers at present from the same core problem as its predecessor, TPL, namely that it collates data from different sources without a great deal of curation, so the quantity and quality depends very much on the source. Hopefully it will improve. PoWO has so far been clear that it won't go into finer classifications, because of the workload that would be involved as I understand it.Peter coxhead (talk)10:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jengod: firstly, it's OK to leave the article as you had left it. It will show up in an error tracking category that several editors monitor and somebody will take care of the problem in fairly short order.
Secondly, I assume you want to learn how to fix the problem yourself. You could learn that by readingWikipedia:Automated taxobox system/intro and the other pages linked there, but now that I am looking there, I think what would be most useful to editors in your position is something much less verbose, but with screenshots to illustrating what to do. So, actually, don't feel like you need to bother reading that; I've made a bogus speciesbox for this talk page thread that can serve as an illustration/example for now (and I'll put adding illustrations to the existing documentation on my to do list).
The basic issue is that every taxon above species rank needs to have a template created for that taxon in order for speciesboxes to work. Across pretty wide swathes of Wikipedia, these templates already exist. However, these templates are unlikely to exist when the taxon they are centered on doesn't have a Wikipedia article. And there are some swathes of Wikipedia where there are many existing taxon articles without the templates (and Fungi are probably the swathe with the most articles missing templates).
So, for the bogus speciesbox in this thread for "dafdsfads dfgah"", there's the red text "Missing taxonomy template", and below that "fix" in blue. Clicking on "fix" will take you to a page where you would be creating the taxonomy template for "dafdsfads", with most of the code already filled in. You will need to fill in a value for|rank= (which should be genus since you asked aboutCystotheca) and a value for|parent= (and let's say that is Erysiphaceae forCystotheca).|link= is automatically filled with code that will produce the correct value in most cases.
The bogus species box in this thread has two prominent red-links toTemplate:Taxonomy/dafdsfads. If you click those, it will take you to page where you would be creating that taxonomy template, but NONE of the code will be filled in. There will be a "click here to reset" link highlighted in sky-blue that you can click to fill in most of the code. If you are setting up speciesboxes that end up not having the required taxonomy templates you should be clicking on the "fix" links to create the template and not the red links in the formTemplate:Taxonomy/dafdsfads.Plantdrew (talk)02:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha I think I did it and I think I understand it! Mostly. I can definitely remember "click fix, fill in rank (genus in 99% of cases Id be dealing with) and add parent (the taxonomic level above that)." Thank you so much. I will endeavor to make myself useful with this knowledge and/or not break anything important. THANK YOU.jengod (talk)03:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your correction to the "Oryctes rhinoceros" page. As per the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses: ICTV (https://ictv.global/) there are 2 types of names a)species names which should always be written in italic and b)virus names which should not be written in italic. For the Oryctes rinoceros virus the virus name is "Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus" (not italic) and the species name isAlphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis (italic). In my view an unnecessarily complicated system.Bernhard Zelazny (talk)20:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bernhard Zelazny:, yes it is an unnecessarily complicated system. The species name wasOryctes rhinoceros nudivirus prior to 2022 (see ICTV). The ICTV committed to using binomial nomenclature for viruses in 2020, and species are being renamed to meet the standards of binomial nomenclature (exactly two words, with the genus as the first word). I'll take your word for it that the context intended on theOryctes rhinoceros page was as a virus name and not a species name.Plantdrew (talk)20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right the species name changed in 2022 from 'Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus' toAlphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis when they changed to the binomial system, see
Your notes on the redirect pageAlphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis: This problem is related to the taxonomic system of viruses, where virus names and virus species are basically different names for the same thing. Usually (but not always), there is only one virus name assigned to a given virus species. Therefore, it does not make sense to have different wiki pages for both. The virus name refers to the actual virus particles which we can see under the EM and study, whereas the virus species is an abstract concept, used by the virus taxonomists to express the relation between different viruses. If we translate this to the world of animals and plants, we would have for example an oak tree standing somewhere in a park. We would give this particular tree a name like "OakX125" (the virus name) and study its genetics up to the last nucleotide. From the results we come to the conclusion that "OakX125" (virus name) belongs to the speciesQuercus bicolor (the virus species). Most botanists would simply say this is a swamp white oak tree (Quercus bicolor), but for virus taxonomists there is a difference between this individual tree and the concept of the speciesQuercus bicolor. In the case ofAlphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis, I simply wanted to avoid an ugly red link, created by the Virusbox template. I don't know if the template could be modified to avoid such red links (not my field). Of course, the template is correct in distinguishing between virus names and virus species.Bernhard Zelazny (talk)23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bernhard Zelazny:. After readingthis andthis, I have to say that virologists have some very peculiar ideas about how biologists studying eukaryotes employ scientific names. Some quotes from the first of those:
laboratory virologists write with ease that a particular virus infects, for instance, “European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)” (rather than erroneously writing that the virus infects “Oryctolagus cuniculus”)
and
A species cannot go extinct (except if humanity develops amnesia) but it can cease to have members when those go extinct.
There is nothing erroneous (in zoology) about writing that a virus infectsOryctolagus cuniculus. And species are normally regarded as things that do go extinct.
I guess some of this stems from virologists assuming that the only host organisms worth studying have vernacular names that can be used instead of scientific names. There's also some assumptions made when those papers talk about individual organisms. Individuality in (most) animals and of virions (if you have an electron microscope) is pretty clear. Individuals in fungi and many plants are less clear. I also get the sense that virologists completely conflate taxonomy and nomenclature, which are regarded as related but separate things in other fields. And virologists are adamant that species are human constructs, while in other fields they are regarded more as real entities that exist in nature (or once existed; species do go extinct).
Virusbox is intended to show "virus species" and not really intended to show "virus names". It does have the parameters|serotype=,|strain= and|virus=, but these are for infraspecific entities, not the "virus name" for a "virus species". When articles have a serotype, strain or virus parameter there is usually an article for the species. Outside of virology, when Wikipedia says something "is a member of the species/genus/family" it can be understood that there are other members of the species/genus/family and that there is an article that covers all of them.
There are a few virus articles that use|subdivision_ranks= with "Member virus" to show a single "virus name".Lloviu virus is one where Wikipedia uses the virus name as the title of the article, andSudan ebolavirus is one where Wikipedia uses the (old) virus species as the title. Doing it this way keeps the virus species from displaying as a link.
There hasn't been any discussion about how Wikipedia is going to deal with viruses following the adoption of binomial nomenclature. The majority of articles have titles and taxoboxes using (pre-binomial adoption) virus species. The simplest solution seems to be to update the taxoboxes with the binomial virus species, and leave the title with the old virus species (which is now a "virus name"), not to try to force the taxoboxes to show both "virus species" and "virus name".Plantdrew (talk)20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and help. The 2nd article you cited at the beginning ("Differentiating between viruses and virus species ...") is up to date and explains the virus taxonomy and its problems very well. I would still think using the virus name as the title for a wiki page is better than using the virus species because then you can describe its size, what organisms it infects, etc. As you mentioned, a virus species does not infect anything, it is just an abstract concept, a taxonomic category. The way you have changed the virusbox for theOryctes rhinoceros nudivirus is the best solution to the problem I had and it reflects the virus taxonomy correctly.Bernhard Zelazny (talk)08:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion to moveAsiatic rhinoceros beetle toOryctes rhinoceros. I think, Wikipedia should have a policy to use the scientific (Latin) names for certain (most?) groups of animals and plants, to arrive at a standard naming system. At the moment there is a confusing mixture of common and scientific names in many genera,Oryctes is just one of many examples.Bernhard Zelazny (talk)08:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I movedDiamorpha toSedum smallii which seemed justified –Diamorpha appears only to be supported by morphological evidence and older sources. ButSedum generally is a mess, e.g.Hylotelephium species recognized in its article are still inSedum in its article. Then there's the question of infrageneric taxa.Peter coxhead (talk)09:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,Sedum is a mess. I guess Messerschmid 2020 (doi:10.1002/tax.12316) is the latest word, but I expect there will be eventually be some further publications (the 2020 publication doesn't establish the combinations necessary for the proposed circumscription ofSedum).Plantdrew (talk)14:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are tagging a lot of pages for CSD G5 speedy deletion. Just a tip here, in the field, please put the name of the sockmaster, not the sockpuppet. This is because if any admin has questions, they'll want to view the relevant SPI case and those are filed under the name of the sockmaster, not the individual sockpuppets. Thank you for making this adjustment. Your work is appreciated!LizRead!Talk!03:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I foundHalophila johnsonii tricky to deal with. It seems clear that it's just a clone ofHalophila ovalis or perhaps more precisely ofHalophila ovalis subsp.ovalis. There's enough to say about it to warrant a separate article, I think, so I decided to treat it under the English nameJohnson's seagrass, although the taxobox doesn't work perfectly. I would welcome your view.Peter coxhead (talk)18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination would be to redirect toH. ovalis, with a section there aboutH. johnsonii and its ESA listing/delisting. But the article does get a decent number of page views.
You had previously suggested using a vernacular name title to deal withBetula uber (a forma according to POWO, but ESA listed as a species). But when we had discussed that,{{Infraspeciesbox special}} didn't exist so there wasn't anyway to indicate forma rank with an automatic taxobox. I'm not sure what do with the taxobox for the seagrass. But I don't think subsp.ovalis should be listed as a synonym in the taxobox.Plantdrew (talk)19:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would in principle also prefer to redirect toHalophila ovalis, and the note I put under the section heading "Johnson's seagrass" could be expanded, but the article had quite a few wikilinks as well as page views. Um...
I do agree that I should not have given subsp.ovalis as a synonym, and I've removed it. Ideally the taxobox would show the sequenceHalophila ovalis –Halophila ovalis subsp.ovalis – clone Johnson's seagrass, but this isn't possible with the current version of{{Infraspeciesbox special}}, and using a manual taxobox doesn't allow a line for a clone.Peter coxhead (talk)17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do withMonardella antonina. PoWO, Calflora and the Jepson eFlora all agree that it's not a separate species. Calflora and Jepson make it a synonym ofMonardella villosa subsp.villosa. PoWO mergesMonardella villosa intoMonardella odoratissima, so hasMonardella antonina asM. odoratissima subsp.villosa.This brief paper seems to be source of the merger ofM. villosa andM. odoratissima; I would really have liked to see more detail, but can't find anything. Do you have a view?Peter coxhead (talk)17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead:, I've been traveling, so it's taken me awhile to get back to you. That paper says it is establishing combinations needed for the Flora of North America treatment, so I assume synonymy ofM. villosa is likely to be accepted going forward. The Jepson Manual (1993) notes thatM. antonina subsp.antonina "hybridizes with (and much like)M. villosa". I assume you saw the2009 paper that synonymizesM. antonina andM. villosa subsp.villosa?
I certainly don't think an article forM. antonina is still warranted (it seems pretty dubious to recognize it even in the 1993 Jepson Manual treatment). Mark Brunnell is a co-author of the current (2012)Jepson eFlora treatment ofM. villosa, so I expect Jepson eFlora will eventually be updated to follow Brunnell's 2020 treatment ofvillosa as a subspecies inodoratissima.Plantdrew (talk)21:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the delay; I've had plenty to do, here and in the real world. I've now given the fossil plant articles automated taxoboxes (and found a number of issues and omissions in the International Fossil Plant Names Index relating to the taxa concerned, which the editors have been quick to fix – IPNI seems to have delegated fossil plant names to this database).
I agree aboutMonardella antonina, and will move it. I thought I would first make a start on the taxonomy ofMonardella odoratissima. Until there are secondary sources, such as the proposed revised Flora of North America and Jepson Manual treatments, it's difficult or perhaps impossible to fully combine theM. odoratissima andMonardella villosa articles, I think, because any attempt at a description of the united taxon would involve synthesis.Peter coxhead (talk)11:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you removed the genus categories I added toBachmannia chubutensis, such as Category:Prehistoric ray-finned fish genera and Category:Ypresian genera. Are these depreciated or something? I've been adding them to every single one of the fossil fish pages I've been updating.Geekgecko (talk)22:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geekgecko: categories for genera belong on pages for genera (which could be either redirects or articles). I added Category:Prehistoric ray-finned fish genera and Category:Ypresian genera to the genus redirectBachmannia (fish), and added categories for families to theBachmanniidae redirect. There are various other categories such asCategory:Eocene animals of South America, where there isn't really any guidance about including redirects vs. articles (or both) in the category. But if the category name specifies "genera" or "families" the page(s) in that category should be genera/families regardless of whether the page is a redirect or an article.Plantdrew (talk)03:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah nothing wrong then, I must have completely missed that you just moved the categories to the redirect. I've done that many times myself, no idea why I didn't bother to check.Geekgecko (talk)03:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions1325: if the taxonomy template is disambiguated (e.g. when a plant and animal genus have the same name), you must use|genus= and|species= in the{{Speciesbox}}, not|taxon=.|taxon= in Speciesboxes expects the value specified to be exactly two words, where the first word is the exact name of the taxonomy template to be called.|Genus= accepts multiple word template names such asTemplate:Taxonomy/Phallaria (moth).
Thank you so much. I performed the first page move just before I suffered a fatigue spell. I did not realize that there was a plant genus with the same name until after it was too late. I'll be more careful next time. Thanks again.Scorpions1325 (talk)02:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw that the article I created,Microphis boaja, was turned into a redirect for the pageDoryichthys boaja. Although my citations were kind of funky, as some referencedD. boaja, the valid taxon isMicrophis boaja,according to Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes. I wasn't aware that there was already an article for the species under that synonym, so that's my bad. With that being said, should I move theD. boaja page toM. boaja, changing the name only?GunnarBonk (talk)22:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GunnarBonk:, Wikipedia follows FishBase rather than Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes for validity/synonymy of fish species. While it is uncommon for these two databases to disagree, in this case FishBase recognizesD. boaja.Plantdrew (talk)22:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-inserted the content you deleted in the article about thebrownbanded bamboo shark, and I have added a source so that it is no longer unsourced. (It is, of course, still trivia, but I would contend that the film has contributed to the awareness of this particular species of shark - I for one did not know about it until I watched the movie).
Yesterday, you moved the articleLatirus fromCategory:Fasciolariidae to the category that I'd just created for Latirus a day or two earlier. In fact, it seems that you did it literally moments before I would have added the article to that new category myself (I'd just finished moving all the species articles, and my last step when creating these genus categories is generally to add the genus article).
I want to explain the small change I made to your edit. I left the article inCategory:Latirus, bud also put it back inCategory:Fasciolariidae. Somewhere I did read that this is an exception to the general principle (not a hard-and-fast rule) that an article usually should not be in BOTH a category and in the parent category. The category Latirus is the eponymous category. While we wouldn't add all the species of genus Latirus to the family category, it's valid to have the article on the genus itself in both that genus category and its parent family category.Uporządnicki (talk)12:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AzseicsoK:, yes, articles with an eponymous category may be placed in both that category and the parent category, as outlined atWikipedia:Categorization#Articles_with_eponymous_categories. Just 7 of the 29 subcategories for genera of Fasciolariidae have the article with eponymous category also included in the Fasciolariidae category. It should be consistent one way or the other (either all articles with eponymous categories are included in the parent, or none are). Taxonomy/organism categories for the most part don't have articles in both the eponymous category and the parent category (it's not totally consistent, but it would take fewer edits to achieve consistency if articles were excluded for parent categories). Plants consistently do not have articles in parent categories. Fish are the only organisms I am aware of that routinely include articles in both eponymous and parent categories.
You might findcommons:Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot helpful for the recategorization you are doing. It allows you to select a batch of articles to be recategorized without needing to open each individual article (but as far as I am aware, it doesn't support adding sort keys, so maybe it won't work for you).Plantdrew (talk)20:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is aprimary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is anorphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact thedeleting administrator.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)09:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I guess you've seen, I've been working on the remaining Asteraceae manual taxoboxes. Some of the articles were quite tangled;Jalantzia is a case where PoWO right now is simply wrong to treat the genus asVernoniopsisDusén (I've e-mailed them). I've come to a halt with those currently listed atUser:Peter coxhead/Work page#Asteraceae, where it's not clear to me what to do; I really don't want to move the relevant articles to subspecies names.
In general, I'd be OK with merging the ones treated as subspecies. I'll look into each of the ones you've listed later.
Something weird is going on withHelichrysum rupestre DC on POWO. There are homonyms on IPNI. POWO says it is synonymized following COL where it is " [Cited as Helichrysum pendulum subspec. pendulum.]".Tropicos citesthis publication in treatingH. rupestre DC as a synonym ofH. pendulum (authorship in that publication isH. rupestre Raf.; I believe the correct authorship is (Raf.) DC., Tropicos has a note to that effect, but still gives authorship as DC.; IPNI has "(Raf.) DC." that is linked to the POWO record for "DC.") . POWO hasH. rupestre Boiss. as a synonym ofH. pendulum I think POWO has mixed up the homonyms and I'd guess that them having the DC. name flagged as "nom. superfl." may stem from omitting "Raf." and not recognizing that the DC. name is a subsequent combination. I believe the correct synonymy for DC. isH. pendulum; not sure what to make of the Boiss. name.Plantdrew (talk)19:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd noticed some of the issues withHelichrysum rupestre on PoWO, but not got as far as you. It's similar to their error with the homonyms ofVernoniopsis – a situation described as "bizarre" in Hind & Langhorne (2024) and which was accepted as incorrect in a reply to my e-mail. It seems that much of Asteraceae was imported from COL and has not been completely reviewed. When IPNI is correct, as withVernoniopsis/Jalantzia, PoWO will eventually be fixed when a reconciliation is run. In the meantime, the moral seems to be not to rely on PoWO for Asteraceae in problematic cases.Peter coxhead (talk)22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have noticed a large number of new species articles created by other editors that lack the year described in the authority parameter of speciesbox. Is there a guide to when to include the year? Why not wikilink to the botanist/scientists mentioned in the authority parameter as well? The parameter guidance also statespresence or absence of parentheses is meaningful. What does that mean?
@Classicwiki:, it's better to wikilink the authority than to not link it. But that isn't something that I often make an effort to do.
There are different conventions for citing authorities under the botanical code and the zoological code. Under both codes, parentheses indicate that a species was first described in a different genus than its current placement. Parentheses have a meaning and are not just a matter of formatting style. Under the botanical code, the authority who assigned a species to its current genus (the combining authority) follows the parenthetical name of the first describer and the year is not indicated. Under the zoological code, the combining authority is not indicated, but the year is included.
The differences in authority citation betweeen the botanical and zoological codes stems, in part, from a difference between how the codes determinepriority. Under the zoological code, priority is determined by the date of the first publication of the species epithet. Under the botanical code, priority is the date of publication of the combination (of genus+species).
A botanical example of the difference:
"Ligustrum reticulatum Blume" was described in 1851. It was transferred toSyringa in 1951 by H.Hara; the name is then cited as "Syringa reticulata (Blume) H.Hara". Hypothetically, let's say that Jones described a different species as "Syringa reticulata Jones" in 1900. Under the botanical code, the first combination of Syringa+reticulata is Jones, and the species named by Blume would need a replacement epithet if it was transferred toSyringa in 1951. Under the zoological code, the first publication of the epithetreticulatum is Blume, and once Blume's species is placed inSyringa, Jones later epithet ofreticulatum would need to be replaced.
I don't know why botanical tradition doesn't include the year in authority citations; it would be useful, but tradition simply doesn't include it. And Wikipedia generally follows the tradition and doesn't include years. Absent tradition, there's no standard way to indicate the year. It might appear in parentheses on it's own; e.g.Syringa reticulata Jones (1900). Another way to do it is to include an abbreviated citation of the publication after the authors and before the year e.g. "Ligustrum reticulatum Blume in Mus. Bot. 1: 313 (1851)"; this is what POWO does with lists of synonyms, and is generally what is used in examples in the botanical code. The whole point of citing author and/or year is to give a bibliographic reference, but it's a heck of a lot more useful to include the title of the publication. Author+year isn't really sufficient for bibliographic purposes, but neither code has a tradition of including the title in an authority citation.Plantdrew (talk)18:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that write up. I appreciate your willingness to walk me through that. Yes, the full reference or a reflink in the authority parameter would be ideal. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, pleaseping me.03:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Plantdrew. I am thinking about creating categories for eponymous taxa/species. For example: taxa/species named after fictional characters/works of fiction, taxa/species named after people, taxa/species named after locations, etc.
Of course this will come with its own problems. For example AOS's renaming of North American bird species (e.g.Thick-billed longspur), but I think that it will be a unique data point to highlight
@Classicwiki:, I'm not sure that eponymy is aWP:DEFINING characteristic of a taxon (and that goes for other aspects of taxon etymology as well, e.g. taxa named by anagrams). The description ofCategory:Eponyms says that medical conditions are not included in the category (there isCategory:Eponymous diseases, but it was recently created and might not survive a deletion discussion). I'd put taxa in the same boat as medical conditions; there are tens of thousands of taxa named after people or locations.
The lists of taxa by etymology may not be up-to-date, but they do include red-links, which could not be included in categories.Category:Eponymous genera is a fairly recent creation and its description doesn't put any restrictions on what could be included.List of organisms named after famous people excludes biologists (the source of the majority of taxon eponyms) and ethnic groups (one of the two articles currently in the eponymous genera category is named for an ethnic group). Red-links in the lists and some potential restriction on category contents are something to think about if you want to do this.
And if you do want to pursue this, I'd suggest you bring it up somewhere else (maybeWikipedia talk:Categorization?) to get a sense for whether other editors think the categories would be appropriate. I don't want you to waste your time setting up categories that might end up getting deleted as not be DEFINING.Plantdrew (talk)19:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article atTripsacum floridanum, a taxon that seems to be supported by multiple US-based sources. PoWO regards it as a synonym ofTripsacum dactyloides, and that article listsTripsacum floridanum as a synonym (based on TPL, but would be the same with PoWO).Tripsacum floridanum is not listed atTripsacum as per the sources used there. So what to do?Peter coxhead (talk)17:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead:, I guess theT. floridanum article could be redirected. I am concerned that the POWO record has no source for synonymy (the only source cited accepts the species), and iNaturalist accepts the species (they usually follow POWO).
Tropicos cites "An integrated assessment of vascular plants species of the Americas" (2017) as accepting the species, but cites online updates to that publication from 2018 in treating it as a synonym ofT. dactyloides.
"Catalogue of New World Grasses" (2003) acceptsTripsacum dactyloides var.floridanum. Surprisingly, the library does not have a copy of this publication. But it is apparently being updated as a project within Tropicos. Theproject record acceptsTripsacum dactyloides var.floridanum but the "degree of acceptance" is "Doubtful or dubious". I'm not sure if the dubiousness is over whether it should be treated as a full species, or whether it shouldn't even be recognized at the varietal level (it is the only variety in theproject record forT. dactyloides that isn't a synonym or illegitimate that is not presented in bold type.
Since you're working on grasses now, I want to give you a heads-up aboutElymus trachycaulus. I think POWO is wrong in synonymizing it withElymus violaceus.trachycaulus should have priority, and POWO bases the synonymy on a single book (while citing multiple publications that accepttrachycaulus). Without seeing that book, my guess is that it is treating purportedtrachycaulus from far east Asia asviolaceus, but is not claiming that alltrachycaulus (e.g. from North America) should be synonymized withviolaceus. I've inquired about the book at my library and I think they are trying to obtain a copy for me. POWO's record forElymus sierrae is affected by this as well (I'm not sure that it should be considered a synonym at all, but if it is a synonym, apparently it should be one oftrachycaulus).Plantdrew (talk)20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed response. I've only been working on grasses sporadically. I had decided that PoWO's treatment of some genera/species is not obviously correct, and so left them alone. For example, PoWO synonymizes some Australian genera that Australian taxonomic databases accept, and I couldn't see what sources PoWO was using, or else they seemed in disagreement.
ReT. floridanum,Vascular Plants of the Americas onlinehere accepts it as a synonym, although claiming the last modified date as 10/12/2017, which is odd because the dataset S1 of the originalScience paper dated 22 Dec 2017 lists bothT. dactyloides andT. floridanum. I guessT. floridanum can be treated as a synonym, although I'd be happier with clearer sources.
I won't have much time for Wikipedia in the next week or so, but I've noted the possible issue withElymus trachycaulus. IfElymus trachycaulus is ultimately based onTriticum trachycaulum Link, dated as 1833 in IPNI, andElymus violaceus is based onTriticum violaceum Hornem., undated in IPNI, but the source Fl. Dan. [Oeder] t. 2044 is dated as 1832 inTL-2, thenif they are synonyms, PoWO seems to be correct in claiming thatviolaceus/um has priority. But whether they are actually synonyms is another matter.Peter coxhead (talk)07:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions toCirsium × juratzkae. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time becausetoo much has gone wrong in the references.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
This was FYI for you as I know you weren't the initial author. I moved all but one of these new hybrid articles to draft as the referencing was all janky. -UtherSRG(talk)11:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG:, for the hybrids you draftified, I don't think a source exists that associates the nothospecies name with a hybrid formula that hasCirsium greimleri as a parent. I expect sources exist (but aren't necessarily cited in the articles) that giveCirsium waldsteinii as a parent.C. greimleri was split fromC. waldsteinii in 2018, and the only post 2018 source in the draftified articles is Vavrinec's 2020 thesis. Vavrinec doesn't mention the nothospecies names, but does list hybrid formulas with aC. greimleri parent.Plantdrew (talk)15:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have a quick question. Saw the removal of the trivia under theShakey's Pizza page, and am wondering, as you are a far more experienced editor than I am, if it is necessary to delete them? As far as I understand it, Shakey's Pizza is a bit of a cultural icon/meme status in several countries, so the trivia is interesting from a cult status type perspective. That is why I had come upon the page in the past (i.e. looking up cultural references because of this phenomenon). As for the citations, aren't they self-referential? I think it would be a bit silly to have to add citations after a reference that refer to the... reference itself. Let me know! Cheers.Top5a (talk)17:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A flashback sequence features the character Deputy Doug saying "I'm not going to be a banjo player at Shakey's the rest of my life!"" is not a significant role.Plantdrew (talk)20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the world register of marine species (https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=125269), this article's current source, the name has been synonymized with Alcyoniidae and this article is no longer needed. All that could be merged is the list of genera (already in the other article) & the image, which will not be deleted with the page
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
Chudweed has more results than one of the accepted common names, northern beggarticks. Chudweed has 683 results, northern beggarticks only has 8. That means chudweed is 85 times more commonly used to describe this species of plant than one of the common names this article lists. A common name is a name that is common, and this name is more common than one of the names the article lists, therefore chudweed should be includedJvneslvt (talk)20:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Plantdrew, and thank you yet again for stepping in to clean up the usual mess I make with plant species articles. Your patience with my (pretty muchWP:CIR-adjacent additions) in that topic area isformidable!
With regard to
Are you commenting about Lsjbot creations in particular, something more broadly about articles for topics in other languages that don't have an English version, or the view towards mass creations on English Wikipedia in 2024? The af.wikipedia article was not created by Lsjbot, so I am confused about why you're mentioning Lsjbot, while creating an article translated from a non-Lsjbot article.
Going step by step here:
I was surprised that there wasn't an en.wp article about this species
I looked at theFaurea arborea articles on other Wikipedias, and the first one I came across was the af.wp article
I looked at the other *.wp articles and did notice that most of them wereLsjbot creations
I did not correctly identify which *.wp language Faurea arborea was initially created at
A well-meaning editor removed this category from a lot of redirects you added it to because, at that time, these categories didn't exist and perWP:REDNO, red link categories are supposed to be removed or the category created.
You can undo all of these changes by going through your Contributions and look for pages you edited or install the scriptUser:Nardog/CatChangesViewer. After you install this script, if you go to the category page and hit the Search button, you'll get a list of "Recent changes", pages that have recently either been added or removed from that category. This tool really helps if you work with categories and I wish I had known about it when it was first developed back in 2021. Thanks.LizRead!Talk!18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Do you know what tool I can use, if any, to find articles and return certain criteria. For example, I would want a list of articles sorted by creation date. Or a list of articles sorted by the date they were set to a certain class. I would want to be able to pull up articles that are only in maybe a certain project like the plants project. So it would be similar to the search tool that we have now which is limited, at least limited to my knowledge, but I would want to be able to sort those results by a certain value. And I would want to be able to show that value in the table of results. Do you know if this exists? –Elizabeth (Eewilson)(tag or ping me) (talk)22:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson:, the default sort order forPetScan queries is creation date, more or less (technically, it's based on page ID, but IDs are assigned chronologically; however pages created very early in the history of Wikipedia might not have strictly chronological IDs). PetScan the main tool I use to search for articles in a WikiProject (by searching for the WikiProject banner template on talk pages).
The tables showing articles by quality and importance for a WikiProject show the date that quality/importance was assigned to articles if you click on a cell in the table (i.e. the Stub/Low cell). However, you can't sort by date, and you can't view more than 500 results at a time. You could copy the output with the date into a spreadsheet and then sort it, but that would be a hassle if you have to do it in many batches of 500 results. Since the data on date that a class was set exists, I would guess there must be some way to query it in the way that you want (without pasting many batches of 500 into a spreadsheet), but I don't know what that way is.
Thanks! I will nose around and see what I can find. Weirdly, the number of plant stubs increased today by at least 22. That type of increase would negate the Stub-to-Start drive progress, even if it only occurred once a month. I know I changed a few to Stub this morning after opening a few Start-classes out of curiosity, but I'm pretty sure it was less than five. I am wanting to be able to see if they were newly created today or recently. Once the drive gets going, I'd like to be able to pull Stats as well. –Elizabeth (Eewilson)(tag or ping me) (talk)00:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson:, are you getting that number from the quality/importance table? That was probably my doing. I gave assessments to a bunch of article that had a WikiProject plants banner, but no quality/importance rating. Also, for some reason the table is placing some articles that were moved fairly recently in NA/Low. Going to the talk pages of those, they were showing Stub/Low (well, at least most of them were stubs, as are most plant articles). I made null edits to the talk pages and manually forced the table to update, and they fell out of the NA/Low count.Tritaxis glabella is one where I haven't made the null edit, and is still in NA/Low (I want to update the taxobox there before I do the talk page null edit).Plantdrew (talk)00:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that would have been affected by my assessments and my manually forcing an update at a time of day when it isn't usually updated. FWIW, the average number of new plant taxon articles in recent years is around 8-9/day, and I'd estimate half of those are stubs. I have no idea at what rate existing stubs get upgraded to start or better (nor do I have any idea of the extent of any discrepancy between the class rating on the talk page and the actual state of article content, but there surely is some discrepancy).Plantdrew (talk)01:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Plantdrew,I noticed you're one of those who frequently reviews new articles relevant to plants/botany and you've reviewed a few of my recent new stubs e.g.Drosera barrettiorum, so I wanted to ask your advice/preference on approach. I'm very slowly attempting to address some of the more neglected carnivorous plant genera, starting withDrosera which has lots of taxonomic updates needed and many redlinked species. I have a complete rewrite ofTaxonomy of Drosera underway in userspace and a long list of missing articles to create which I'm dipping in and out of for variety. For the species articles, my plan currently is to create a stub first with basic info across prose and taxobox - authority, date of description, brief range info, conservation status if available, etymology if known - all sourced inline of course. Then I'd like to expand the articles systematically with, (say) in no particular order, description, more detailed range / map, basis of conservation status, picture(s), any interesting general info nuggets, etc. - i.e. adding one type of info to all the stubs, then the next, etc.Does that sound a sane/helpful way to approach this or is the initial creation of fairly stubby (although not merely dictdef) articles unhelpful?YFB¿01:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yummifruitbat: In general, I would say it is more helpful to create a smaller number of fleshed out articles than a larger number of stubs. If you're committed to going back and expanding articles that you have created as stubs, it doesn't matter much if you're initially creating stubs with the level of information thatDrosera barrettiorum has. I do think you should get around to the expansion phase before you create stubs for everyDrosera species; pick a set of some articles you want to create and expand and do the expansion before moving on to another round of stub creation (I'm guessing from your recently created articles that Western AustralianDrosera might be such a set).
In the last couple of years, there has been some pushback by editors who don't really work on species articles against the long-standing notion on Wikipedia that species deserve stand-alone articles. A lot of the anti-species article sentiment stems from the large number of stubs that have basically no prose content that isn't in the taxobox. There are easily 100,000 such articles (both plants and animals). I don't thinkD. barrettiorum falls into that, butDrosera villosa does (OK, it does include range and the date of description, but if it were an animal the date would be in the author citation in the taxbox).List of Drosera species contains all the facts that theD. villosa article does. Personally, I think theD. villosa article as it stands now is better than having it as a redirect toDrosera, but if it hadn't already existed as a redirect, I wouldn't encourage creation of such a minimal article.Plantdrew (talk)00:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this really thorough reply; exactly the steer I was looking for. I think I can work (infrageneric) section by section as a way of batching up the rounds of stub/expand, and I'll ensure all the stubs are at least at theD. barrettiorum level. Thanks again,YFB¿01:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in thisanonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on itsMeta page and view itsprivacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Plantdrew, you've tagged this for a merge, but there's no discussion thread to join at either end of the merge? In fact atDalandan, there was a 'to' rather than 'from' tag, and someone's removed it on the grounds there wasn't a discussion...Chiswick Chap (talk)09:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you unpiped "catshark", was that the thing causing so many pages to show Disambiguation links to the catshark Disambiguation page? More specifically, through the template?
If so, how long until it updates? I'm still showing 142 articles linking to the catshark Disambiguation page the majority seem to all share that template.RCSCott91 (talk)18:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RCSCott91:, yeah, there were/are many links to the dab page from that template (and also from the{{Scyliorhinidae}} template). It takes some time for the links like that to clear out on their own, but usually that is a matter of a few hours, and it's now getting close to 2 full days since I edited the template. The number of links did drop by around 100 from where it was ~18 hours ago, but it hasn't dropped any further in the last ~5 hours. I don't know why it's taking so long.
You can force the (claimed) links to go away by making a null edit to the articles that are claimed to be linked. Of course, there probably are a few pages that actually link to "catshark" without going through one of the templates, so you may just want to wait it out. I'm keeping an eye on the links to catshark as well.Plantdrew (talk)19:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna have to take note of that. You said it perfectly, is there a proper name for Disambiguation links that revolve around "link templates"?
I ask because I had an interesting situation a week or so ago where a Disambiguation link would appear only when 5 apostrophes (like you use for bold italics) on pages with the Template:Takashi Miike. I did my best to document it in the talk page after finding a "fix".
It was weird though, literally, just take one of the apostrophes away and the page would no longer link to the Disambiguation page. Nearly 50 articles had this "glitch".RCSCott91 (talk)19:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RCSCott91:, The proper name for "link templates" isNavigation templates (but they are also commonly called navboxes). I don't think there's any particular term for links from navboxes that show up on a disambiguation page.
I'm not sure that the issue you had with Takashi Miike actually had anything to do with the apostrophes. By changing the apostrophes you were effectively makingdummy edits, which would resolve the reported link to the dab page (any edit whatsoever that you make to a page with a navbox that is showing up as a link to a disambiguation page will resolve the reported dab link). You don't even need to make a dummy edit; aWP:NULLEDIT works as well. A null edit is just opening the edit tab and then saving without changing anything. The only reason I know of to make dummy edits rather than null edits is if you forgot to leave an edit summary for a previous edit. You can leave an edit summary with a dummy edit, but not with a null edit.Plantdrew (talk)20:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the weird part, putting the apostrophes (not through revert) back made the Disambiguation links happen again.
Edit: I almost want to revert the redirect page change, that way if the underlying cause hasn't been addressed; someone more knowledgeable can at least look at it and tell me what (probably simple) thing I am missing.RCSCott91 (talk)22:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on itsMeta page and view itsprivacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
OK, done. I have omitted the extra discussion of the previous assigned synonym but listed it in the box - might be added to text if the n. illegitimum is considered to be particularly important here. Cheers --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)18:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only happened uponthis removal because of my ongoing work oninline skates. I don't have any connections to the section you rightfully removed. But it seems to me that someone did put in lots of effort to compile that. Perhaps you can paste the removed section into the Talk page instead. Someone or someone else in the future may be able to cite these properly and add some or all of them back in the right way. Cheers.Fred Hsu (talk)04:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas, Plantdrew! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.Onel5969TT me23:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
removal of Marantaceae category from Helen Kennedy page?
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
Hello! Forgive the unusual request, I noticed you were one of the active users editing in the area of arthropods, and the last user to edit the relevant page.
I have lately been clearing through the category of pages citing retracted sources to determine which ones are intentional citations and which ones are needing some other fix or outright removal (category:[1]). Some of these require more delicate handling from someone who is more familiar with the topic. The pageLongipedia currently cites a source from 2017 retracted for issues with the data[2]. What makes this difficult to remove outright is that it seems this paper influenced a change in the taxonomy. As this is well outside my depth, I am asking that you take a look at it to see how the page should reflect the retraction, or that if this is not within the scope of your knowledge or interests if you happened to know any editors who would be more suitable.Relm (talk)08:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomic changes were accepted by the World of Copepods Database (WoRMS). The page forCanuelloida] has a note on the retraction: ".. the ICZN has just passed Declaration 46, the proposed Amendment to Article 8 (reaffirming the ineffectiveness of subsequent disclaimers, and retractions with respect to published works, available names and nomenclatural acts in zoological nomenclature) of the Code. The Canuelloida is therefore available for this ordinal level taxon." The ICZN decision is only on the validity of the name, i.e. the paper remains the correct one for author of the taxon name. But WoRMS continue to accept the new order. Perhaps the solution is to change the reference to WoRMS or include both with the intentional tag. — Jts1882 | talk09:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that wasn't the first paper to propose that order Harpacticoida needed splitting, so the now retracted paper is only been used as authorship of the taxon name (following the ICZN decision). There is a 2025 study byBernot et al, 2025 confirming the result, which also be used as secondary source for split proposal. I think this can replace the retracted paper. — Jts1882 | talk10:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware, and had sent one or two emails when users posted to his talk page. As the user never acknowledged a real-life identity, I was concerned that it might constitute doxxing.William Avery (talk)08:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> added Category:Hymenophyllum using HotCat; iNaturalist does not list any varieties (and is not a suitable source for taxonomy on Wikipedia; Wikipedia and iNat both generally follow POWO, so POWO should be cited, not iNat)
You're right that it doesn't. This is weird, though, as those varieties were suggested from the template from iNaturalist, which is how I initially scaffold these articles. Is iNaturalist getting it wrong somehow? Should I make a PR to their platform about varieties?Richlitt (talk)01:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Richlitt:, I am in the habit of checking all lists of varieties/subspecies sourced to iNaturalist in newly created plant articles. I started this habit because there was a time in which iNaturalist did not display ranks for plant infraspecies (at least as far as I could tell), and I wanted to confirm that the rank was either variety or subspecies. iNaturalist does now display subspecies/variety rank in a way that I can tell, but I believe this is a pretty recent change. I am not at all certain that iNaturalist hasn't been storing the rank in way that I couldn't tell for some time, but only recently started displaying it (while looking for an example of a plant subspecies on iNat, I came across this taxon swapfrom 2018 that doesn't display any rank, but theinactivated taxon record from the swap does display a rank (although not in the URL that ends with 509418-Aquilegia-vulgaris-nevadensis).
I have two suspicions about what might be happening on the iNat end. One is that iNat links from a species to its infraspecies might be getting broken if they are now relying on an infraspecies rank being specified somewhere, and the rank is absent. The other is that iNat curators might be actively inactivating iNat taxon pages for infraspecies with no observations (and no indication of rank).
I editedCelmisia discolor after you created it, and I'm certain I checked iNat at that time. There are 3 varieties listed in the Wikipedia article. iNat now shows only one variety. POWO still lists 3.
I'm not an iNat curator, but if I was, I would absolutely be scrutinizing any plant infraspecies with no specified rank. And from what I understand about iNat's approach to taxonomy, there's a better chance of Wikipedia at least listing SPECIES of obscure non-plant/fungus/animal eukaryotes than there is of iNat doing so. Wikipedia is not at all devoted to having any articles for plant infraspecies. If I were an iNat curator I would not be creating pages for taxa with no observations there.
If you want to start any future article from an iNat provided template that includes infraspecies, I would suggest that you refrain from doing so until posting on iNat forums/curator areas orWikipedia Tree of Life so we can figure out exactly what is going on with the iNat Wikipedia template.Plantdrew (talk)02:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'll keep a lookout for the next template that has this information, and see if I can get some more information out of iNaturalist about it.Richlitt (talk)19:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Screen readers e.g. for the blind will incorrectly read the spanish spellingyerba mate as 'yerba mate' with 3 syllables, whereas the anglicized spellingyerba maté will be rendered correctly with 4. Per ACCESSIBILITY, we should use the anglicized spelling. I know people complain that's not spanish, but we're not writing in spanish, and unless we label it as such, screen readers will not interpret it as spanish.— kwami (talk)22:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami:, that could be a good point to bring up in a requested move (provided that screen readers actually readmate andmaté differently; I just tested the NVDA screenreader and it read the words with and without the accent the same). But the current titles were the result of requested moves, so any change to the title should go through a new requested move discussion (and the form of the word used in the text of the article should follow the title). Start a requested move discussion if you think the title is wrong.Plantdrew (talk)00:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.
We often call it just 'mate' in the articles, though, and I suspect that even your NVDA reader will pronounce that as one syllable.— kwami (talk)01:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew:Please can you delete/request admin deletion of your newly created redirect "Burara etelka" to Bibasis. I've just spent a week and a half trying to get admins to remove a bunch of conflicting redirects, and a week before that with a pending request for comments (which got no response) on the direction of change on the WikiProject Lepidoptera before that - done at request of another admin who didn't want to assist without it. Go to the page for the Family Coeliadinae, where i setup inline with modern schemes. Burara has 14 species since several recent studies, including detailed morphological revision of each species, and same in more recent published genomic analysis. Here on enwiki, "Bibasis etelka" was the last of several where it had needed admins to undo the existing opposite schem. When i looked in this morning, i saw that an(other) admin had now deleted the last blocking redirect - after the request had been pending for two days, and following prior action of admin had randomly declined the revision request without explanation. Stupidly, i didn't jump on it this morning to finally move of "Bibasis etelka", and now i've got time then you've newly created another (brand new) blocking redirect. In hopes to pre-empt others, i'd even put a bunch of text in "Bibasis etelka" to explain justification for it needing to move to be Burara etelka. Any questions feel free to ask, i've been trying to get multiple biodiversity databases on this genus for about 3 weeks, it's not something i haven't thought on, nor a topic unfamiliar to me. This species was the last one ....Arggghh!Sjl197 (talk)18:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjl197:, you should be able to move the article toBurara etelka is that is what you want to do. That redirect only has one edit, so it should not be blocking the move. Are you unable to execute the move yourself?
I was utterly mystified by Significa liberdade's edit summary "Reversing a redirect. For updated scientific name combination of this insect, needs deletion of blocking redirect to make room for an uncontroversial page move, category G6", since that appeared to make a new redirect (albeit one with a single edit, and thus able to be to moved over) rather than deleting anything. It was no help to me figuring out what was intended when the taxobox continued to be forBibasis, and the sources forBurara aren't fully cited.
You created the new redirect. I'm kindly asking you to undo what you just did. The line "Reversing a redirect. For updated ... (blah blah)" was just a direct quote from my exasperated own text. Those words were mine, includes in the text of G6 "Speedy deletion" requests, which after i'd finally learnt how the heck to submit such requests in a suitable format, were to try to say something to help admin make informed decisions. Look at my user talk page where "Significa liberdade" had actions the last couple of admin level deletions of blocking redirects.
Above, my reply to you here was to explain how that simple action from your viewpoint just [again] complicated what i had spend effectively more than two weeks with multiple communications with various people to solve! At least for yourself, i appreciate your knoweledge, experience and interest in biological organisms, unlike most on enwiki who can action any higher level changes. Please don't ask me to sumbit the request myself, you've just caused this new complication. Feel free to talk to "Significa liberdade"
@Plantdrew: Ok, i took a break, came back and gave what you said a read again. You're right, i was able to make the move, i was blind to some of your words above as i'd gotten extremely exasperated with all that was needed to edit JUST ONE genus of butterflies here (on enwiki) over many days. The previous redirect that was deleted was complex with multiple edits, as were other redirects for several the other species. Those i'd finally got removed before over last days after a long process. I didn't know that a single edited redirect *could* be overwritten, i (wrongly) thought one of us had to go through the deletion request process again. I was asking you to take responsibility. I reacted badly to your asking me to do it (i.e. yet again!). Anyway, it's now moved. Yes the taxobox needs changing, yes other bits need changing. I'm trying to get this and all done linked together correctly with wikidata, wikispecies etc. I've also been updating them in several non-wiki sources. I'm stepping away from this for today, and kindly asking you to do same.Sjl197 (talk)19:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjl197:, I generally have no trouble getting species articles moved to the currently accepted name viaWikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. I see you tried to go that route withBurara anadi. I'm not sure why your request languished without action for days before beingremoved from the technical requests and reinstated as Requested Move discussion. I assume the editor who removed it from the technical requests and reinstated as a Requested Move just wanted to clear a backlog and wasn't sure what to do with it.
I think your request there may have been a little overly wordy, which could have made it less clear to the editors who could act on it. You don't need to bring up anything about "blocking redirects" there. It should be assumed that any move at the Technical requests has a blocking redirect (that's exactly what the Technical requests are for). Saying "back to an older combination" may have also been confusing to potential movers.
I think I would have written something like "The currently accepted name for this species isBurara anadi, withBibasis anadi as a synonym", and nothing more than that.
Nominating a blocking redirect for speedy deletion via G6 and then moving the article yourself not the usual of accomplishing updates to scientific name, and I suspect there are fewer editors with deletion permissions monitoring G6 requests then there are editors with move permissions monitoring Technical move requests, so it may take longer to see the action you want if you go the G6 route than the Technical move route.Plantdrew (talk)21:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for time you committed to reviewing the DYK forAquilegia shockleyi. While I can testify from personal experience and some recent literature on the subject (including what I cited for my expansion ofAquilegia vulgaris) that some columbines are generally safe to eat, you've got a point in us erring to the side of caution. I would hate for someone to get the wrong idea about the safety of columbines when many speciesare toxic and those that are tend to hybridized with cultivated forms. I'm going to submit an alternative hook. Please let me know if you see any outstanding issues on the article. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)03:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectStrigosella (gastropodl) has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 19 § Strigosella (gastropodl) until a consensus is reached.Dsuke1998AEOS (talk)11:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
