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]
You're invited to thePhilodendron Garden Party!, which seeks to create and improve Wikipedia's coverage of the genusPhilodendron from April 15 to May 31. Feel free to share ideas and results!
Hello, I recently noticed you removed the status of thebocaccio rockfish for the Puget Sound population, as well as the general status.
While I agree that it isn't very common to have it in that format, I believe reinstating the status as two separate descriptions helps to provide more info on the status, especially in the Puget Sound population, providing insight into the fishery for that area. In accordance with theDistinct Population Segment listing as a separate entity under the endangered species act, listing them as separate will improve the information on the page, even if not in a traditional format.
NOAA bocaccio listings as separate pages to differentiate, for example:
Additionally, let me know if this is still the case to not include due to wikipedia policies, as I may have designated separate population segments on other pages, and I will accordingly remove them.
@Breezygamer117:, it hasn't come up enough for their to be a Wikipedia policy about it. There are a lot of governments and NGOs doing conservation statuses; many of these assess the status regionally, rather than globally. Wikipedia Taxoboxes parameters only supports a few status systems. When there's been discussion about adding support to the Taxobox for additional status systems used in a particular country, consensus has been that it should only be applied to endemic species (i.e., where a regional status is effectively also a global one). Taxobox support for the US Endangered Species Act has kind of been grandfathered in; it was added in the early days of Wikipedia.
Detailed regional or population-level conservation statuses can always be discussed in the body of an article, outside of the Taxobox.
But the primary reason I ended up removing all the statuses from bocaccio rockfish is that the references and parameters were messed up. The source for the the EN status of the Puget Sound population was the IUCN, and the source for the NT status was the NOAA page that mentioned that the Puget Sound population (and didn't mention a "near threatened" status for other populations).
The actual status in the IUCN Red List database is CR (which was done in 1998, before the most recent IUCN criteria were adopted). I find CR hard to believe. I wouldn't necessarily expect every IUCN assessed CR species to get listed under the ESA. But I would expect if CR status was warranted, the US government, at some point between 1998 and 2024, would have shut the fishery entirely. There are Rather than repeat an outdated IUCN status that I suspected was incorrect, I removed it entirely (but a case could be made for including it underWikipedia:Verifiability, not truth).
And if do want to include an ESA Endangered status in a taxobox, you should use "status = LE" and "status_system = ESA", not the IUCN parameters.Plantdrew (talk)02:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply, I found it very helpful! In that case, I'll add it as LE under ESA in that case, and leave off the Puget sound description. Also, I found an interesting report from 2017, which I'll read over before re-adding, but in all likelihood I'll add EN while citing the NOAA article.
@Jako96:,|name= is an ancientkludge. Taxoboxes were the first infoboxes, and|name= spread to other infoboxes as they were developed. As I understand it,|name= was intended to provide a title/header at the top of an infobox. I'm not sure why an infobox header was ever considered necessary, but modern infoboxes derive it from the article title without any need for|name= to be provided. And they do so in fairly sophisticated ways; infoboxes know to strip out any parenthetical disambiguation in the article title. For subject areas where titles are italicized, infoboxes provide italics not just for the infobox header, but the article titles as well (article titles aren't just italicized for species and genera, but also for creative works (sculptures, paintings, film, TV shows) and ships, among other topics).
There have been discussions about whether articles about higher taxa should be written in the singular or plural. The only documentation about this that I am aware of is it atWikipedia:WikiProject_Plants#Singular_and_plural_with_the_names_of_taxa, which says that either is acceptable (but grammar should be consistent with that choice).
Digging through the early archives ofWikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life andTemplate talk:Taxobox, I can't find any discussions about using|name= to pluralize the infobox header of higher taxa (and the examples of taxoboxes I came across include examples of both singular and plural headers).
The advice inTemplate:Taxobox#Name to pluralize infobox headers for higher taxa via|name= was originally added to Wikipedia inthis diff and appears to just be the preference of the editor who added it, apparently without any discussion. It is not a standard that was ever consistently adopted on Wikipedia. If there was actually consensus to pluralize infobox headers for higher taxa, it could be handled automatically in many cases, the same way that infobox headers now automatically handle italics and parenthetical disambiguation.
In short,|name= in infoboxes is relic of early Wikipedia history. There is no consensus to use it to pluralize taxobox headers, just an overlooked edit by a single editor in documentation that few people read. It is almost never necessary (the single current use case I see for it with taxoboxes is providing a reference for a vernacular name used as an article title).Plantdrew (talk)02:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general the name above the taxobox should match the article title. This was needed before the taxobox code could handle disambiguation.
The naming of Wikipedia articles favours the singular (seeWikipedia:Naming_conventions_(plurals). There are exceptions for classes of things (e.g.Romance languages and personally I would have included higher taxa in this. If the Latin of the taxon name is plural, using plural for vernacular name makes sense to me, and I think verterbates sounds more natural that vertebrate. But that's not the consensus view on Wikipedia. There is a specific exception for "irregular plurals whose usage far exceeds the usage of the singular", e.g.Bacteria andAlgae, which implies most other articles on taxa should use the singular. — Jts1882 | talk12:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jako96:, I don't think we should really be using the name parameter in ANY articles (it is only used in 5,389 of 86,486 Automatic taxoboxes).
@Jts1882:, I guess vertebrates does sound a little more natural, but I don't think the guidance should be to always use plural forms for higher taxa; it should be considered case by case. To me the plural seem more natural for something that the general public knows to be quite diverse (like vertebrates). "Giraffes" doesn't sound very natural, unless referring to multiple individuals. "Lavenders" doesn't sound very natural in any context.
The example in the Taxobox documentation is "marine hatchetfishes", and I'm not sure that is right. "Fishes" is fairly obscure plural form (except maybe to ichthyologists), and I'm not sure if fishes should be understood to be "different species of fish" or "different kinds of fish"; if it's the latter, are marine hatchetfish(es) more than one kind?
Then there are all the articles on animal families where -id is assumed to be a COMMONNAME (e.g.Icterid). The most recognizable -id family is surelyhominid, and that article uses|name= to give MSW as a reference for Hominidae.
I'll be more restrained in removing plurals from|name=, but overall most instances of|name= are useless if not harmful (i.e. breaking italic titling with manual taxoboxes).Plantdrew (talk)01:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit if a mess. I agree that a case by case treatment would be better, but should result in moving the article rather than using the name parameter. The name parameter shouldn't be used because the article is poorly named.
Icterid is a terrible name for the article. It's not theWP:COMMONNAME, it's just a vernacular name for the family, which is known as blackbirds or New World blackbirds depending on location. No one in the real world talks about icterids.
Fish and fishes is a convention used inFishes of the World. Multiple individuals of the same species are fish, multiple individuals from several species are fishes (see FotW5 Introduction, p7).
I think the name parameter should be used so the taxobox displays the taxon name. It's an infobox on the taxon and name parameter can be used there when the article title is the common name (it could also be automatic). There is no need to repeat the common name of the article title there. — Jts1882 | talk07:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need to repeat the article title (whether common or scientific name) at the top of an infobox at all. It seems to me it is just something Wikipedia does with most infoboxes without really thinking about it. Ships (e.g.Titanic) are so far the only infoboxes I've found that don't necessarily display the article title at the top of the infobox. But not repeating the title at the top of an infobox isn't a change I expect to see.
I hadn't thought about using name parameter to display scientific name when the article title was a vernacular name. I guess that is a potential use case. 21:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Plantdrew (talk)21:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Snoteleks:, I don't think I've been changing anything to lowercase (except for the second word of{{Automatic Taxobox}}, which is a redirect). I like to see the templates that appear at the top (Short description, Taxobox) and bottom (Reflist, Taxonbar) of every organism article consistently capitalized within an article, and I don't really come across articles where they are all consistently lowercase. But it isn't something that really matters.Plantdrew (talk)00:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've set the Tropicos record with the one r spelling to have Name Kind as Orthographic Variant.
Tropicos handles orthographic variants three ways, which I'm listing in the order they developed:
1. No separate record, correct spelling has orth vars listed under Annotations
2. Separate records for orth vars, status noted in Nomenclature Reason
3. Separate records, Name Kind is Orthographic Variant
I think #3 was implemented in 2022, and only 377 records use that option
Tropicos has had a lot of features added over the years, and the documentation hasn't really been updated since 2010. Like Wikipedia, there isn't much top down management. Nobody is tasked with adding newly published names, users add them as they have a need for Tropicos to include them. Nobody is tasked with ensuring that orthographic variants use Name Kind. Nobody is tasked with updating "caffra" epithets.Plantdrew (talk)19:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For your incessant work on taxonomy templates across all life, as well as your maintenance on all aspects of the project. Your perseverance is very much appreciated! —Snoteleks(talk)01:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the barnstar. I hope we can get something worked out soon to resolve displaying eukaryotes in protist articles and animal/fungi/plant articles. I was away from the internet for a few days and dropped a ball that I'd hoped would get picked up by other editors while I was away.Plantdrew (talk)02:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could give it a try, but I'm a bit confused on whether the main strategy should be making /displayed templates for protists or /skip templates for the other three groups. —Snoteleks(talk)10:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed an increase in editors writing things like "under the family X" or "under the genus Y" where I would write "in" instead of "under". I had wondered if this is an American usage, but I see that you have changed some to "in".Peter coxhead (talk)15:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were several new articles that showed up yesterday that were generated with this script:User:Element10101/autotaxon, which uses "under". I don't think "under" is matter of English variety. I think it is a matter of people who don't have a taxonomy background thinking of taxonomy as being something like a filing system, which is a context where "under" might be more appropriate.
At a bookstore: "you'll find Terry Pratchett's Night Watch novels under fantasy, not mystery" (and perhaps there are large overhead signs for genres at the end of the aisles, so the books are literally "under" something).
Thanks for the prompt reply. I've been reluctant to change "under" in case it was an ENGVAR issue, but I will in future. (The route from German sounds plausible, too.)Peter coxhead (talk)20:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Plantdrew. Your account has beengranted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names andmoving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind aredirect and movesubpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to reviewWikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especiallythe criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to followpost-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects whensuppressredirect is used. This can be done usingSpecial:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments tosecure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover statuscan be revoked.
AtPilocereus (which I notice you have edited), it is claimed that two names exist, one beingPilocereusK.Schum. This name isn't in IPNI, PoWO, WFO, etc. The only potentially reliable source I can find for this name is Tropicoshere. (The link to BHL isn't right; the correct link to the required 3(6a) isthis.) However, Schumann begins his account with "Pilocereus Lem.", showing that this is not intended to be a new name. So at first sight it seems that Tropicos is wrong, andPilocereus should be restored to being a redirect toCephalocereus (for which it is a surplus name).
The complication is that Schumann goes on to discuss his emendation ofCephalocereus, so divides the original meaning ofCephalocereusPfeiff. (May 1838) ≡PilocereusLem. (1839) ≡Cereus sect.CephalophoriLem. (Feb 1838), into two genera. In the last paragraph, he says (Google translate):
"Note: There is some uncertainty about the priority of the genus name. Previously, the two genera discussed last were generally grouped under the namePilocereus. However,Cephalocereus, coined by Pfeiffer in 1838, is undoubtedly older than this. ... The genusPilocereus, which had exactly the same content as the earlier [one], was not published by Lemaire until 1839. In theFlora Brasiliensis, I preferred the first-mentioned name for the genusPilocereus. Now, after becoming convinced of the necessity of a division, both names may be appropriate."
But I don't think that the division into two genera allows the establishment of a new name, "PilocereusK.Schum.", which I assume is the view of the other taxonomic databases, but we are getting into subtleties of the ICNafp here! I'd welcome your view; maybe you have contacts who can also comment.Peter coxhead (talk)14:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Tropicos, GRIN also has a record forthe K.Schum. name, but with him citing Lem. in his publication I agree that another name was not established. I'll take a look at the CITES Cactaceae Checklist that Tropicos cites as a source to see what exactly is in there. 21:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Plantdrew (talk)21:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CITES Cactaceae Checklist (ed. 2) lists bothPilocereusLemaire andPilocereusSchumann, Engler, Prantl, with the type of the former listed asCereus senilisHaw. and the type of the latter listed asPilocereus leucocephalusLemaire. And the former is listed as a synonym ofCephalocereus with the latter listed as a synonym ofPilosocereus.
I don't see that Schumann mentionsP. leucocephalus at all in your BHL link (and I'm not any other record besides the CITES Checklist for that name being attributed to Lemaire rather than Poselg.).
IPNI has a note (copied to Tropicos) that Lemaire designated two type species for hisPilocereus (one of which wasC. senilis).
It looks like the CITES Cactaceae Checklist may be basically nonsense with regards toPilocereusSchumann, Engler, Prantl, but I guess Tropicos is practicingWP:NOTTRUTH in reporting what the Checklist says.Plantdrew (talk)21:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Pilocereussensu K.Schum. (1894) non Lem. (1839)" is probably the best description of the supposed Schumann name.JSTOR45134083 andJSTOR45475966 are where the problem withPilocereus and the solution are discussed. The first has a succinct analysis of why Schumann's name can't be accepted, the second proposes the accepted solution, namely the new genus namePilosocereus.Peter coxhead (talk)10:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch with the references on JSTOR. That explains whereP. leucocephalus fits in, so I guess the Cactaceae Checklist isn't completely nonsense (but they do still get the authorship ofP. leucocephalus wrong).Plantdrew (talk)15:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Plantdrew, since I discovered that I did not provide an email address when creating my account under the name BlaUser234, and I did not remember my password, I thought it would be wise to create a new account. I could have waited, but I would have to someday, so I thought it better to just bite the bullet. Since I am now a 'new user', new articles are saved as draft and I cannot edit taxo-templates. Dont know if you are able to check draft articles and send them to Live, but if you do, would you be so kind to moveDraft:Elmomorphus to Live for me?B33tleMania12 (talk)08:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious, what was the transclusion count of the automatic taxobox system at the start of 2017? I know that in April, it was 14%. In the summer of 2016, I think the transclusion count was 7,700, but I am not sure. Do you know where I can go for more information. The transclusion count module only goes back to 2019. Thanks.The Knowledge Pirate (talk)02:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that a now-banned user (I forget their name, but I could figure it out if you are interested) made a significant effort to convert reptiles to automatic taxoboxes in the latter half of 2016, and I started doing automatic taxoboxes for plants in early 2017. Automatic taxoboxes have been increasingly used since 2017. Automatic taxoboxes weren't really viable until they were converted to Lua to avoid expansion depth errors which I believe happened in December 2016 (Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox/Archive_13#Lua_coding).Plantdrew (talk)03:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew:Could you take a look at "Bromus rubens" vs. Bromus madritensis when you get a chance?, the former currently as redirect. E.g. on POWO they're two current species (whatever the botany name is for 'valid' - accepted?). Anyway, the scheme on enwiki conflicts with most external presentations as two distinct species.Sjl197 (talk)04:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjl197:, I agree thatrubens should be treated as a species. It's a bit of a mess since one reference in themadritensis article (Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands) only addressesrubens (as a subspecies), and I don't know what circumscription is being used in another reference (Gray's Manual).
Technically the botany equivalent of "valid" is "correct name"; at least, that is the only equivalent term defined in the ICNafp. "Correct" is in the context of a particular circumscription and applying the principles of the code (priority, etc.). In practice, I don't think anybody really talks about "correct names", and "accepted name" is more widely used (including by POWO).
Thanks for taking a look, just one of a multitude of subjective synonyms that can vary in presentation across resources. As you had edited on "madritensis" before and then tweeked that "rubens" redirect long ago, i decided just to point out the apparent discrepancies. I see you'd edited a bit more on the enwikiBromus madritensis page today. As for the iNat, then that nominate subspecies looks to simply be a historical legacy hangover. That subspecies isn't a new creation - it's an old import from "www.ubio.org" which hasn't worked in a fair while (and included some awful misspellings when it did work!). I could simply eliminate that redundant nominate subpsecies at the iNat end by merger to the parent, but i remain wary about rubens especially - and some recent users have deliberately selected that "madritensis ssp. madritensis" for their identifications, maybe they're considering others as alternative subspecies. Practical viewpoint is the iNat scheme used to have Bromus madritensis rubens there also, but it was moved (for better or worse) to Bromus rubens more than a decade ago.[5]
Else, thanks for the reminder of the botanical terminology, there's often such nuance for the technicalities and then applies reality! I'm going to go back to issues with animals and sorry for disturbing you to take a look, if you're happy to leave things as they are at this end, your call of course. Cheers!
Having spent too long researchingUrtica ×oblongata, I suspect that although it's in PoWO, it's not notable. I haven't found any evidence that it was found more than once, and that in 1833, and there appears to be no known specimen. (There's also some confusion over where it was published. PoWO has "Fl. Steierm.: 63 (1868)", which is the reference I've put in the article. IPNI has "Fl. N. Steierm. 63" with no date. This abbreviation isn't explained but I do wonder if the "N." refers to "Nachträge" (addenda); TL mentions at least one, but then the page would be wrong. Oh how researching taxonomy can eat up time!)Peter coxhead (talk)16:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, The Explaner didn't provide a source. That source does not use a monotypic Cynoidea. Also I tried to fix that Canoidea "problem" (idk if it's a problem or not, UtherSRG agreed it should be fixed) but The Explaner reverted me and UtherSRG.Jako96 (talk)21:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"These clades are the infraorders Aeluroidea (comprising the families Felidae, Viverridae, Nandiniidae, Prionodontidae, Eupleridae, Herpestidae and Hyaenidae), Arctoidea (Ursidae, Procyonidae, Ailuridae, Mustelidae, Mephitidae, Phocidae, Odobenidae and Otariidae) and Cynoidea (Canidae). The aeluroids, possibly together with the extinct group Nimravidae, form the suborder Feliformia; while the cynoids and arctoids, together with the extinct family Amphicyonidae, form the suborder Caniformia (see, e.g. Flynn et al. 2010 for review of phylogenetic relationships within the crown-group Carnivora and among important stem taxa)."
That supports Cynoidea as a monotypic infraorder, with parent as Caniformia. I don't know that Canoidea needs to be in taxonomy templates at all.
I checked the Flynn publication, and there is a cladogram with Caniformia(amphicyonid+Canoidea(Canidae+Arctoidea). No ranks are given there. But Flynn does say "...Amphicyonidae as basal caniforms, weakly supported as the sister clade to crown-clade caniforms (Canoidea)."Plantdrew (talk)21:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've just created theLagrioididae beetle family. Do you know how to make the taxobox add Lagrioida to the box, as it is the only genus in this family? I see you tinker around with the taxoboxs a fair bit, so I presume you'd have some idea. Many thanksAxonsArachnida (talk)08:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the genus to the|subdivision= parameter withthis edit. Is this what you wanted? If the family is monotypic, the article should probably be at the genus name. — Jts1882 | talk09:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to thank you for fixing incorrect WikiProjects on talk pages that I've left. I was under the mistaken impression for the longest time about Tree of Life, and I suppose it's a good time as ever to fess up and offer you my gratitude for cleaning up./over.throws/✎17:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to apologize for my harshness on the RfD page yesterday. My brain was stuck on a narrow definition for "Erumpent" in the context of Harry Potter. It looks like you have a long history of working with plants and other species on Wikipedia, which is really cool. Keep it up!TNstingray (talk)11:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hey again. Regardingdiff... Personally I've moved away from citing iNaturalist because someone told me one time that it isWP:SELFPUB. What are your own thoughts on it? Is it acceptable always, acceptable as a second citation, or should be avoided? Thanks. –Novem Linguae(talk)03:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might have been somebody who told you to avoid iNaturalist because it is self published. I don't like citing it, but it is one of the few databases that may give an infrafamily classification. I don't like citing NCBI either, but it also may have an infrafamily classification, and I'd prefer to cite it before iNaturalist. At this point, out of the all-taxa databases, I feel pretty good about citing Catalogue of Life for inframily classifications if CoL gives them, rather than iNat of NCBI (and there are bunch of taxon-specific databases that are good for infrafamily classifications).
As far as I've seen, iNat doesn't give a source for its infrafamily classifications (but it takes a little more digging than I usually do the check whether there is a source). NCBI usually doesn't have source, but it doesn't take any digging to check whether there is, and when there is a source it's usually a good one (i.e. a recent phylogenetic study with a large number of co-authors). CoL ishttps://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/51015-Alcyonacea also deficient in providing sources without doing some digging into databases contributing to CoL, but CoL is increasingly well curated.
ForAfraltha, the article mentions it is in subfamily Limacodinae, the subfamily was listed in the manual taxobox, and theLimacodinae article also includes. Given that situation, my inclination was to add iNat as an additional source in the taxonomy template to support Limacodinae as the parent (no other taxonbar database forAfraltha give it a subfamily), while keeping the CoL reference in the taxonomy template as a more reliable source.
In short, I think iNat is sometimes acceptable as a second citation if iNat includes classification at minor ranks that aren't included in other databases. Recent phylogenetic studies that are widely accepted by the relevant community of experts could be better than any database for minor rank classification, but I'm not usually exercising that level of diligence for most organisms (I have done this when editing taxonomy templates for plants).Plantdrew (talk)05:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll echo the comment on CoL becoming increasingly well curated. It's source databases are in many cases very good and many others are the only option. In some areas it is poor, surprisingly in vertebrates, where at least there are well know alternatives.
I also have questions about iNaturalist for taxonomy, which is not its main purpose. It does source material from Wikipedia, so there is a danger that its taxonomy comes from Wikipedia (e.g.this page) or Wikispecies. In many cases the reasons for taxonomic changes are documented, with sources (e.g. seeexample orlist here), in which case that source given can be used. I'd be reluctant to cite it for the taxonomy when no source is given. On the other hand, for taxonomy templates there is often no source given at all. — Jts1882 | talk08:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing my template mistake! I will readily admit I had no experience with how to use those templates - when I changed it the speciesbox for Erysiphaceae species articles now displayed the correct order so I thought I might've done the right thing lol
However, they still show the correct order now, so I will leave the speciesboxes very much alone from now on!
@Alexoutside:, the proper thing to do here was to change|parent= inTemplate:Taxonomy/Erysiphaceae from Erysiphales to Helotiales (which I did). Changing|link= inTemplate:Taxonomy/Erysiphales as you did works in terms of making taxoboxes display how you wanted them to, but it makes things more confusing down the road (since that produces a mismatch between the name of the template and the taxon it displays).Plantdrew (talk)21:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I thought it might have been down to you that it still worked!
Ooh I've also got one question if you don't mind: What more can I do to get the Erysiphaceae article above C-Class? I really did think it was a substantial improvement on its predecessor which was also graded C. Thanks!Alexoutside (talk)22:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the heads up about those two redirects – I'll replace them with redirects to my latest work-in-progress page, a list of every powdery mildew species by host plant genus, when it is finished.Alexoutside (talk)07:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mZackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions toPlatambus. When you were adding content to the page, you addedduplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use thepreview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)20:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, no tools, just a mistake when trying to delete "binomial". I didn't think I was making it that much; I think the occasional mistake the other way with "uthority" may slip through as well. And the only use of{{Automatic axobox}} that I just corrected was from one of my prior edits.Plantdrew (talk)17:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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.
The redirectBlue licorice 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/2025 July 8 § Blue licorice until a consensus is reached.Cremastra (talk)21:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
/over.throws/✎17:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
