User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Mostly the virus editors were concerned that they couldn't easily edit taxonomies. The interface was too daunting to them. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bob the Wikipedian: ah, right. There are certainly still editors around who take the view that the automated taxobox system is too difficult to use. The result, however, is that virus articles are wildly inconsistent in minor details like the italicization of taxon names, and sometimes in major details of the taxonomy. Sigh...

By the way, I wrote this for "old hands" like you, should you want to work on the system again in future. Any comments on it would be very welcome. It really is an amazing system that Martin and you built, especially given that the template language is so unsuited to the task!

I'm still trying to tidy up. At the moment, I'm having some problem understanding how the "preload" part of the system works; when I edit any taxonomy template, I see the edit notice twice. I think it might be because the edit notices are produced by templates like {{Taxonomy/preload}} which themselves have titles that trigger the group edit notice. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there any way to get a full list of all taxons whose immediate parent is listed as being Sauria? I want to make sure that there aren't any which use the old definition of "Sauria". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: if you mean all taxonomy templates with |parent=Sauria, then in the search box type the following:

Template:Taxonomy insource:"parent Sauria"

This finds all pages whose titles start with "Template:Taxonomy" and which contain "parent" and "Sauria" with only 'grey space' between. (It's also possible to construct a regular expression to include the "=" and search for that in the source, but it doesn't seem necessary in this case.)

The 8 results are here. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I wanted. I was just checking that none of them are subgroups of lizards. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you know anything of the current status of Linnaea amabilis? The eponymous article says it was formerly known as Kolkwitzia amabilis, but TPL does not list the name Linnaea amabilis either under Linnaea or as a synonym of Kolkwitzia amabilis. Plantsurfer 11:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@

Linnaea amabilis

, Christenhusz says "Of course the delimitation of genera is arbitrary, and depends on tradition and preference of the user. Here, I am merely making the names available to provide a choice. It is up to users, ultimately, to decide what generic system is preferable and which names will be accepted in future treatments of Caprifoliaceae." We shouldn't be using this name, in my view, unless and until there are reliable secondary sources that do so. I couldn't find one that does.

An IP, 82.41.33.206, started the process off; the actual move was made by Chiswick Chap. I note also edits by Sminthopsis84. My inclination, subject to comments by them, is to move it back, noting the possibility of a change of name to Linnaea amabilis. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have an opinion on which name should be used (not a huge fan of enforcing monophylly). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I wasn't aware of that. I saw taxonbars been added to other species accounts I started so I began adding them myself. I will cease and desist now because if the spider ones are incorrect then i imagine the others probably have issues too. Quetzal1964 10:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Quetzal1964: I'm not saying that the template doesn't have value in all cases, but the problem is that it just picks up the taxonomic databases that Wikidata editors have added, and their value varies dramatically from group to group. So you do need to look at the links {{taxonbar}} produces for any given group of organisms. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your editing Peter. This was my first time editing the Wikipedia. See, I didn't know that adding a theory is not ok if you are yourself the author (provided the description is objective). I wanted to highlight that it is to date the only falsifiable theory on the topic, but I understand now that it can be seen as an "endorsement" (from the Wikipedia entry). I am completely ok with removing that last sentence (about falsifiability) if it is necessary.

As for the "need evidence of notability by other sources", I'm not sure if that must be provided by the person making the change or something to be assessed by the editor (in this case, you). For what it's worth, my theoretical work was already cited (its pre-print version, actually) in the book Regenerative Medicine - from Protocol to Patient (1. Biology of Tissue Regeneration) (

@FelipeVeloso: Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of accepted knowledge ... written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia (taken from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). So apart from the issue of a conflict of interest in adding material based on your own publication, the questions that remain are:

• Is it "accepted knowledge"? In my view, clearly not. It will take several years to know whether your ideas get picked up by others.
• Can it be explained in a way that can be understood by "any literate reader"? All I can say is that I have a background in physical chemistry, zoology and computer science, but I still find your paper impossible to recast in a form that could be readily understood. (By the way, the poor English in the "highlights" box here doesn't help in this respect.)

None of this is to say that your paper isn't interesting or valuable, only that (as yet) it's not appropriate as a source for Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thank you Peter. Right, so adding material based on one's own publication is a no-go, and that is that. Regarding the remaining questions:

• In your view my work is not only not "accepted knowledge" (fair enough) but it will take several years to know whether the work gets picked up by others. In an attempt to explore the "accepted knowledge" standard, I took a look at the subsection GK-PID, which describes a very recent work (2016). It turns out the GK-PID work has been cited in two research articles and it was also discussed once in the New York Times (science column). Incidentally, the GK-PID work presents an experimental result that accounts for a necessary condition for animal multicellularity. I quote eLife's Digest: "This fortuitous resemblance between two unrelated molecules thus set the stage for the simple evolution of a function that is now essential to the complexity of multicellular animals." It is not a hypothesis of origin. Thus, you may want to move this subsection from the "Hypotheses for origin" section to the "Evolutionary history" section (since Wikipedia is a collaborative project I take it you welcome suggestions). Back to the point, the entry Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states "Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." What I understand from this, in practical terms, is that the GK-PID article was considered "accepted knowledge" because it has been cited twice—and not rejecting its results—in the scientific literature (I do not think the NYT column made a difference). Is this correct?

• I am very sorry for the poor English in the "highlights" box. Thank you for pointing this out for me. The most worrisome part for me, however, is where you say "I *still find* your paper impossible to recast in a form that could be readily understood" (asterisks are mine). Maybe it is my bad English, but "still find my paper…" seems to imply you already read the whole paper (more than once maybe?) and you found it impossible to recast in a form that could be readily understood. Is this the case? If it is, that is really bad news for me. Or was it you were discouraged by the poor English in the "highlights" to read any further instead? Sorry again for the probably poor English in this reply. Thanks! FelipeVeloso

Hi Peter, could you move Oidium (fungus) to Oidium (genus)? I moved the other way and made myself unable to reverse the move before I realized that Oidium (spore) was also a fungal topic. I'm working on disambiguating links now; [[Oidium] should really be a dab page as almost none of the links intend the spore type. Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I think I did the basic cleaning up, but please check. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean blanking unnecessary and unused taxonomy templates? I'm not blanking any taxoboxes.

If so, the answer is that it's because they are both unnecessary (i.e. redundant) and unused. Their existence makes maintaining taxonomy templates harder. When I've finished working through potential cases, I'll ask for all of those in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates to be deleted. Do you see a problem? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, pardon, that is what I meant. How was it making maintenance harder? I guess I don't see a problem; it seemed interesting to have a database of taxa, but if it is causing problems then oh well. I notice

Eubalaena australis doesn't use template:Taxonomy/Eubalaena australis – is that capability of Speciesbox new? If so do you know why that change was made? It seems like an odd one-off in behavior. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs

) 17:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me expand on what I mean by "odd one-off" – if you had been working with these for a bit you'd expect to need a template for every taxon. Then if you run across a page like Protosialis casca, you'd of course expect to need a template for Protosialis casca. But... you don't for some reason? *I* know about how we don't usually have species articles for monospecific genera, so I can sort of guess maybe why this was done, but it's weird. For a noob I would imagine it is mystifying. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

(We had an edit conflict, so I wrote the bit below before seeing your last post above.)

No, it's not a new capability of {{Speciesbox}}; it's what it was written for in February 2011. When {{Automatic taxobox}} was first developed from July 2010 onwards, it was necessary to have a taxonomy template for each species. However, if you think about it, these are usually pointless. We know that species X y has parent X unless there is a rank being used between species and genus (e.g. subgenus, botanical section or series). So {{Speciesbox}} has always only looked at the taxonomy template for the genus, which it initially found from |genus= and can now also find by splitting up |taxon=. So almost all species taxonomy templates are unnecessary and unused. A few (less than 5% in my experience) were used because the article used {{Automatic taxobox}} instead of {{Speciesbox}} – often because the taxobox was added early on in the history of automated taxoboxes. I've been working at replacing these uses. Even fewer taxonomy templates (I suspect fewer than 100, but I'm not sure yet) are needed either because a rank lower than genus is being used or because of some special factor (e.g. a genus name plus a ? is being displayed).

The disadvantages of leaving unnecessary and unused taxonomy templates for species in place are:

• The general undesirability in a database of having redundant information, which can lead to inconsistencies. I've found at least two species taxonomy templates – fortunately not used in any articles – which had as their parent a genus other than the one in the species binomial.
• It allows or even encourages the use of {{Automatic taxobox}} instead of the correct {{Speciesbox}}. The latter requires one less step in the expansion of the taxonomic hierarchy; small, but significant when repeated over many species articles. Automated taxoboxes already slow down page loading and consume resources. We should encourage the use of {{Speciesbox}} for both old and new articles; for new articles, it avoids the parallel need to create a species taxonomy template.
• The more unnecessary taxonomy templates there are, the harder it is to keep track of them and maintain them. (A bot has just removed |{{{1}}} from every taxonomy template, for example.)

I'm happy to discuss this further if you want. Unfortunately, from my perspective, there seem to be few if any editors around now who are willing to work on the "insides" of the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Responding to your last post, there is a brief explanation in the documentation for {{Speciesbox}}, including the example at Template:Speciesbox#Monospecific genera. I have expanded and tried to clarify WP:Automated taxobox system/which. If you can suggest further ways of getting this across, it would be helpful. (P.S. not around for a bit now.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it intentional that, in a species article, we see the tribe in the taxobox? I thought we would generally only want second-order ranks in taxoboxes for the next lower major rank; e.g. we would generally show tribe in genus-level taxoboxes, not species ones. (This bug goes back to my point above about species being a special case when it shouldn't be.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@ErikHaugen: a good question, and this is caused by what, on reflection, might have been an error on my part.

I ought to have tried to get some input from other editors before making the change noted at Template talk:Speciesbox#Incorrect code for default display parents, which I hadn't fully thought through. I've posted a query at Template talk:Speciesbox#Default number of parent taxa displayed; if you can help to advertise the discussion, it would be good. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Having seen you remove the dates from the

Yes, you're right of course (about the ICN, not sure about the ICZN). As I understand the ICN, only a sub-generic taxon can have a second name, because "(Smith) Jones" means that Jones moved the taxon from the genus in which Smith placed it. I suppose it could be "Smith emend. Jones"? But I didn't actually check that the authority was correct; I note that a primary source was given, which is wrong anyway. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter!
Hope all is well with you. Just popping in out of the blue, as usual :). I almost got ambitious enough to draft a stub (focussing on a certain spider species), then caught myself up in reality: I temporarily only have use of an old, non-updatable (and screen-cracked) iPhone, which makes even very simple editing difficult. An article, even a stub, I realized, would be more than I can presently chew. So, anyway, I found this: http://www.museunacional.ufrj.br/mndi/Aracnologia/pdfliteratura/papers%20hickman.htm …you may find it helpful in creating/editing some spider articles. In particular, check out the PDF links, some (or all; haven't checked) which have complete scientific descriptions and excellent illustrations. Just thought I'd pass it along.
Aside: Wish us in the U.S. fortitude in the coming years—we will need it (we're not all crazy here, yet).
Peace to you! Hamamelis (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi in return! If you are interested in creating/editing spider articles, when you get better access to Wikipedia, if you register at the World Spider Catalog website, you can access the large number of articles they have copies of there. Thanks for the link; it does look interesting. I've been tied up for the last six weeks or so working on the underlying code of the autotaxobox system – no-one else seems to be maintaining it at present, unfortunately – I'd like to get back to articles!

From my perspective, it's also crazy over here: an overwhelming vote in the British House of Commons for a decision most MPs rightly know is a bad one. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You are a dedicated guy, Peter! Hope you're able to spend more time with article creation soon. You do such a wonderful job when you do, and it's clearly the most satisfying part of editing for you. Also thank you for encouraging me to make spider articles. I'll be sure to register at the WSC, as well as ask you for your input, when I am finally able.
Yes, the decision to pursue Brexit, which I assume you're referring to, seems foolish to me; I think those that voted for it (in the public referendum) didn't realize what position Britain holds economically, nor what they are giving up, and in what an uncertain place this puts all of you. As I understand it, the referendum isn't automatically a done deal upon the public vote, and could have just as easily, in a legal sense, been decided a bad idea. But, unfortunately, there isn't the political will to be seen as "against" the people who voted for it, nor apparently the forsight to override this lack of will. I learned just last year that the U.K. doesn't have a constitution, which surprised me, but were you to have had one (according to several Brit callers on a live podcast I regularly listen to), it may have offered some guidance to, and political cover for, politicians. Not being from Britain, I don't understand the full nuance of what they meant, since a constitution can be written many ways. I would greatly enjoy anything you would want to explain to me about this, but will completely understand if you are reticent to do so here. Either way, I appreciate what you do! Hamamelis (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got a point there, yes, and I meant to explicitly acknowledge that at the previous reply. The problem is that I feel uncomfortable whipping up a full explanation for the Lepidoptera categorization at the level of project documentation/guideline on my own, because I can hardly declare for the full project what's appropriate or not. That was what I aimed at with the 'folks don't seem to be interested in infrastructure/maintenance'; I can hardly build consensus when there's just about no one to build consensus with. Additionally, in effect, the WikiProject has been an inch away from death since long before I even joined Wikipedia. Other than the main project talkpage which every now and then gets used in the hope to catch a few more eyes on a particular issue—and then half the time, the responses are from folks from other parts of the Tree of Life anyway—the project is inactive as project. There's just a bunch of Lepidoptera editors working mostly on their own under the very, very, very loose umbrella of WikiProject Lepidoptera; and other than stub-creation, I'm pretty sure a most of the Lepidoptera work isn't even done by those who consider themselves (Wikiproject) Lepidoptera editors. You, Plantdrew, SchreiberBike, William Avery, Od Mishehu, and in regards to stub-sorting, some of that project's members. But excuse my rambling and ranting, please. I suppose I'm just hitting the wall of 'this is starting to feel like an exercise in futility' again. There's something depressing about making a couple thousand maintenance/infrastructure-related edits in two weeks and knowing that represents just about no progress when compared to the sheer size of backlog and maintenance issues involved. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:BOLD applies! Peter coxhead (talk

) 09:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I noticed as much in regards to Spiders, and I've started helping out there a bit. I'm familiar enough with the terminology to do so, which helps. Needed something to do between the endless redirect-from-alternative-scientific-name tagging, CS1-error repairing, infobox cleaning, NHM-link shortening, moving monotypic moth genera to the right title through round-robin swaps, categorizing, categorizing, categorizing and all that rot.

As far as the autotaxobox system goes, I did notice your great work there and I'm attempting to catch up onto developments there with an eye on helping out in the future, and I'm now at least familiar enough with the system that I used speciesbox rather than taxobox on the last few spider species stubs I created, and converted the taxobox to speciesbox on the other ones I created this month. (And in one case, an actual autotaxobox including the creation of a few taxonomy templates. Would you mind double-checking Template:Taxonomy/Psychodidae, Template:Taxonomy/Psychodinae, Template:Taxonomy/Maruinini and Template:Taxonomy/Alloeodidicrum to see if I did it right? If so, I'll see about using the system from now on for at least the 'simple' cases. It'll be a while before I get around to mastering its intricacies in cases like monotypic taxa and such, though. Might even start converting a few taxoboxes within Lepidoptera when I'm doing some mass-work on specific articles (rather than mass-scale small work on many articles), see if it sticks. If/when you've got more queries, feel free to ping me and I'll see if I have an opinion or suggestions. Mostly I'm just rolling-with-the-punches, though, as a result of working within the massive mess ("messive"?) that is WikiProject Lepidoptera. So long as something makes some measure of sense, I'm generally okay enough with it, at least for the time being, because that still puts it miles above the state many other things are at; and while 'makes perfect sense and is ideal' is preferred, I have to prioritize. Anything that vaguely resembles or approaches both 'workable' and 'working' by definition ends up pretty low on the priority list unless I'm specifically requested to look at it.

Regarding categorization documentation: I know bold applies, but...dunno, something feels wrong about single-handedly creating documentation for a wikiproject. (Then again, something feels wrong about *all* this. How many genuinely active folks do we even have left across the entire Tree of Life and its many subprojects? I once calculated on Plantdrew's talkpage that organism/taxa-articles likely make up around 8% of all articles on en.wiki. (And about a quarter of it is Lepidoptera-related) I doubt we even have so much as 0.8% of all active editors working on tree of life stuff. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't have so much as 0.08% of all active editors in most corners. Maybe not even Tree-of-Life wide, depending on one's definition of an 'active' editor) But I suppose I will, since it clearly ought to be done by someone and I suspect that, like many other tasks, if not me then no one before the end of this decade. Trying to simultaneously prevent myself from feeling like I

own

those tasks, but not always easy when you genuinely are the only one doing something systematically.

Any chance that you'd be willing to lend a hand here and there? Even though you're not a member of WikiProject Lepidoptera, you're part of the larger 'overhead' project Tree of Life, and you have experience drafting categorization documentation. Even if nothing else, it'd be good to have someone helping me double-check my explanations and reasoning make some measure of sense and all that? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: first re the taxonomy templates: yes, they are ok.

• The ranks don't need capital letters in future (the processing code begins by converting the taxonomy template's value to lower case), but it doesn't matter – the only thing that matters about the rank is using the Latin name. (There's an error-tracking category where the page will appear if the rank isn't recognized: Category:Taxonomy templates using unrecognized rank parameters.)
• I recommend just deleting |extinct= if it the taxon isn't extinct. The original code took any non-blank value as "true", so |extinct=no actually meant "extinct"! I think I've fixed the system so this isn't the case now, but it's a bit of an invitation to fill something if you leave |extinct= without a value, and it's possible that there's some code somewhere that still isn't right.
• On the other hand, I am in favour, wherever possible, of supplying a source for the value of parent, so where there isn't a ref readily to hand, I leave |refs= in hopes.

Re helping with documenting Lepidoptera categorization, I'm certainly happy to look over and comment on whatever you get round to writing. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, those comments make sense. Will see about removing extinct= where not needed. I'll see about hunting down a ref or two for the templates, too.

Great! No clue exactly when I'll get around to writing it up, but I'll try to get at least some basics done soon. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it safe to assume that Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates for species is suitable for deletion? Primefac (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: yes, given that all of its contents have been deleted – I hadn't got round to nominating it for deletion. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to thank you for deleting the templates themselves. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, it's been deleted. I'm just glad I'm able to batch delete - 1000 manual deletions would have been a nightmare! Primefac (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I've found a couple of templates that I blanked but by error didn't put in the category:

• Template:Taxonomy/Potamotrygon magdalenae
• Template:Taxonomy/Rhizopus_nigricans

I've marked them for deletion. Maybe you can do it if no-one else does first? Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, hardly time to save the change to my talk page! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that a bunch of new spider articles have been created recently that aren't showing up in User:AlexNewArtBot/ArthropodsSearchResult (e.g. Mogrus dalmasi). The new articles using automatic taxoboxes, which means that the keywords (e.g. Arthropoda) the bot uses to detect whether an article is about an arthropod aren't present in the article source. Would you be interested in setting up a new article report specifically for spiders? The other option would be just be to add spider as a keyword for the arthropod report. Plantdrew (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As you're aware, I haven't been working on articles of any kind much lately, only taxoboxes. This seems to be coming to an end, and I've enjoyed working on some plant articles (Hypertelis, Kewa acida, and currently Chamaenerion). When I did check spider articles regularly, I tended to rely on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders#Hot articles.

I'm ambivalent about a new article report. On the one hand, there should be enough spider articles to make it worthwhile. On the other hand, how many people will monitor such a report? Is it more likely that the arthropods report will be better watched? So I really don't know whether it's better to add to the keywords the bot uses for the arthropod report, or create a new one. Either way, the instructions at User:AlexNewArtBot look quite complicated! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I may be the only person who regularly monitors any of the organism related new article reports. Though I suppose that's self-reinforcing; as long as somebody is checking new articles, there's no reason for anybody else to step in. I'll just add the keyword to the arthropod report. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears that a blank value for |name= overrides italicization of the title in the case of {{automatic taxobox}}, as can be seen here. With speciesboxes the italicization is much harder to break with values in |name= (to the point that there's a special |italic_title just so asparagus doesn't have an italicized title). Automatic taxoboxes ought to not drop italics when |name= is blank. Plantdrew (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: as I think you know, I altered the code dealing with italicization in {{Speciesbox}} – I was going to write "fixed the code", but it's not so simple. There are two separate sets of problems.

• First, as I've noted before, there's the design decision made by those who first worked on automated taxoboxes that they would pick up information from the page title, so that as few parameters as possible needed to be given. This requires very convoluted code to deal with all the possible cases when the page title, taxobox name and taxon name are in any way different, including in their italicization. Dealing with all the cases that can occur is very tricky. I don't think I've managed to cover all of these in my changes to Speciesbox, though I'm pleased that you say that "italicization is much harder to break".
• Second, existing taxoboxes contain fixes for the previous behaviour of the automated taxobox templates. If changes are made to this behaviour, some of these fixes are bound not to work, so the articles need "re-fixes". This is certainly the case for my changes to Speciesbox; to get the italicization right, |taxon= now has to be specified in some cases where it didn't before.

I was aware that {{Automatic taxobox}} also needed to be looked at. I'm currently ploughing my way slowly through the 100-odd problematic spider taxoboxes you identified. Predictably, the articles are usually in need of quite major changes as well (usually the list of species in the genus is unreferenced and now incorrect). So I'm not sure when I'll get back to looking at taxobox template code. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anyone else working on it at present, which is a real problem. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Just wondering why you emptied the above category.

Thanks Gjs238 (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:PLANTS suggests 10–100 entries, which I tend to favour, although in my experience when there's been discussion about category sizes the majority view has been that 10 is too small. If you look for blue links at List of Trechaleidae species, at present there are almost no articles. When there are enough, sure, create a category. Until then, what's the point? How does it help readers (given that the list article exists)? It's just one more category to be maintained by a vanishingly small number of spider editors. Peter coxhead (talk

) 17:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your visit to the talk page. You'll see I've spent a bit of time getting the article somewhat more respectable (refs, covering the main points). I'd be glad for your thoughts on what is still missing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen your good work. It's a difficult topic, not only because of its complexity, but because of its contentious nature – sometimes the literature has as much heat as light! I'm really bogged down in spiders at the moment, but it's an article I'd like to look at again. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You may recall our discussion as to whether it was necessary to cite the exact page in articles. Well, I submitted my first article for a FA review and was opposed on my first attempt because I had not included the specific page in citations to articles. So you were correct. Different to academic style. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: but although I can't immediately find the diff, I've also had the reverse – page links to articles being removed on the grounds that they were only necessary in books. So at, e.g., Avicularia_juruensis (I've been working on spiders lately), I didn't use {{sfnp}} even though the main source is a 185 page article. There's just no consistency in referencing styles and requirements. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is why its so curious some people feel so strongly about imposing style. However when you are up for FA you don't argue! I did question it though and the reply was - well articles longer than 3 pages. (yes I did notice your activity, I have only contributed a couple of Zoology articles - I'm trying to specialise!) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

On 14 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Erythranthe peregrina, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Erythranthe peregrina (pictured) is a rare example of a species developing in multiple locations from parents that normally produce sterile hybrids? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erythranthe peregrina. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Erythranthe peregrina), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Peter,

Hat tip for your excellent work at the Aviculariinae article. It was a surprise to see the article pop up on my watch list and even more of a surprise to find this was a sizeable extension rather than a random bot edit. The result is certainly an improvement over the stubby it has been the last couple years. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 00:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Excirial: thanks. It's all due to the publication of this paper earlier this month! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I could use your opinion on something I just stumbled across. "Oligoxystre" seems to be the synonym for both a genus of cacti and a genus of spiders. It looks like you deleted the actual "Oligoxystre" page without leaving a redirect, which is fine. Currently, I have the page redirecting to Dolichothele with an "about" tag at the top, but I'm probably not as well-read at the WP general rules as you are, so I thought I'd ask your opinion on this. Would it be better to make the actual "Oligoxystre" page a disambig or to leave it as is? I don't know how well-known the cactus synonym is, but it doesn't seem to be as well known / widely used as the spider one is (though both are rather lesser known synonyms) Sesamehoneytart 19:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Not leaving a redirect was actually forgetfulness on my part; I meant to sort this out. Thanks for the note here. Google searching suggests that the spider synonym is much better known, so I agree that

Oligoxystre should redirect to Dolichothele. When there are only two meanings and one is more common than the other, a redirect plus a hatnote seems to be the preferred solution. There are too many hatnote templates for me to remember, but I think {{Redirect}} is the right one here. Peter coxhead (talk

) 19:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

...at the WikiProject Medicine discussion on image OR and WP:VER violation. Be sure to have a look in. Matter is lost, as far as I can tell, because of the chef de ré·sis·tance, in particular. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw. The view that it's ok to upload images labelled with whatever the uploader thinks is correct and then use them in articles without any warning is deeply embedded in the English Wikipedia, and unlikely to be changed, I fear. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! I see you are a plantsman, and wonder if you could help me. I'm trying to find out more about an old strawberry variety called "Trollope's Victoria". It was around in the 19th century, some American works call it "an old English variety". What interests me is the Trollope - an ancestor of mine, James Trollope, was gardener at Marston Rectory in Somerset in the 19th C, and we have an old pen and ink sketch of a "most remarkable strawberry" he grew there, so of course I was wondering if he was the Trollope of Trollope's Victoria. His son Josiah was head gardener at Longleat. DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I don't know anything about strawberry cultivars, I'm afraid. I have in the past searched for information on old pelargonium cultivars (I grow quite a few), without much success. Sometimes you find that there has been research done on a group of plants; old catalogues seem to be the main source of information, but they don't tend to have been scanned and put online. Your suggestion seems plausible from the limited information thrown up by Google searches. Did you come across this? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, yes I'd seen the Rootsweb thread - Josiah, son of James and Eliza, and who married Julia Galpin, was the Longleat head gardener. I did email the person who posted the thread some time ago, but had no reply - but now you've reminded me of it I will try again. I'm planning some family research at the local library soon, so will ask there if they know of any good resources for old cultivars, and keep my eyes open for old plant catalogues at boot sales. If anything turns up about pelargoniums (pelargonia? I must admit I still tend to call them geraniums. They're about the only thing apart from an ancient Tradescantia I can successfully grow in my little flat) I'll let you know. Thanks again for trying, DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You mentioned the gastropod taxoboxes on my talk page earlier this year and I never responded. I agree that they are quite a mess. Just in terms of formatting, there's always a blank line (unless all the clades are placed on a single line). In articles near the top of the clade hierarchy, the blank line makes me tend to misread the taxobox; nudibranch looks like it is one of 3 sister clades within Heteroneura, not that it's nested 3 steps down from Heteroneura.

Taxobox supports more than enough unranked parameters between class and superfamily to hold all clades. Perhaps there weren't enough parameters when the system of shoving everything into unranked_superfamilia was established. But at present, gastropods aren't really using manual taxoboxes correctly.

I have no idea where to go to get an up to date classification of gastropods. Originally it was supposed to follow Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005), as reflected in WoRMS. Bouchet & Recroi is 12 years old, and WoRMS continues to update. There's Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005, but there are entire groups missing and it hasn't really been maintained since 2014. Then there's Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_6#Taxonomy discusssing how WoRMS should not be used, because they omit some clades that don't fit into their (rank-based) classification.

Unfortunately, I think you may have set back chances of adopting automatic taxoboxes for gastropods; your comments at Template talk:Taxonomy/Cladobranchia lead to discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Automatic_taxoboxes where one editor was pretty vehemently against automatic taxoboxes. If gastropod folks want to set all clades between class and family that they deem important to always display in automatic taxoboxes, it might be best to let them (it's whats happening now with manual taxoboxes anyway). There is of course the problem in figuring out exactly which clades are supposedly relevant, which are obsolete, etc. Fortunately JoJan seems to be pretty in favor of automatic taxoboxes and is really the only active gastropod editor in recent months. Plantdrew (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I hadn't quite realized what a hornet's nest I'd stumbled into!

I do understand one of the points that Snek01 (the critical editor at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_6#Taxonomy) makes, at least if I understand his/her English correctly, namely the absence of a history. It's a problem inherent in the way in which templates have been set up in the Wikimedia software, namely that when you view an old page, it transcludes the current versions of any templates, not the versions that were there at the time the page was last edited, which would be more useful. It sometimes causes problems in understanding and debugging templates. The other objections make no sense to me, I'm afraid.

The reality is that I tried to discover from the English Wikipedia how to classify a gastropod found for the first time in a local nature reserve for which I maintain checklists, but found that the species (Bithynia tentaculata), genus (Bithynia) and family (Bithyniidae) had taxoboxes with different classifications (and still do right now). The genus was worst, because although it claims one is a clade, it has two taxa with names at the rank of superfamily. (One of the clade or superfamily articles, Truncatelloidea, also at the time claimed that the taxon was marine; we're about 50 miles from the sea here!) I now have no faith whatsoever in the taxonomy in the articles for this group. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This move was not made in accordance with the correct procedure for moving an article name, as it has deleted the article history, which dates back to 17 April 2011. I respectfully recommend you try to fix it ASAP. DiverDave (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a move; there's no such spider as Avicularia urticans. How could the article be "moved"? Avicularia urticans must be a redirect to the correct name and the correct article, namely Avicularia juruensis. The article history is not deleted; it's all there at [1].

If you mean that the content that was at Avicularia urticans wasn't moved, then there was nothing there worth moving. The taxobox was by definition wrong since it's not an accepted species now. The only information that is now correct is "... was first ... by G.E.W. Schmidt in 1994", where the missing bits now have to be different from the original, since now we have to say that the synonym was first created by Schmidt, not species first described. And I didn't copy that from the Avicularia urticans article, I started again because it wasn't properly referenced – you must not reference the authority for a name from the primary source; a reliable secondary source must be used. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if you know this, but are you clear what a biological synonym is? Schmidt described a spider as a new species in 1994, calling it Avicularia urticans. But it is now accepted that the species had already been described by Mello-Leitão in 1923, as Avicularia juruensis. So we can't have an article at both names, since they are just different names for the same species. Now I suppose that in this case I could have moved the Avicularia urticans article to Avicularia juruensis, deleted all the content, and started again. But it seems to me that this would be more misleading than what is there now. None of the material in the old Avicularia urticans article has been used in the new Avicularia jurensis article, as is honestly shown by the history. I've added a note to Talk:Avicularia_urticans stating this. (By the way, you forgot to sign your comment.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks for your help and encouragement. I have an issue with trying to change the taxonboxes to speciesboxes for the spider-wasp genus Dipogon. I have created the template Template:Taxonomy/Dipogon (wasp) but the speciesboxes don't point to that and instead try to create Template:Taxonomy/Dipogon. There is a monotypic genus of legumes Dipogon lignosus so I want to avoid confusion. What do I need to do? Quetzal1964 10:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC) (talk)

See the edit I made at Dipogon bifasciatus. In such cases, you can't use |taxon=, but must use |genus= with the value being the disambiguated name and |species=.

See Template:Speciesbox/doc#Genus names duplicated across kingdoms. I tend to say that automated taxoboxes are easy to use, which they are in most cases, but there is a minority of trickier cases! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember that. Quetzal1964 16:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC) (talk)

Hello Peter,

I'd appreciate your taking a squiz at the last few edits of List of Melaleuca species and then telling me if you think I'm going crazy! (Alternatively, revert the last edit on the M. list.) Thanks - and thanks for your earlier advice to me, It's come in very handy in a couple of Caladenia articles. Gderrin (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Problem solved - not crazy. Very glad you don't have to bother with this. Gderrin (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad to know you solved your problem, but I'm always willing to try to help.

I see the article contains "Here is a list of most of the species". This raises the issue of how the species were chosen. I have seen this tagged with something like "clarify" by other editors. More importantly, the source or sources of the list aren't clear in this wording – normally there would be refs after this statement. I'm not sure if this is easily fixable. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of help Peter - I do need it. I am writing pages about caladenias (

Your advice please - should I be bold and go with WCSP or stick with the status quo? (APC not much help - lists Glossodia but no species.) Gderrin (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be an absolutely classic case of molecular phylogenetic studies overturning long established classification systems based on morphology. Clements et al. (2015) seems clear and convincing to me, and it's accepted by a reliable secondary source. The logic behind sinking Caladenia isn't actually different from that for Cyanicula. So I'd go with it. (As an example, Menziesia was erected in 1791 and seems distinct from Rhododendron to many gardeners, but we've accepted its sinking.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I appreciate your advice. Since asking, I've discovered that WCSP has sunk a whole lot of genera, even Calothamnus, into Melaleuca as Lyndley Craven suggested a few years ago. Now that's radical! Thanks again and happy Easter. Gderrin (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

MoS talk: ie, eg and etc

I see what you meant now - I have started an RfC. Thank you for advising this: I was unaware of this option. --Sb2001 (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sb2001: I see that your first post and the discussion on it have been treated as an RfC, whereas I thought you were right to start one formally. Sorry if my use of bold seemed aggressive; it wasn't meant to be. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Peter coxhead/Test

Hi Peter coxhead

I have blanked your userpage User:Peter coxhead/Test, purely to stop it populating the non-existent Category:Pages using div attributes parameter. The non-existent categ clutters appears in the cleanup list Special:WantedCategories.

If you need the test template and want to restore it, please could you either

1. fix it so that it doesn't populate Category:Pages using div attributes parameter, or
2. create the categ using {{tracking category}}

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: the problem was not with my test page, but with the template {{Taxon list/line}} which it was testing. I've now edited the latter to remove – again – the reference to the nonexistent category. If you look at the history you'll see that Kaldari had restored your removal of the category. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't spotted that eversuion, and had forgotten my previous burrowing. The non-existent categ is still empty, which is my only interest. Hope the testing is successful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Explanation for Spider Taxonomy!

Hello Peter,

Quick explanation to the Spider Family table - I edited the table so it was much more readable as black had been used for the <10 & <100 categories, meaning you couldn't see exact numbers without highlighting!. I thought yellow would be more suitable. I think I may have jumped the gun as I had no idea about the Talk page!

All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaturalFitztory (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@NaturalFitztory: actually yellow is used for the categories you changed, just a slightly more saturated yellow than the one you used. It shows up fine for me whatever browser I use. What combination of operating system and browser produces black for you? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit to template:subspeciesbox

How does this edit look? I did it in response to subspecies in the Morelia (snake) genus, which has an identical name to a plant genus. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: looks good to me. It's a fix that was made to other autotaxobox templates that obviously didn't get made to the less used ones like {{Subspeciesbox}}. It fixes Morelia spilota spilota, I see. I've applied a similar patch to {{Infraspeciesbox}}, although the coding of the two templates differs more than it really should. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I was just tryingto patch it up, basd on {{speciesbox}}, to deal with Morelia spilota cheynei. In fact, to test it, I got a preview of that page baed on the edit I was testing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Coloration evidence for natural selection

@Corinne: I've moved your post to User talk:Chiswick Chap – you put it here in error. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sorry. It was late when I saw the exchange on Sminthopsis84's page; I guess I wasn't thinking or seeing right.  – Corinne (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on allowing cross-wiki searches

Please note tha tat Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)# If enabled, which sister projects should be included?, there's a discussion on which sister sites should be included on the "cross-wiki search" feature. Since you thin k that Wikispecies classification is better than our taxoboxes (as you told me here), youmay want to join the discussion on Wikispecies. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: ok, I'll take a look. However, to correct any misapprehension, I don't in general think that Wikispecies is better – your link is to one specific example. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Changed the meaning of MOS?

Are you aware that the protected version of the page ([2]) had this text:

• Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar.

My version was:

• Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar.

Your version reverted to a rather recently changed version that read:

• Multiple images can be staggered right and left, but avoid sandwiching text between two images, or between similar floating content.

but your edit summary was "...revision 779828918 by BushelCandle (talk) edit changed the meaning; doesn't matter if they "face each other" or not"

"Face each other" makes clear that we are not concerned about vertical sandwiching, just the horizontal variety.

The version that I restored has at least 2 years of consensus behind it: [3] BushelCandle (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: ok, I agree that my edit summary wasn't right, and am happy to see it reverted. However, "facing each other" isn't right either, whether or not it was there for two years, since elsewhere it's used to refer to images of people and it can be taken to mean "images that show people facing each other". Why not say "horizontal"? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for listening, Peter.

I see you've started a relevant discussion on the MOS page's talk page, so I'll continue any discussion there if I may... BushelCandle (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Osmia bicornis

Hi Peter, I decided to change the page named

Osmia rufa to the correct name Osmia bicornis so I have copied the text in the former to the latter, with some edits and I have put a redirect on the original page. I am sure this is not quite the correct way to do this, what should I have done/do? Quetzal1964 10:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)talk

I'm not sure that there was a good way to do it; I did it again by reverting one and then swapping with the other (for which you need to have extra privileges). In future, if both articles exist, it's better to ask an admin to deal with it (I'm not one).

You need to clean up Osmia bicornis now. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I am doing so now.Quetzal1964 10:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)talk

@Quetzal1964: sorry if my answer above seemed a bit abrupt; it was written quickly before I logged off. When names are wrong or they change, the first thing to try is moving the page: there's a "Move" option under the "More" tab if you haven't discovered it. However, if the destination page is already there as a redirect, you need to have something called "EM" (extended mover) status, which allows you to swap pages over – I can do this, and am always happy to try to help. If the destination page isn't a redirect but has been edited, then you need to follow the page merge process as explained at Wikipedia:Merging. In more complicated cases, you need an admin. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No it was fine, I knew I wasn't doing it quite right but had decided that the move was required. Thanks for your help.Quetzal1964 16:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

MOS:NOTUSA

I did read the policy, but I'm not so sure I understand why it's in effect. If you wish to endorse the policy, you will have to explain the policy in better detail.LakeKayak (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@LakeKayak: no, the MoS sets out the agreed consensus. You need to show why it should not be followed in a particular case. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!LakeKayak (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Peter coxhead. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Removal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gonejackal (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

automated taxobox templates: what are they?Gonejackal (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gonejackal: see WP:Automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cadaba farinosa

Dear Peter, I seek your guidance concerning a future article on Cadaba farinosa. The point is that there is already a very good web page on Plantnet that has the exact content I would aspire for the wiki page. It has a very "wiki-like" lay-out as well. I can paraphrase the aready paraphrased text on plantnet, and try to use as many other sources I can find for the wiki page. The point remains that compared to the plantnet page very few additional statements can be made. I made a few pictures that I uploaded on commons which would be "new". Nontheless, it would make me feel unconfortable to basically paraphrase an excellent encyclopedic article elsewhere. Could you please give me some advice? Thanks in advance? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the text is available under the right license so, as far as I understand, it you can simply copy and paste the text, provided that the source is acknowledged. Look at Andaman Islands#References, for example, to see how text copied from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica is acknowledged. There's a template for the EB; I assume not for Plantnet, but you could just put similar text on the page.

See

Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. I would also ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Peter coxhead (talk

) 14:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, that is great. I'll do that shortly! Thanks, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)