User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 23

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.

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems I went a little further than where I actually knew what I'm doing. Thanks for being on the ball about it. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK: no problem. Altering bits of the taxonomy template system is tricky to get exactly right; there are various tracking categories which get looked at regularly, so never be put off making taxonomically correct changes by not being sure of the fine details – someone will sort them out. Correct taxonomy is what matters! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you can help me but I'm searching for the full names of the arachnologists A.D. Badcock and H.D. Badcock.

@

PeterR: all the publications I can find just have their initials, unfortunately. Peter coxhead (talk

) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@

Mirandia and Nothroctenus was just a typo originating at the WSC entry. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk

) 03:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@

PeterR and Loopy30: ah, well spotted! The error may have originated in OCR applied to the paper; I've seen similar issues before. Loopy30: have you told WSC? I've always found them very keen to have errors pointed out. Peter coxhead (talk

) 09:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have not contacted WSC yet, but I'll drop them a line later today. Sometimes, the most fun is in the hunt for the solution to the puzzle. Loopy30 (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• ISBN 978-0-9929993-6-0
  .

This is the publication that PPG complained about in the Taxon article --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting to update the talkpage project banner post-move, and thanks for catching it! :) AddWittyNameHere 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually Plantdrew often catches it for me! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

See, that's one of those things I like about Project Tree of Life: sure, we all make mistakes sometimes, but we're also all willing to catch & fix each other's mistakes without snapping at each other over it. (Well, that and I think we might just be the least edit-war prone Project ever, what with there often being years between edits. ) Hope you have a nice festive season! . 16:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Peter,

I'm happy to help with whatever work you'd like done to bring up our fern taxonomy to PPG I spec. I'm up to my eyeballs anyway in making lists of corrections for IPNI, Hassler, etc. driven by my work overhauling iNat fern taxonomy. Some quick notes of things that have happened since PPG I, which may affect your templates:

• Allosorus (Pteridaceae, Cheilanthoideae) sensu PPG I has been replaced by Oeosporangium.
• Baja (Pteridaceae, Cheilanthoideae) gen. nov. published to accommodate the former Cheilanthes brandegeei.
• Mickelopteris (Pteridaceae, Cheilanthoideae) replaces Parahemionitis
• Gastoniella (Pteridaceae, Pteridoideae) published to accommodate some species from Anogramma
• There has been a push on to split out Anisocampium, Cornopteris and Pseudocystopteris from Athyrium (Athyriaceae) but I'm not sure I'm ready for that just yet.
• Aenigmopteris (was Dryopteridaceae incertae sedis) has been reduced to a synonym of Tectaria (Tectariaceae).
• Dryopolystichum (was Dryopteridaceae incertae sedis) has been transferred to Lomariopsidaceae.
• The splitting of Tectariaceae into 3 families in (some) literature seems excessive.
• Drynaria was conserved over Aglaomorpha (Polypodiaceae, Drynarioideae) so all names should be in the former genus.
• Parrisia (Polypodiaceae, Grammitidoideae) gen. nov. published to accommodate two species from Enterosora
• Zygophlebia (Polypodiaceae, Grammitidoideae) has been sunk into Enterosora but not all combinations have been made yet
• Adetogramma (Polypodiaceae, Polypodioideae) has been split from Polypodium
• Dendroconche has been revived and Bosmania and Zealandia genera nov. (Polypodiaceae, Microsoroideae) have been published to accommodate species from Microsorum and Colysis

I can supply references as needed. Let me know what I can do! Choess (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Choess: I've responded by e-mail. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peter coxhead. The intention was to break up what might appear to be a unitary concept — "appendages of chelicerates" — akin to "lysosomes of cells"/ "ligaments of toes"/ etc. And so I can learn from this, when you say "don't usually put a rank in front of an informal name", would it have been correct to use "appendages of the subphylum Chelicerata"? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, although I think "Pedipalps .. are the second pair of appendages of chelicerates (subphylum Chelicerata)" is perhaps the least ambiguous. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please guide me how to add a new header in a page znd how to upload a news article which is not online available and also the court order sheet which says to stop cutting of kadam tree. Alekh99 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alekh99: it's certainly an interesting piece of information which belongs in the article, if properly sourced. I assume it was reported in a newspaper. To cite a newspaper that is not online, you need the following information:

• last and first name of the journalist credited with the article in the paper, if this is given
• the date on which the article was published
• the title of the article
• the name of the newspaper (this is called work in the template)

(If it's online you can also give the URL.)

If you can tell me this information, I'll be happy to put it in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes sure i will give you detail as in article was about my father discovery and in this a part of article was about petition which he filed to stop reckless cutting of kadam tree. The details are below : Last name :Sebastian First name:Sunny Date of article publish :22 July 2012 Title of article: An extraordinary diabetes drug confined to papers. Newspaper name: The Hindu Url :i was trying but not getting you can try by going on www.thehindu.com and search for “An extraordinary diabetes drug confined to papers”. Thanks .

Alekh99 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Please login to www.thehindu.com to see full article .thanks Alekh99 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alekh99: ok, well, the citation needed is {{cite news |last=Sebastian |first=Sunny |date=22 July 2012 |title=An extraordinary diabetes drug confined to papers |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/an-extraordinary-diabetes-drug-confined-to-papers/article3668579.ece |access-date=8 January 2020 }}. However, there is a problem. The article says "kadamb (Mitragyna parvifolia)". Mitragyna parvifolia is a completely different species from Neolamarckia cadamba, where you were trying to add the information. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually this is journalists fault Mitragyna parvifolia is not correct name kadam is correct name or you can say kadamb in hindi language. I have court oder sheet which states that there should not felling of kadamb tree( in hindi kadam called as kadamb). Alekh99 (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If you google kadamb then /Neolamarckia cadamba appears Alekh99 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The botanical name is Anthocephalus chinensis or you can share your email address i can share court order with you Alekh99 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Search for world environment day on Wikipedia then open annual theme then go to year 2015 you will our Hon’ble prime minister of india shri.Narendra Modi planted kadam sapling but due to hindi language it is kadamb as in hindi it is many times called as kadamb but journalists got confused with mitragyana Parvifolia . Alekh99 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • • you will find our Hon’ble Alekh99 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you then don't have a source that says what you want to about Neolamarckia cadamba, since the article in The Hindu is clearly not reliable. We can only add information to a Wikipedia article if a reliable source supports it exactly. We can't put together information from different sources and use our own judgement on them – this is

synthesis and is not allowed. The source has to say exactly what you want to add. Sorry. Peter coxhead (talk

) 17:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If the news article is in hindi will it work Alekh99 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, sources don't have to be in English, but it does make it difficult to verify. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Another the hindu article. in this article last paragraph states clearly about petition against cutting kadamb trees.detail are here: Last and first name : Special correspondent. Date of article publish:20 Jan 2008. Title of article : Herbal cure for typeII diabetes granted patent. Name of newspaper: The Hindu

Alekh99 (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Having promoted Saxifragales to GA, we now have a wide range of taxonomic ranks at GA. So I have placed a number of these sorted by rank on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template page in the hope it will encourage others to provide higher quality articles.

@Michael Goodyear: excellent work! Unfortunately, I have got totally bogged down in fern taxonomy, which is a total mess, and makes constructing articles very difficult, let alone expanding them. I hope to escape soon. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. I have a periodic stab at the ferns. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 17:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: there can surely not be more radically different circumscriptions than those of Thelypteris: PPG I has two species, Plants of the World Online has 1083! Quite a lot of our articles need to be moved to follow PPG I. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre. I think so. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I see you reverted my reverts on some articles. That's perfectly fine. Just know the reason I rolled them back is because they were from a series of sockpuppets dedicated to removing references to countries and borders from Wikipedia. Just to let you know why I made the edits I did. Canterbury Tail talk 18:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@

WGSRPD which does have country units, but it also has what look like country units but aren't, like "France" meaning "metropolitan France" not the political entity. So it's better not to refer to countries in most cases. Peter coxhead (talk

) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Peter, please explain me why you reverted my modifications on the therapeutic uses of some medicinal plants. --Csupord (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Csupord

Please read

WP:MEDRS. Any statement in Wikipedia that implies medical effectiveness must be supported to the standards of these guidelines. Zefr is more knowledgeable in this area than me, and is a good editor to ask whether an addition is acceptable. Also at least one of your edits had "reference capture" – if a statement has a reference after it, and you put text with another reference between or inside this text and its original reference, the incorrect implication is that the original reference supports the new text as well. Editing medical material in Wikipedia is tricky, and best left until you have more experience as a Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia rightly has high standards in this area. Peter coxhead (talk

) 07:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:MED and see what the view is there. If there is a consensus that ESCOP is acceptable as a reliable source, then of course you can re-add the contributions I reverted (being careful about reference capture). Peter coxhead (talk

) 09:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I would like to know whether you can help me out in solving the issue present in this page. The only information I have got is that it's related to the parameter Taxon. Adithyak1997 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. An edit by Adithyakbot on 26 Jan to the genus and family templates messed it up by trying to add a category and inadvertently also corrupted the code. You could check if there were similar edits/disruptions to any other pages as well. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adithyak1997: taxonomy templates, like ml:Template:Taxonomy/Paeonia – assuming you are using the same code to process them as we do in the English Wikipedia – are treated as data. Their format is very rigid. A taxonomy template page must only contain the "Don't edit this line" template. They cannot have categories or any other kind of addition to the page. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. @Loopy30: Thanks for correcting the mistake. Adithyak1997 (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I know by experience that the A.diadematus species shake their web like some Pholcidae species to entangle the prey or as a response to a predator. But i can't find any reference, there are some Youtube videos showing this behaviour but i can't find any article.--Gonzalez Talavera (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gonzalez Talavera: yes, I agree that this happens – although not quite as violently as say Pholcus phalangioides. I'll look later to see if I can find a source that is acceptable here. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this publication of the British Arachnological Society is acceptable: Factsheet 4. "An interesting behavioural characteristic of Garden spiders is that, if gently disturbed when in the centre of their webs, they rapidly oscillate the web to and fro until they become a blur, presumably to confuse potential predators." Peter coxhead (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gonzalez Talavera: I've now re-added the information on shaking the web with the source noted above. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

When I saw a notification pop up, I thought to myself, "that's got to be Peter thanking me for a fern genera category edit". And it was. Plantdrew (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: indeed. As I'm sure you realize, I've been creating quite a lot of fern articles, and fatigue is setting in (I'm not even that interested in ferns!). I am grateful that someone is checking and clearing up behind me. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I have seen you reverted my last edit. In fact, I was not sure whether it had been a reasonable change, especially since I would like to be very careful there, so thank you for doing that. Still, I really think the source I added (Lopez, Baptiste et al.) deserves a place in the article. Moreover, I feel there should be mentioned in some way that various scientists in 2011 and 2015 (independently) suggested that the genetic material could be derived from microorganisms which may belong to the unidentified deep branches of the tree of life, or even an unidentified domain. It has to be mentioned that there are other possible explanations, that is for sure though. Can I ask you for any suggestion or/and help with that, please? I just want to avoid any edit wars etc., but only expand the current information (in 1-2 additional sentences). Thanks a lot! Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pinoczet: I reverted the edit because the taxobox was in the error-tracking categories and I could see no way of rescuing it. There has to be at least some part of a classification hierarchy to make a taxobox work.

But of course the material can (and indeed should) be put in the text. Just not in a taxobox. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand, thank you. By the way, could you take a look at the section I added if you find some time, please? I mean especially correcting grammar, spelling, and punctuation, awkward wording etc. Thanks a lot in advance! Have a nice day, --Pinoczet (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pinoczet: I made a few minor copy-edits, otherwise it seems clear. (You may like to note that the style used in the English Wikipedia puts references after punctuation.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Re your new article, unfortunately every RHS plant URL has been changed for some reason. I therefore have the onerous task of going through everything and updating it. Which will take a while. But I will do the marguerites tomorrow. Regards, Darorcilmir (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darorcilmir: I wonder if the 'search' URL I changed to on your talk page can be used as a reference for a list of AGMs, rather than one per taxon? It would make the task easier in some cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The RHS articles are not in any discernible order. My fussy mind dislikes that. It also takes a few keystrokes for the user to reach a specific article. What's more, the RHS listing is clunky - it keeps reverting to "Sorry, no results" on my iPad. I just thought it was nice to make the direct link in each case. However, if you're happy with one link, that's fine! Note that there are 23 cvs listed, not 12. Darorcilmir (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darorcilmir: well, one URL will do as a quick fix, I think. Yes, there are more AGMs as there has been a recent trial. I think the trial report is also online, but I haven't found it yet. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi I am writing to you from Italy, so sorry if my English is not perfect. I reset your changes to larix and Pseudotsuga as I linked the items to the category of their subfamily, not to themselves. The same thing is present in category: sequoideae.

I think the change I made is in line with the regulation and improvement of the rumors. If you think it is not a good thing, please let me know, except that we should correct all the other items as well. See you soon on Wikipedia!--

@

JN95: no, we never have a taxonomic category and one of its subcategories present. This is definitely wrong. See WP:Categorization#Categorizing pages: "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Peter coxhead (talk

) 22:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Has got to a new stage of its progress in this confusing and chaotic world... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unknown-importance_Australian_biota_articles = 0. Please help by when creating new biota articles for australia, to make sure the unassessed page stays the way it is adequately tagged, or please ask for help in doing so... More on the next stages of the Australian biota project soon... and thanks for whatever you have done for the project in any way since 2006 - JarrahTree 05:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Peter!

I've spent much of last weekend by recategorising perhaps 150 nematode articles from various categories Animals described in (the year) XXXX to the corresponding Nematodes described in XXXX. I then thought this was uncontroversial, since there already existed a handful of nematode by year categories, including the top one (Category:Nematodes by year of formal description), created in November 2018. (I found out about this when working with recategorising numerous nowiki articles into similar more specific "described in the year" categories; nowiki also had a couple of nematode-specific ones.) I therefore started to go through nematode articles systematically, recategorising those which were categorised in the more general "Animals described in XXXX" to the corresponding "Nematodes..." (creating 86 new nematode decription categories in the process). I've so far recategorised perhaps 150 nematode articles. (I did nothing to those which were not already categorised in some "Animals described..." category, I think. Many of these seemed more concerned about the illness caused by the nematode in question than about that parasite in itself.)

I interrupted my work, when I happened to see that there has been some controversies about 'overcategorisation' for these species articles. I then tried to find out if there was any documented consensus about precisely which kinds of members to in the category "tree" under Category:Animals by year of formal description, but was nearly unable to find any concrete list. The closest I got was the following comment in Module:Category_described_in_year/conf

--"group" (Animals only; used for: Amphibians/Birds/Crustaceans/Fish/Mammals/Molluscs/Reptiles/Sponges)

which indeed seems to indicate that the template 'default' was not intended to be used for nematodes as well.

I of course have used {{Category described in year}} in all the 86 new nematode categories. I have received no warning messages, since the default mechanism of the template is rather efficient. @Tom.Reding: Perhaps the template is 'working too well'?

Peter, I'm asking you for advice, of course not considering you as 'the owner' of this category tree, but since your input in its maintenance and for the functionality of Tom's template seems to have left the heaviest impact. I had and have no intention to go against or change any established consensus. Have I done so unintentionally? Alternatively, should I ask for the 'community opinion' somewhere before continuing or abandoning this work; and, if so, where? Or do you think it uncontroversal enough for me just to continue? JoergenB (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@JoergenB: well, the key sign of overcategorization is the small size of the resulting categories. If I look at Category:Nematodes described in the 18th century, two things are immediately apparent:

• The years are very sparse.
• There are very few articles in any year category.

Compare it with Category:Birds described in the 18th century. For me, the nematode category is a 'textbook case' of overcategorization. However, I have largely given up on categorization in Wikipedia. Outside a few wikiprojects (e.g. WP:PLANTS), there are few established consensus guidelines, and individual editors have felt free to create whatever categories they wanted. I commend you for being willing to raise and discuss the issue. You can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals, and see what editors there think. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll follow your advice.

As for your observations: As you can see, Category:Nematodes described in the 20th century is not quite as sparse, and both the sparsity and the low amount of pages per category reasonably should be somewhat amended in case I should continue my systematic recategorisations. However, I do not think that there is any chance of reaching anything close to the density of the birds categorisation, and especially not for the 18'th century. My impression from the pages I looked at is that nematode species description mainly is a more modern activity - even if Linné himself did describe some of the larger parasitic nematodes. JoergenB (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter, I did ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals#Nematodes described in (the year) XXXX, but got no response at all. Possibly, my explanations were too long. However, I suspect that project members who saw it do not have too strong opinions in either direction.

If you also do not have too strong objections, I think I'll continue my work. This would increase both the total number of nematodes by year categories and the average number of pages per such category somewhat, although the density would remain a good bit lower than for birds. I did find that there are twice as many described nematode species as described bird species; but WP editors in general seem much more interested in writing separate articles for bird species. Still, the nematode categories perhaps might inspire someone to write also about these somewhat less popular animals. JoergenB (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@JoergenB: I think 'old hands' are weary of categories, partly because of activities by now-banned editors and sockpuppets. As I noted above, I personally wouldn't create such small categories, but that's just my view, and given that you have sought consensus and acted in a fully cooperative way, then do feel free to continue. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. I'll continue; it may be unnecessary, but at least these categories have some potential of becoming more well-filled, since there seems to be about 25,000 described nematide species. (IMHO, by your criteria, Category:Starfish by year of formal description and its category tree should be more doubtful, since there seems to be about 1,500 species in total, according to Starfish.)

When I've finished what I started, I'll report this at the project side. Thanks for all friendly advice! JoergenB (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I now have finished this, and thus report it. JoergenB (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Peter coxhead:. Just wondering why you moved Microsorum pustulatum to Zealandia pustulata. I could not find the overwhelming evidence for the move?

Zealandia pustulata cannot be found at Plants of the world online. It is found at IPNI, but IPNI is a source of names, and (usually) gives no indication of a name's acceptance or otherwise. POWO (Plants of the world online) on the other hand, always states whether it considers the name to be accepted or a synonym. The name Microsorum pustulatum is the name currently accepted by the Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria (CHAH). See APNI: Microsorum pustulatum with its APC tick of approval. GRIN also gives Microsorum pustulatum as the accepted name. On the other hand, Plants of the World online asserts that Microsorum pustulatum is a synonym for Phymatosorus pustulatus subsp. pustulatus (G.Forst.) M.F.Large, Braggins & P.S.Green. Yet Large Braggins & Green's 1992 article (included in the references for Zealandia pustulata) replaces Polypodium pustulatum with Phymatosorus pustulatus.

The lack of an entry at POWO for Zealandia pustulata would seem to indicate that the page move from Microsorum pustulatum to Zealandia pustulata is not currently justified.

Related articles

• Schneider, Harald; Kreier, Hans‐Peter; Perrie, Leon R.; Brownsey, Patrick J. (2006). "The relationships of Microsorum(Polypodiaceae) species occurring in New Zealand". New Zealand Journal of Botany. 44 (2): 121–127.
  ISSN 0028-825X
  .

MargaretRDonald (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Several points.

1. It was agreed at WP:PLANTS that we would use the 2016 Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group classification (currently PPG I) for ferns and lycophytes. No classification system prior to 2016 is relevant.
2. PoWO does not use this system. It uses the 2019 GLOVAP approach which has much less support among fern specialists. This takes a highly "lumped" approach to fern classification. As an extreme example, in PPG I, the subfamily
   doi:10.12705/673.1 for a discussion of this. (I have corresponded with Rafaël Govaerts at Kew to confirm that all the Kew databases will at present follow the very lumped approach. I haven't finished work on Grammitidoideae and in particular Grammitis
   yet.)
3. The only source available that follows PPG I and goes down to the level of species is the Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World (CFLW). So this is what I have been using. It is regularly updated. It uses Zealandia. If we do not use this genus, we do not have any way of presenting, consistently, lists of species in the related genera, and we will end up as we did a few days ago with articles on the same taxon under different names. Although article text must include a discussion of all well sourced classifications and synonyms, we can only use one consistent system for article titles.
4. The position is similar to when we adopted the APG system for plants and then used (as we still do) APweb for updates before a new version of APG appears. Having adopted PPG I, we need to use CFLW for updates.
5. User:Choess is more of a "fern person" than I am and may be able to add to these comments.

It's very unfortunate that there's such a huge discrepancy between PPG I and PoWO, but it's something we have to live with and work round. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

That's an excellent summary, Peter, and thank you so much for your work on this arrangement. Margaret, you might be interested in Ash Field's recent paper in Australian Systematic Botany, which updates the list of Australian ferns to match PPG I plus a few recent additions like Zealandia: https://www.publish.csiro.au/sb/SB18011 While some of the New Zealand community has taken issues with how PPG I splits Blechnaceae and the filmy ferns, I haven't yet heard objections to the dismantling of Microsorum now underway. It's been known for a while that Microsorum would need to be carved up into smaller monophyletic genera, but that is still a work in progress (see e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790319303902 where Zealandia is labeled clade MG 2). Choess (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I edited Template:Taxonomy key/missing template. Please confirm that the </span> that I removed didn't serve some purpose. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking through the history, it's an error I introduced in this edit. To test, I went to a taxonomy template, changed the parent to nonsense, and used preview. The error message produced by this template appeared properly. So, thanks for fixing my error! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Why you removed suresh sharma name from cultural significance section . Alekh99 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Alekh99: I'm not aware that Suresh Sharma is in any way notable, or a person who should be recognized in an international encyclopedia. It doesn't matter to the world-wide readers of Wikipedia who initiated the action. The simple fact about the tree being protected is, in my view, just worth including. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

There is an edit war at Hyaenaover the correct transcription of the greek. I know you have demonstrated the appropriate knowledge of Greek words and Wikipedia policies on sources in various disputes over plant names. Can you help here? —  Jts1882 | talk  11:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I commented there. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This follows on the digression you introduced here. I thought that it might be useful to remark that the so-called {T} Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books might suggest something useful in that regard. Given a number of citation components separated according to the sort of information they individually contain, that tool assembles them into WP cites in several alternative formats. If cites (in templates in particular, but possibly also elsewhere in WP) can be (re)formatted into some format which similarly separates their commponents, then they could be similarly rendered in a number of alternative styles. I see that you have more background in CS and in natural language processing than I, so you no doubt have a much better handle on that than I; I just thought I would mention it. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: well, if the English Wikipedia had adopted a set of agreed reference styles, or mandated the use of citation templates, then such processing would be possible. As it is, I'm doubtful. Trappist the monk has a hard enough job keeping cs1/cs2 working and fending off requests for yet more variant features. While we allow virtually any consistent style, which some editors then passionately defend, I simply don't see that references added by templates should be allowed. I have some interest in this, since I do most of the maintenance these days for the automated taxobox system. There should be references in the taxonomy templates, and it's regularly discussed as to whether these should be shown in the taxobox, but style and duplication issues have always proved the knockdown argument against. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a good-faith notification that I've made a proposal you may disagree with, based on a previous edit to the article. See

Hi. Yes, if you track his history of contributions, there is a persistent pattern of subjective edits (e.g., changing "venomous" to "highly venomous" in multiple articles) and inclusion of claims unsupported by the existing references. Some of the edits involve the inclusion of LD50 data, and include a cite, but other than those, many of the edits have needed to be reverted; his contribution history is substantial, but few of these edits have been constructive and properly sourced. Dyanega (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that the editor previously known as Nick Falcao has opened another account and is continuing the pattern of previous edits, including pasting entire plagiarized articles, as he did here, and also here, despite earlier warnings against this. Dyanega (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I see he has also edited now under an anonymous IP, but the edits are identical to earlier attempts; see here. This is getting into the edge of sockpuppetry at this point, as he is now using three different accounts for editing. Dyanega (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Peter, I have extended the existing article on the Asteraceae genus Didelta. It is currently still rated as a stub. Perhaps you are willing to assess it in its current shape and rate it for the wiki-project Plants. Thank you in advance, Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done I put it in C; I suspect we should really be using B more, but if you look at the table, we don't seem to use B much in this project. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Peter! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Peter,

I just created a new article on Struthiola striata. Perhaps you are willing to have a look at it and grade it for the Wikiproject Plants as well as for the South Africa project.

Thank you in advance, kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Peter

Thank you for your input re. Stellera page. Two quibbles 1.) Surely distribution categories OK for a monotypic genus ? (...vexed question of page name re. such a genus being whole binomial or just genus name...) I noticed that the categories to which I was adding Stellera have other genus name links. If such contributions add to knowledge of the Flora in question - 'what harm?' (to use an Irish idiom...) 2.) Stellera is not native to the whole of temperate Asia - so why is it verboten to add individual Flora categories? ...and there is also the fact that larger countries can encompass a variety of climates e.g. China and - to an even greater degree - India. Is this Wiki 'house style' business not a bit rigid in this instance? regards Flobbadob (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)FlobbadobFlobbadob (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Flobbadob: the guidance about monotypic genera is only from WP:PLANTS, as per the link I gave you. The idea is that categories are used on species names in a consistent fashion, regardless of whether they are articles or redirects. I've got used to this over the years – it predates my involvement. I think it's not always applied consistently, but I've seen very experienced editors like Plantdrew correcting categories in the way that I did. He may be able to say more.

On the matter of not having an article placed both in a category and one or more of its subcategories, this is part of the core logic of Wikipedia categories. If a species is native to only some distribution subcategories, then it should be placed in those, but not in the parent category. When it's native to most of the parent category, say more than 75% (but there's no fixed rule), then it can be placed in the parent category, but not in any of the subcategories. If this principle isn't followed, distribution categories stop being a tree, as they should be, and become a tangled net. Not using both a category and one of its subcategories in almost all cases is a Wikipedia-wide principle, unlike the monotypic taxon case. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What are you doing, is it better to keep it with outdated taxonomy instead new because of some details?--Igor Balashov (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Igor Balashov: sorry, my internet went down before I could leave you a message. No, it's good to convert taxoboxes, but you left 20 or so in an error-tracking category, and I didn't have time now to fix all of them. I will fix one in a while to show you how. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Igor Balashov: please see Zospeum for what should be done. No "italic title", no "name=", no rank parameters; only |taxon= and |authority= (apart from images, subdivision, etc.). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yea, apparently it's much more important to not trigger errors than to display correct information. If so why would you not go yourself to fix 37000 tremendously outdated articles on gastropoda taxa with all necessary details? Thank you for reminding that it's useless to waste time in wikipedia.--Igor Balashov (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that's just not true. I spend, I would say, at least an average of half an hour every day fixing taxobox errors. What is important is to learn how to set up taxoboxes correctly. Your changes may have looked as though they were working correctly, but actually underneath they weren't. Please now go ahead and fix them correctly! If not, I may have time over the weekend to go back over them. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yea, if you have time to spend hours removing code that changes nothing in how article displaying - please go ahead. Now I know why nobody fixing it and why it will be outdated forever, thank you for keeping wikipedia to be misinformative.--Igor Balashov (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Igor Balashov: I don't want to get into an argument over this; I'm just trying to explain.

• When articles appear in the error category, they need to be fixed. Without looking at them, you can't tell whether they are displaying correctly at present or not. If they are just left in the error category, multiple editors who regularly monitor these categories will look at them to see if they can fix them. It's simply wrong to leave articles polluting the error categories.
• The automated taxobox system is, inevitably, complicated. Just because a wrongly set up taxobox looks as if it is ok, it doesn't mean that it is working fully as it is supposed to.
• Lots of editors fix taxoboxes. I have given you a model taxobox to copy. All I ask is that you take some time to learn how to use {{Automatic taxobox}} correctly. I cannot see why you think that is unreasonable.

Peter coxhead (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Because problem that I had in mind was not few articles to look good, but how to fix outdated upper taxonomy for all several thousands Stylommatophora or all 37000 gastropods with outdated upper taxonomy indicated manually in the code, if to bother about removing lots of code that changes nothing in how article is displaying every time then it would take years to fix it and nobody will do it. What people should think about when introducing it - is how to easily fix it in thousands articles later--Igor Balashov (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Igor Balashov: I can understand your frustration when seeing so many articles with outdated taxonomy, but the automated taxoboxes are the way to start solving the problem. There are a lot of editors who are willing to help with the automated taxoboxes, but they do need to be set up in the correct way if they are to work properly, hence the fixing of errors. I left a message on the Gastropod project page about how you were handling species articles. If you have specific concerns I am willing to help and you will find many other editors equally willing (e.g Kevmin's edit at Gastrocoptidae). —  Jts1882 | talk  19:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I read that you have access to something that tracks taxoboxes that have errors or mistakes in them. What is this and does it include virusboxes? If so, how can I gain access to it? I'd like to know if it would help me with virus articles. Velayinosu (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Velayinosu: Category:Taxobox cleanup contains all the taxobox tracking categories, including the error ones. Not all of the error-tracking categories should be completely empty (e.g. Category:Taxoboxes with no color‎ contains Life which should have a colourless taxobox, and Category:Taxonomy templates showing anomalous ranks‎ contains one which correctly mixes the egg classification system and the normal classification system). Most virusbox errors will be flagged up in Category:Virusboxes with incorrect parameters that specify taxon‎, although they sometimes show up in other categories as well. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Peter,

I created Struthiola tetralepis, some time ago, but nobody seems to have noticed it. Could you please have a look at it and grade it for the Plants and the South Africa projects?

Thank you in advance. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there ever a reason to recommend the word comprise, given how widely misunderstood it is? While it can be used to mean a complete composition, it doesn't really imply completeness, as you can see at this dictionary. It's used in patents for exactly that reason: "my invention comprises this, that, and the other thing" doesn't mean it can't also comprise other elements (see Transitional phrase#Open transition). Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: sorry, I reverted your edit before reading this. I wouldn't recommend comprise, for the reason you give, but see Merriam-Webster; it can definitely be used with a complete list of components. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it can be used for a complete list. But it doesn't imply complete, and is not something we should be recommending, since most people have no idea what it means. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I mostly edit articles about organisms. Phrases like "the genus comprises 10 species" and "the genus consists of 10 species" are used interchangeably in my experience. The problem with "comprises" is (as you doubtless know well) that some editors write "comprises of" and then dispute the removal of the "of". So, to repeat, I will support your change provided the grounds are that "comprise" is so often used incorrectly that we should not recommend it, but I would not support the change because "comprise" can't be used for a complete list, as you first said in the edit summary. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I ever said it can't be used for a complete list, but rather that it doesn't imply complete. You use it for species in a genus, where you don't mean to imply that no more species will be found, right? That's a good use. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: exactly the same is meant by "the genus consists of" or "the genus is made up of"; it's never the case that more species couldn't be added in future (or that other sources don't include different species). I've looked at Google searches for various nouns followed by these three verbs, and I can't see that in practice they are used differently (I ignored patents). Typical examples are:

• "Each leg comprises six sections or segments" (referring to a figure showing an arthropod leg made up of exactly six parts)
• "Tomorrow's final leg comprises six short stages covering 46.12km" (referring to a motor rally; complete composition)
• "The life cycle of the land plant body comprises two multicellular stages – one haploid (gametophyte) and the other diploid (sporophyte)" (there are definitely no other stages)

However, to repeat my support for avoiding "comprise", almost all searches found examples of "comprise of". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Saw your username on the algae article. Someone (nope, not me) should make an article on blue tears (google it) a well-known bioluminescent algae in Asia. The blue tears article is currently being utterly wasted by describing an ulta-obscure rock band. Vanity article.

@OneOffUserName: I tend to agree with you, but my "to-do" list is already very long. You could try leaving a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae, but it doesn't seem to be a very active WikiProject. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In 2015, you moved the page for Hong Kong orchid into an unpronounceable title. If this is the correct term, the least the reader could expect is an explanation of how to pronounce it, or at least why there is a multiplication sign in the name of a flower. Please advise. 173.85.194.197 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Compared to many scientific names, I think "Bauhinia" and "blakeana" are fairly easily pronounced. There are problems with providing pronunciations for scientific names because there is often no agreement either between or within countries. People generally pronounce such names more-or-less as they would be in their own language/dialect. I would say "bow-HIN-ee-a" ("bow" as in "now") and "blake-ee-AH-na", which, as I discovered afterwards, is what Coombes (1994), Dictionary of Plant Names says. The hybrid symbol is often read aloud as "cross", although right now I haven't managed to source this. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not move it to the much more common name "Hong Kong orchid"? 173.85.194.197 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it's not an orchid, so the English name is totally misleading. Article titles need to be precise as well as common. Also

WP:PLANTS

prefers scientific names in general. I suppose "Hong Kong orchid tree" could be used as a title, although it doesn't seem to be as common as the illogical "Hong Kong orchid". My experiments with Google search produced:

• "Bauhinia blakeana" (i.e. all uses of the scientific name with or without an English name) → 61,300 [Google ignores "×"]
• "Bauhinia blakeana" -"hong kong orchid" (i.e. the scientific name alone) → 59,500 hits
• "hong kong orchid tree" → 56,000 hits
• "hong kong orchid" -"hong kong orchid tree" (i.e. uses of "hong kong orchid" without the added "tree") → 76,000

So the scientific name alone is actually more common than the English name which is a possible title, and "Hong Kong orchid" (without the added "tree") is only about 24% more common than the scientific name, so it's simply not much more common. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I see a pronunciation guide is now included in the article complete with the pronounced word "[cross]", thank you. PS: pls forgive the dynamic IP, last night there were technical difficulties but i am the same as the above IP. :) 74.46.255.12 (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I see you reverted a few of my spelling changes to the title of a reference. I believe "Guatemala" was correctly spelled in the original, at least in the copies that I was able to find online - see here or here, for example. If there is an earlier misspelled version that I've missed, please disregard. Thanks! PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@PohranicniStraze: yes, you're right. For some reason, it's spelt wrongly in the World Spider Catalog's bibliography and its references. Apologies; I should have looked more closely at the original and not relied on the WSC (which is, in my defence, usually very reliable). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jiho Ha. I noticed how you mistakenly reverted my edits because "a" before eu- is never correct. Words starting with eu never makes the "Y" sound and the correct article is "an". You are a fucking dumbshit. Jiho Ha (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Jiho Ha (|talk)

Sorry, but you are wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• MOS:ERA
  : AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD)
• Anno Domini: Traditionally, English followed Latin usage by placing the "AD" abbreviation before the year number. This convention comes from grammatical usage. Anno 500 means "in the year 500"; anno domini 500 means "in the year 500 of Our Lord". Just as "500 in the year" is not good English syntax, neither is 500 AD; whereas "AD 500" preserves syntactic order when translated.

—  AjaxSmack  21:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it may appear either before or after according to the MOS, so the order should not be changed if consistent within an article. Changing one optional style for another is simply wrong. (I'm perfectly well aware what it means in Latin, but we aren't writing in Latin or for readers that know Latin. I read 500 AD as "five hundred ay dee", as most people do in my experience. But this is irrelevant.) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have limited experience with botany. For example, I am putting the taxonomy templates together by pure guesswork. If an existing article says a species or genus is in a particular tribe or subtribe or whatever, that's how I fill in the template. If a source or database makes such a claim, I'll believe it. So if you think I made an error, I probably did and I won't bat an eye if people change it. In fact, you should assume I make errors. The best solution is for some sort of concerted effort (or a bot request) to create all taxonomy templates even if no article exists that needs them at the moment. Abductive (reasoning) 07:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: actually, that's usually my approach when I fix/change taxoboxes in areas I don't know: just make them fit the article if it seems well sourced. There are particular problems often when the parent is given as a rank lower than family, because many reliable taxonomic databases don't go below family (e.g. Plants of the World Online, World Spider Catalog, Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World). So if the article seems under-sourced, just set the parent to the family, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I also don't bother to fill in the intervening clades for taxa, such as

Fitzalania, that I strongly suspect are synonyms. I just connect them directly to their families. That way if they do get redirected someday, there's less cleanup. Abductive (reasoning

) 07:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I apologise to bother you. Recently, I've edited the article Retroposon, I put a (wiki)link to "retropseudogenes" (processed pseudogenes) to make it more clear for readers. Because there seems to be no consensus regarding the proper terminology (e.g., some authors tend to use the words "retrogene" and "retropseudogene" interchangeably), I decided to use a term commonly employed by scientists—"retro(pseudo)genes". Since you're a scientist as well as an experienced Wikipedia user, could I ask you to review the edit, please? Especially, I mean the way I added a link to the other article, I tried my best to do it properly, but is it OK with the WP standards? Thank you very much in advance! Cheers, --Jojnee (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jojnee: I think it's better not to link part of a word, so I changed it. Otherwise, my only comment would be that the article is very technical in tone and needs some more explanation for the general reader. But this isn't my area, so I'm not sure how it should be done. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)