User talk:Plantdrew

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Strigosella (gastropodl) has been listed at

Happy new year and well done on getting above the 600k, trust it is a good new year for you. JarrahTree 01:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A belated Happy New Year to you too. I hadn't realized I'd reached 600k edits (it took me a bit to figure out what you were referring to). Plantdrew (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got a bit fed up with seeing so many Rhododendron articles coming up in searches for manual taxoboxes, so decided to fix them. There doesn't seem to me to be a classification to the level of section that is both well sourced and widely used, so after some study, I went with the one used in World Flora Online (see User:Peter coxhead/Work page#WFO Rhododendron classification). It does make the articles I fixed sometimes inconsistent with other Rhododendron articles, but revising them all is a major task. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, sounds good. I think Rhododendron now has more manual taxoboxes than any other genus. I've never really touched it. I know there are Rhododendron articles that had manual taxoboxes that had some infrageneric classification that was lost when somebody else converted them to automatic taxoboxes. I had considered tackling Rhododendron following the American Rhododendron Society's classification, but that dates to 1997.

I had no idea WFO has started including records for subgenera and sections (and giving species records subgenus/section parents). I looked at a few other genera on WFO where Wikipedia has an infrageneric classification. Quercus on WFO looks to be consistent with Denk/Wikipedia. There are records for some Populus sections (but not Populus sect. Populus), but none of the species have a parent other than the genus. Pinus has infrageneric taxa, but they're either clearly synonyms of other genera (Pinus subg. Abies) or unranked, and no species have a parent other than the genus. Vaccinium looks like it may have a complete set of section records, but it they species only have the genus as a parent, and the WFO page for Vaccinium only lists the sections as children (i.e., you can't navigate from the genus page to a "placed" species). WFO doesn't have infrageneric records for Cornus, Juniperus or Tillandsia. I'll look around some more and see if there are any other genera where WFO has a usable infrageneric classification.

I haven't really done anything with manual taxoboxes for plants in several months. I think I'm about ready to get back into it. Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that WFO suffers at present from the same core problem as its predecessor, TPL, namely that it collates data from different sources without a great deal of curation, so the quantity and quality depends very much on the source. Hopefully it will improve. PoWO has so far been clear that it won't go into finer classifications, because of the workload that would be involved as I understand it. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plantdrew
Scientific classification
Missing taxonomy template (fix):	dafdsfads
Species:	Template:Taxonomy/dafdsfadsd. dfgah
Binomial name
Template:Taxonomy/dafdsfadsdafdsfads dfgah Plantdrew

I'm so sorry to bother you but I tried to add a species box to Cystotheca lanestris and it's throwing template errors I don't know how to fix. Any advice? jengod (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jengod: firstly, it's OK to leave the article as you had left it. It will show up in an error tracking category that several editors monitor and somebody will take care of the problem in fairly short order.

Secondly, I assume you want to learn how to fix the problem yourself. You could learn that by reading Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/intro and the other pages linked there, but now that I am looking there, I think what would be most useful to editors in your position is something much less verbose, but with screenshots to illustrating what to do. So, actually, don't feel like you need to bother reading that; I've made a bogus speciesbox for this talk page thread that can serve as an illustration/example for now (and I'll put adding illustrations to the existing documentation on my to do list).

The basic issue is that every taxon above species rank needs to have a template created for that taxon in order for speciesboxes to work. Across pretty wide swathes of Wikipedia, these templates already exist. However, these templates are unlikely to exist when the taxon they are centered on doesn't have a Wikipedia article. And there are some swathes of Wikipedia where there are many existing taxon articles without the templates (and Fungi are probably the swathe with the most articles missing templates).

So, for the bogus speciesbox in this thread for "dafdsfads dfgah"", there's the red text "Missing taxonomy template", and below that "fix" in blue. Clicking on "fix" will take you to a page where you would be creating the taxonomy template for "dafdsfads", with most of the code already filled in. You will need to fill in a value for |rank= (which should be genus since you asked about Cystotheca) and a value for |parent= (and let's say that is Erysiphaceae for Cystotheca). |link= is automatically filled with code that will produce the correct value in most cases.

The bogus species box in this thread has two prominent red-links to Template:Taxonomy/dafdsfads. If you click those, it will take you to page where you would be creating that taxonomy template, but NONE of the code will be filled in. There will be a "click here to reset" link highlighted in sky-blue that you can click to fill in most of the code. If you are setting up speciesboxes that end up not having the required taxonomy templates you should be clicking on the "fix" links to create the template and not the red links in the form Template:Taxonomy/dafdsfads. Plantdrew (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha I think I did it and I think I understand it! Mostly. I can definitely remember "click fix, fill in rank (genus in 99% of cases Id be dealing with) and add parent (the taxonomic level above that)." Thank you so much. I will endeavor to make myself useful with this knowledge and/or not break anything important. THANK YOU. jengod (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your correction to the "Oryctes rhinoceros" page. As per the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses: ICTV (https://ictv.global/) there are 2 types of names a)species names which should always be written in italic and b)virus names which should not be written in italic. For the Oryctes rinoceros virus the virus name is "Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus" (not italic) and the species name is Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis (italic). In my view an unnecessarily complicated system. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard Zelazny:, yes it is an unnecessarily complicated system. The species name was Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus prior to 2022 (see ICTV). The ICTV committed to using binomial nomenclature for viruses in 2020, and species are being renamed to meet the standards of binomial nomenclature (exactly two words, with the genus as the first word). I'll take your word for it that the context intended on the Oryctes rhinoceros page was as a virus name and not a species name. Plantdrew (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right the species name changed in 2022 from 'Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus' to Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis when they changed to the binomial system, see

https://ictv.global/taxonomy/taxondetails?taxnode_id=202203940&taxon_name=Alphanudivirus%20oryrhinocerotis

not everyone is happy with the new system.

Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your notes on the redirect page

@Bernhard Zelazny:. After reading this and this, I have to say that virologists have some very peculiar ideas about how biologists studying eukaryotes employ scientific names. Some quotes from the first of those:

laboratory virologists write with ease that a particular virus infects, for instance, “European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)” (rather than erroneously writing that the virus infects “Oryctolagus cuniculus”)

and

A species cannot go extinct (except if humanity develops amnesia) but it can cease to have members when those go extinct.

There is nothing erroneous (in zoology) about writing that a virus infects Oryctolagus cuniculus. And species are normally regarded as things that do go extinct.

I guess some of this stems from virologists assuming that the only host organisms worth studying have vernacular names that can be used instead of scientific names. There's also some assumptions made when those papers talk about individual organisms. Individuality in (most) animals and of virions (if you have an electron microscope) is pretty clear. Individuals in fungi and many plants are less clear. I also get the sense that virologists completely conflate taxonomy and nomenclature, which are regarded as related but separate things in other fields. And virologists are adamant that species are human constructs, while in other fields they are regarded more as real entities that exist in nature (or once existed; species do go extinct).

Virusbox is intended to show "virus species" and not really intended to show "virus names". It does have the parameters |serotype=, |strain= and |virus=, but these are for infraspecific entities, not the "virus name" for a "virus species". When articles have a serotype, strain or virus parameter there is usually an article for the species. Outside of virology, when Wikipedia says something "is a member of the species/genus/family" it can be understood that there are other members of the species/genus/family and that there is an article that covers all of them.

There are a few virus articles that use |subdivision_ranks= with "Member virus" to show a single "virus name". Lloviu virus is one where Wikipedia uses the virus name as the title of the article, and Sudan ebolavirus is one where Wikipedia uses the (old) virus species as the title. Doing it this way keeps the virus species from displaying as a link.

There hasn't been any discussion about how Wikipedia is going to deal with viruses following the adoption of binomial nomenclature. The majority of articles have titles and taxoboxes using (pre-binomial adoption) virus species. The simplest solution seems to be to update the taxoboxes with the binomial virus species, and leave the title with the old virus species (which is now a "virus name"), not to try to force the taxoboxes to show both "virus species" and "virus name". Plantdrew (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and help. The 2nd article you cited at the beginning ("Differentiating between viruses and virus species ...") is up to date and explains the virus taxonomy and its problems very well. I would still think using the virus name as the title for a wiki page is better than using the virus species because then you can describe its size, what organisms it infects, etc. As you mentioned, a virus species does not infect anything, it is just an abstract concept, a taxonomic category. The way you have changed the virusbox for the Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus is the best solution to the problem I had and it reflects the virus taxonomy correctly. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion deserves an audience. Could it be pasted (and continued if needs be) here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses? Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would be very helpful in my view, but I would not know how to paste it. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Plantdrew agrees, I will paste it. Graham Beards (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards:, you can paste it. Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have done so. Graham Beards (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion to move

I moved

Yes, Sedum is a mess. I guess Messerschmid 2020 (

doi:10.1002/tax.12316) is the latest word, but I expect there will be eventually be some further publications (the 2020 publication doesn't establish the combinations necessary for the proposed circumscription of Sedum). Plantdrew (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Both IPNI and PoWO now accept that it should be bourgaeana and their websites will be updated in a few days at most. When I see the updates I'm inclined to move Rhamnus bourgaeana to Rhamnus oleoides subsp. bourgaeana. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Plantdrew,

I see you are tagging a lot of pages for CSD G5 speedy deletion. Just a tip here, in the field, please put the name of the sockmaster, not the sockpuppet. This is because if any admin has questions, they'll want to view the relevant SPI case and those are filed under the name of the sockmaster, not the individual sockpuppets. Thank you for making this adjustment. Your work is appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The process is also made much easier if you use

Twinkle. But that's up to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

... don't know what I was thinking. Complete brainfart. Thanks for fixing it back up! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about dropping you a note, but figured it was just a brainfart. Plantdrew (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found Halophila johnsonii tricky to deal with. It seems clear that it's just a clone of Halophila ovalis or perhaps more precisely of Halophila ovalis subsp. ovalis. There's enough to say about it to warrant a separate article, I think, so I decided to treat it under the English name Johnson's seagrass, although the taxobox doesn't work perfectly. I would welcome your view. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination would be to redirect to H. ovalis, with a section there about H. johnsonii and its ESA listing/delisting. But the article does get a decent number of page views.

You had previously suggested using a vernacular name title to deal with Betula uber (a forma according to POWO, but ESA listed as a species). But when we had discussed that, {{Infraspeciesbox special}} didn't exist so there wasn't anyway to indicate forma rank with an automatic taxobox. I'm not sure what do with the taxobox for the seagrass. But I don't think subsp. ovalis should be listed as a synonym in the taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would in principle also prefer to redirect to Halophila ovalis, and the note I put under the section heading "Johnson's seagrass" could be expanded, but the article had quite a few wikilinks as well as page views. Um...

I do agree that I should not have given subsp. ovalis as a synonym, and I've removed it. Ideally the taxobox would show the sequence Halophila ovalis – Halophila ovalis subsp. ovalis – clone Johnson's seagrass, but this isn't possible with the current version of {{Infraspeciesbox special}}, and using a manual taxobox doesn't allow a line for a clone. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do with

@Peter coxhead:, I've been traveling, so it's taken me awhile to get back to you. That paper says it is establishing combinations needed for the Flora of North America treatment, so I assume synonymy of M. villosa is likely to be accepted going forward. The Jepson Manual (1993) notes that M. antonina subsp. antonina "hybridizes with (and much like) M. villosa". I assume you saw the 2009 paper that synonymizes M. antonina and M. villosa subsp. villosa?

I certainly don't think an article for M. antonina is still warranted (it seems pretty dubious to recognize it even in the 1993 Jepson Manual treatment). Mark Brunnell is a co-author of the current (2012) Jepson eFlora treatment of M. villosa, so I expect Jepson eFlora will eventually be updated to follow Brunnell's 2020 treatment of villosa as a subspecies in odoratissima. Plantdrew (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the delay; I've had plenty to do, here and in the real world. I've now given the fossil plant articles automated taxoboxes (and found a number of issues and omissions in the International Fossil Plant Names Index relating to the taxa concerned, which the editors have been quick to fix – IPNI seems to have delegated fossil plant names to this database).

I agree about

Monardella antonina, and will move it. I thought I would first make a start on the taxonomy of Monardella odoratissima. Until there are secondary sources, such as the proposed revised Flora of North America and Jepson Manual treatments, it's difficult or perhaps impossible to fully combine the M. odoratissima and Monardella villosa articles, I think, because any attempt at a description of the united taxon would involve synthesis. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I've now revised Monardella odoratissima and Monardella villosa and moved Monardella antonina to Monardella odoratissima subsp. villosa. It's not a wholly satisfactory arrangement, but it's a far as I personally feel able to go pending the appearance of revised treatments in the Flora of North America and the Jepson Manual. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you removed the genus categories I added to Bachmannia chubutensis, such as Category:Prehistoric ray-finned fish genera and Category:Ypresian genera. Are these depreciated or something? I've been adding them to every single one of the fossil fish pages I've been updating. Geekgecko (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

Bachmanniidae redirect. There are various other categories such as Category:Eocene animals of South America, where there isn't really any guidance about including redirects vs. articles (or both) in the category. But if the category name specifies "genera" or "families" the page(s) in that category should be genera/families regardless of whether the page is a redirect or an article. Plantdrew (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah nothing wrong then, I must have completely missed that you just moved the categories to the redirect. I've done that many times myself, no idea why I didn't bother to check. Geekgecko (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what I did wrong, but I can't get the automatic taxobox to display. Your help is appreciated. Thanks. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions1325: if the taxonomy template is disambiguated (e.g. when a plant and animal genus have the same name), you must use |genus= and |species= in the {{Speciesbox}}, not |taxon=. |taxon= in Speciesboxes expects the value specified to be exactly two words, where the first word is the exact name of the taxonomy template to be called. |Genus= accepts multiple word template names such as Template:Taxonomy/Phallaria (moth).

WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. If a monotypic genus requires disambiguation, the binomial should be used as the title, as a form of natural disambiguation. Unfortunately, the guidelines for titles of articles covering monotypic taxa are exceptions on top of exceptions. Plantdrew (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you so much. I performed the first page move just before I suffered a fatigue spell. I did not realize that there was a plant genus with the same name until after it was too late. I'll be more careful next time. Thanks again. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that the article I created,

@GunnarBonk:, Wikipedia follows FishBase rather than Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes for validity/synonymy of fish species. While it is uncommon for these two databases to disagree, in this case FishBase recognizes D. boaja. Plantdrew (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realize that. Thanks for letting me know! GunnarBonk (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a case where Fishbase hadn't caught up with ECoF. The change is based on two recent papers (Stiller et al 2022, Hay et al 2023). I'd expect Fishbase to make the change soon and the article can be moved then. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Plantdrew!

I have re-inserted the content you deleted in the article about the brownbanded bamboo shark, and I have added a source so that it is no longer unsourced. (It is, of course, still trivia, but I would contend that the film has contributed to the awareness of this particular species of shark - I for one did not know about it until I watched the movie).

Sincerely, Nikolaj1905 (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]