User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Rose bud image

Hi sir.why did you delete my image?Stormaya (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTGALLERY. Images in an article should be used carefully. Each should add something distinct that is related to the text of the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hibisceae

See here, though it needs an update, primarily with regards to the bombacoids, where there is newer phylogenetic data. (Redoing the classification pages has percolated to near the top of my to do list.)

Hibisceae as an accepted tribe is not problematical, though there might be issues about its circumscription. APWeb might do as a reference - or pick one of the references from there.

The big problem in this area is that Hibiscus is seriously paraphyletic, swallowing up to all of Hibisceae (including Kydieae and Malvavisceae/Ureneae). The nettle hasn't yet been grasped in general (as I understand Mabberley adopted Hibiscus sensu latissimo), and there are several groups which you'll either find in Hibiscus or in segregate genera, depending on the author's taste (Fioria and Talipariti are the most equally balanced ones). We don't yet have enough data on the phylogenetic structure of the group to propose a stable classification splitting the genus, but Hibiscus rosa-sinensis is safe - it's in the PhyloCode /Euhibiscus clade with Hibiscus syriacus, and that's the group that would retain the name Hibiscus in event of a dismantling of the genus. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that the "flower and bud" image is Hibiscus x archeri (rosa-sinensis x schizosepalus).

The list of synonyms is questionable - see my Lilibiscus summary. The USDA plants database recognises Hibiscus arnottianus. Otherwise (AFPD doesn't cover the Mascarenes) they're from areas not covered by the major regional databases, so there's questions as to what's a WP:RS.

And in general, this page struck me as surprisingly poor for such an important horticultural subject. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: I agree it's a poor page, which is why it's on my to-do list. On the other hand, it's been on the list a long time because every time I look into it, I'm struck by the point you made above, i.e. the lack of good secondary sources for the genus as a whole let alone this species. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The thought is crossing my mind of finessing the taxonomic questions by adding a tropical hibiscus covering sect. Lilibiscus in toto. I believe that the people who reviewed the Fijian hibiscus are working on a genetic study of the section, which would clarify the taxonomy, but we might have to wait a while for published results. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: that seems a good idea. It's not an exact analogy by any means, but Garden marguerite is an article I created to get around uncertainty over parentage. Using an English name enables neutrality over taxonomy. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Laferriere

Hello Peter, I agree with you regarding the question of why people hide their real names. As you can see, I even list my middle name and spell my name as appears on birth certificate from Amsterdam, Noord Holland, Nederland.

I discovered you via looking up Joseph Laferriere, which I did because he did a wikipedia article that I was drawn to, which then led to you as wrote a short biography stub about him. At first, there was past tense, and I thought perhaps he had died?

I like many of the topics you plan to write about. Very cool, to see the interest in spiders.

I reside in Los Angeles County, California. Spending time at the Ballona Wetlands, very close to LAX Airport. Many spiders in salt marsh habitat here, and read somewhere that marshes are rich in spider diversity. Also read that islands at sea have unusually rich diversity, including distant islands such as Hawaii, relative to other taxonomic groups of land invertebrates. I believe the reason is the ability of many kinds of spiders to "fly" or "parachute" to islands on winds, with some species possibly rafting as part of the journey on a floating item. Presumably pregnant spiders disperse this way, unless both male and female adults do so, but chances more remote of two members of opposite sex arriving on island, and nearby to each other, so that their paths cross in order to be able to mate?

I think the topic that Joseph Laferriere wrote about may have been Phyllospadix torreyi, surfgrass.

Hope you are well. Be well. Take care. Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Robert Jan van de Hoek: my only concession to creating a 'non real' username was to emulate the de-capitalization style of Wikipedia page and section titles, which I found strange at first, but am now used to.

Adult spiders can "balloon" (which seems to be the verb most used in English, although it's not really appropriate). Foelix (Biology of Spiders, 2011, 3rd ed., p.289) says that adult females of up to 100 mg can take off in suitable conditions. Female spiders can store sperm for significant periods of time, so they wouldn't have to be carrying fertilized eggs.

(In the German version of Foelix's book, he writes "Fliegen am eigenen Faden", glossed as the English "ballooning", and then uses the verb "fliegen". There isn't really a good verb for this mode of transport. Unless Dutch has a word for it!)

Joseph Laferrière used to be a regular contributor, and a useful one as an retired academic botanist. You can see his contributions here. He hasn't been around since 2015. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, I wish that we would capitalize English names of animals and plants, such as California Condor as example. I simply do not agree with MOS and in journalism to not capitalize condor, as this is a proper noun. But like you, I have had to surrender to Wikipedia MOS rule.

I have heard the term, "ballon" or ballooning in spiders, and agree that ballooning is not a great term, but I can live with the term as balloons have a string hanging quite often, perhaps emulating thread of silk-like material of a spider?

Could female spiders inhale or have air inside body to make them buoyant as well? Wondering?

I had forgotten that female spiders store sperm. That is quite an advantage for colonizing new places such as island in the ocean, but perhaps also mountains wetter climate than desert lowlands, and perhaps even islands of natural areas in an urban sea of hardscape.

Spiders seem to deserve much more attention and visibility in ecology and natural history.

I like that they play the key role as predators and their fascinating sexual courtship behaviors.

Have you heard of the term, "AERIAL PLANKTON" and could that be a valid term for reference to spiders as plankters and plankton, and considering air as a fluid?

Yes, Joseph does seem to have dropped off from wikipedia. I found him at Facebook, and sent him a message, and hopefully I will hear from him.

What made you decide to do a facebook page about Joseph?

By the way, I just reached 1000 edits, and got a nice compliment from wikipedia, so as you can see, I am still a junior editor, but still nice to be told I am a "great editor!"

I have not yet made any new articles on my own, and I struggle with making citations and references, but did make a feeble attempt one time to make an article a few months ago, and gave up continuing. And I can and do citations and references, just painful to do so. I do enjoy making blue links. And I have recently joined with a wiki-editor for a new article, yet the submittal and creation of the article was not by me, but I have added to the article.

Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

About hatnotes

I've seen several recent instances where you've added {{about}} hatnotes to articles on spider genera, and linked to the DAB page directly; see e.g. Phlegra (spider). Such links must go through the (disambiguation) qualifier per WP:INTDAB; User:DPL bot reports direct links to DAB pages as errors in need of fixing (that is how I find them). Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: I've probably been doing this for years for genera that need disambiguating, as I didn't learn about this rule until recently when articles long on on my watchlist were changed. It does seem poor programming to me to flag such wikilinks in 'about' hatnotes as opposed to article text, since they should be expected in this context. But of course I will try to remember to do it this way in future. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Handling homonymy at subfamily level

Hi Peter, no hurry, but I wonder if you could demonstrate how the automatic taxobox ought to be used at Anthiinae_(beetle). Shyamal (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shyamal: um... Anthiinae Poey, 1861 is a later homonym of Anthiinae Bonelli, 1813 as the article at the fish name says. So the beetle name should definitely be at the plain subfamily name, and until a replacement is available for the fish name, it should be the one that is disambiguated, in my view.

However, given that the articles are as they are:

1. Set up Template:Taxonomy/Anthiinae (beetle). It should have |link=Anthiinae (beetle)|Anthiinae.
2. Then create an {{Automatic taxobox}} at Anthiinae (beetle) with |taxon=Anthiinae (beetle).

This should be explained better at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates.

I'll leave you to set this up (as a learning exercise); let me know if there are any problems. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I had thought of this but I was under the impression that taxon names could be maintained clean without disambiguation. Shyamal (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, the taxon name displayed in the article taxobox will be clean, but the title of the taxonomy template has to be disambiguated. See Template:Taxonomy/Abronia (lizard) and the corresponding article Abronia (lizard) as an example. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, got it. I was imagining that it would have been nicer if the disambiguation could be made "cleaner" (with only accepted taxonomic names being used) with a second parameter - like "grandparent" (or "ancestor") but I can see that it would be either difficult or messy code given that we have only pointers from child to parent nodes and not the other way. Shyamal (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shyamal: because the automated taxobox system is built on the 'normal' template system, it can't easily or efficiently search through a set of taxonomy templates to find the right one. So it uses a very straightforward approach: having determined that entry-name is the point at which to enter the classification hierarchy, it simply looks for the page "Template:Taxonomy/entry-name", which must exist with exactly this title.

At one time there was some code which tried to maintain links between taxa in the parent→child direction, but this resulted in a mess once skip taxonomy templates became common, because when these are present, the taxonomy templates encode a taxon network, not a tree, so the same taxon can turn up multiple times as a child. So this code had to be removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I added a couple of examples at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#Examples which might help editors in future. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Redundancy in first sentence

I find this edit to obviously make the article less good. You are introducing a second name for the same phenomenon in the first sentence of the article. Brevity is of the essence, especially in the first sentence. Wikipedia has chosen a prioritized name for this phenomenon. You are introducing a second one. My statement that the first sentence is to be short is not my personal view. It is the Wikipedia view. In Wikipedia we need to work in a way that makes it possible for people with different views to cooperate. This includes giving up personal views when they are contradicted by clear majority views.--Ettrig (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not redundant. That edit is providing important information, the scientific name for the orb-weaver spider family. It is not something that the average reader would know. Similarly your edit at Schizocosa ocreata is not helpful. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ettrig: I agree with Jts1882. It is absolutely not redundant. It's not a second name, it's the name, the only codified name, and one recognizable in every country. Vernacular names vary between countries (even those that speak the same language), and between sources. It's utterly unhelpful to remove the scientific name, and I will always restore it if I see it removed.

Please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxon template#Introduction, a consensus template for taxon articles, says "Include common (vernacular) names if they exist for the taxon" – "include" not "replace", the clear implication being that the main name is the scientific name. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Clade chlorophyte

Template:Clade chlorophyte has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --TheImaCow (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Extinct parameter in Speciesbox templates

Hello Peter, when I added the extinct daggers to the taxobox for Spined dwarf mantis, it seems to have also added an unintended "(yes)" to the conservation status as well. Is this perhaps a bug? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The |extinct= parameter is for the year of extinction for recently extinct species, e.g. the dodo. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I hadn't been aware of the dual use. How do you stop the yes in the status? —  Jts1882 | talk  16:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Loopy30 and Jts1882: you can't. If the target taxon has its own taxonomy template, as in the case of a genus, then † will be added automatically to the displayed taxon name if the taxonomy template has |extinct=yes. In addition, in such a case, |extinct=YEAR can be used to display the year of extinction, but it's optional. However, when the target taxon does not have its own taxonomy template, as in the case of a species, and the parent taxon is not extinct, the only way of showing a † against the target taxon name is to use |extinct= in the taxobox, which is thus not optional. The value of the parameter can be a year, in which case the taxobox will show "Extinct (YEAR)" as well as a †, or "yes", in which case the taxobox will show "Extinct (yes)" as well as a †, as is the case at Spined dwarf mantis. This is a very old feature of how taxoboxes work. With my software engineering hat on, I'm not enthusiastic about the dual parameter types (number and boolean) for |extinct= inside a taxobox template, but it's a very well established feature. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

To change it, there would have to be a new parameter in {{Speciesbox}}, e.g. |species_extinct= which just added the †. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Or |extinct_year= for the status. There are less of them to change.

The alternative is to only show the date in {{taxobox/species}} if the value is a number (or number within range). I don't see a simple parser function, but something like {{#if:{{Isnumeric|{{{extinct|}}}}}| ({{{extinct}}}) }} might work. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this edit works for the IUCN3.1 statuses. I've reverted the change. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

But as always there are forms that won't work, e.g. |extinct=ca. 1885, |extinct=1895?, |extinct=by 1778, |extinct=1950s, |extinct=early 18th century, |extinct=soon after 1761, etc. Perhaps checking for not yes or true would be better. —  Jts1882 | talk  18:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, checking for not yes or true is probably the best that can be done with the existing parameter, if we really don't want to see "(yes)" – it's never bothered me. Actually, I now prefer your suggestion of another parameter for the date. I think something like |extinction_date= is better; "year" is probably too suggestive of a precise number. The change could be made in a multistep process:

1. Pass in extinct={{{extinction_date|{{{extinct|}}}}}}
2. Fix the taxoboxes to use |extinction_date= where appropriate
3. Then pass in extinct={{{extinction_date|}}}

Incidentally, the documentation for {{Taxobox/species}} is incomplete, as it doesn't mention |extinct=. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Peter and Jts1882 for the explanations. If |extinct_date= could be added without undue hassle in order to to remove the extra text, then that would be good. Loopy30 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The question is how much work step #2 above involves; it's certainly some hassle. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind; the easiest thing to do is to take up Jts1882's earlier suggestion of just not displaying "yes" or "true". Template:Taxobox/species/testcases shows how {{Taxobox/species/sandbox}} does this. I'll try a few more tests before making this live. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think the separate parameter is best in theory, as the dual use parameter is confusing. Ideally the one for the conservation status section with begin with status to make clear that it belongs with the group, e.g. |status_extinction_date=, although if too long then |extinction_date= is reasonable.

I get 1,916 articles with |extinct=, 165 articles where the value begins with a digit (0-9), 69 articles with some letters before a number, or about 233 articles with a plain number or number with some letters before it. That means over two hundred taxoboxes would need changing.

The alternative is to check for |status=yes in {{[[Template:taxobox/[species|taxobox/[species]]}}. There are five examples using "true" that could be changed or |status=true can also be checked. This is easier and people don't need to learn a new parameter. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: we seem to have had an edit conflict. I agree that the two parameter system would be better, but those editors who use |extinct= seem mostly to understand the long-established usage, so at least for now I'm implementing the one parameter system. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that keeping legacy use has merit. Note that {{taxobox/species/sandbox}} is not using the most recent version of the template. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks! Yes, I forgot to update the sandbox version to the live first. Now done. Template:Taxobox/species/testcases seems ok; it's a straightforward change I think, so I don't see any problem in making it live. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A general feature of the original coding of all the taxobox templates, going way back and including the major updates in 2010, is the use of "blank vs. nonblank" as the test on parameters, rather than using their values. So if you use |extinct=no in {{Speciesbox}}, say, it will currently produce a † just as if you had used |extinct=yes. In the parts that have been converted to Lua, this kind of test is done properly, but {{Speciesbox}} itself has not yet been converted (it's on my to-do list). I don't think that editors do use such incorrect values, so I haven't bothered to test for them in {{taxobox/species/sandbox}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Updated

I've now made the updated version of {{taxobox/species}} live. Putting |extinct=yes at Spined dwarf mantis now doesn't display "yes" in the taxobox. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pleurothallis abbreviata

Hi,

I was wondering, is there a tax box for this? Starzoner (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You need to create a taxonomy template for the genus. You could have done this by clicking on "fix" and following the instructions, but I have created {{taxonomy/Anathalis}} for you. Take a look. All you need to do is add the |rank= (genus) and |parent= (I've used family Orchidaceae). If you want to include a subfamily or tribe you can change the parent and add an appropriate source (|refs=). POWO just use the family, but I notice the genus Anathallis pages uses subtribe Pleurothallidinae, tribe Epidendreae and subfamily Epidendroideae, but it is unsourced. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Breaks Harvard linking

Hi Peter, I notice you reverted an edit of mine (cite Q in Botanic Gardens) with the (to me) entire cryptic comment "breaks Harvard linking". I was hoping you might help me by explaining this explanation to me. Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: I left a message on your talk page as well. If you look at this, it shows in red "Harv error: link from #CITEREFSpencerCross2017 doesn't point to any citation." This is because the Cite Q template doesn't (currently) generate the right anchor to link to. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

MargaretRDonald, the Cite Q template needs to generate the equivalent of |last= and |first= for each author in order for sfn and harvnb templates to work. Your edit also violated WP:CITEVAR, since the dominant citation style in that article uses "lastname, firstname" and your edit changed that citation to "firstname lastname". Please ensure that your edits to citations preserve CITEVAR in articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: as I understand it, since the Cite Q template pulls its data from Wikidata, it's dependent on how the citation is set up there. I cannot see how it will ever be fully consistent with CITEVAR. Even if its output is initially consistent with the article's style, a change at Wikidata will have the potential to change the output with no say from us here. Why is this template being used before the many issues are discussed and if possible resolved? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for the explanation. (Currently, {{Cite Q}} uses the the "as stated" qualifier to cite an author, which is fairly random and usually fails the lastname firstname convention.) FYI @Pigsonthewing: MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not know why MargaretRDonald and possibly others are inserting this template into articles before it is ready for use in compliance with MOS. I have asked that editor to fix or revert their non-compliant edits. I have posted a note at Template talk:Cite Q. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Peter coxhead, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Starzoner (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Peter coxhead: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Starzoner (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Parents automatically displayed in automatic taxoboxes

Would it be possible to fix the automatic taxobox system such that, in the absence of a "display_parents" parameter, it will display one taxon beyond any of the following:

• taxa where the "link" parameter is to the current page
• non-existing pages

Animal lover 666 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Animal lover 666: in theory, yes to both cases. However, the second is problematic.

• Your first case would only arise, I think, when a higher level taxon redirected to the current page. I would expect these mostly to be ranks that are automatically displayed, e.g. a monogeneric family redirecting to the only genus. Can you give me an example of where the system doesn't do what you want?
• There is a Lua test to see whether a page exists, but it's an "expensive" test (see mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual#Expensive properties. Since there would have to be a test for every level in the classification hierarchy, the total processing time would rise considerably, and might well cause problems (some of the dinosaur species have 50+ ranks above them), so I would be very reluctant to implement this, and it would certainly need some discussion at one of the "technical" talk pages.

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, you would not need to check all the way up the hierarchy. In fact, it's probably rare that you would need to check more than 3 taxa; start once you're passed the ones which link to the current page, and stop on the first level which exists. For Pagurapseudopsis, for example, you would start on the superfamily and stop at the order, checking 3 pages. Secondly, the first case arises a significant number of times, and I think it would make sense to look for it automatically. Animal lover 666 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

And having to check for the existence of more than one is probably mostly in those branches of the evolutionary tree which are less-well documented on Wikipedia, so the articles are likely to be shorter. Animal lover 666 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The taxobox at Pagurapseudopsis would display the order anyway, because it's a principal rank. Can you point me to an example where without |display_parents=, what you think should be displayed would not be?

Checking just three steps above the "autotaxon" (i.e. the one that starts the entry into the automated taxobox system) would certainly be possible. Again, though, I'd like to see some examples as per the previous case, i.e. where what you think should be displayed would not be. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

How about Reef lobster, which is a genus, family and superfamily; and where the infraorder is the next real parent? Animal lover 666 (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Good example. So the superfamily should automatically be shown because its taxonomy template links to "Reef lobster". Yes, this seems sensible. I'll look tomorrow at how to implement this and get back to you. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this but I think you can test for the existence of a page without using expensive parser functions. The manual refers to expensive properties so it is testing for the exists or isRedirect properties that is expensive. If you use mw.title.makeTitle( 'Template', 'Taxonomy/taxon' ) and test for the object itself (i.e. not nil) rather than object.exists, I don't think it will count as expensive. That said, I don't think this is something we would want to do for the whole hierarchy.

On the other hand, checking that the taxonomy templates haven't been mistakenly set up as redirects (your recent message on my talk page) would be expensive as you'd have to check object.isRedirect and this is certainly expensive. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: my understanding of mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual#mw.title.makeTitle is that it makes a title object quite independently of the existence of a page, so the title object won't be nil. Then you have to use expensive properties of the title object to see if a page with that title exists. I did play with it at one time, but I think one of us needs to do so again to check.

I'm not (yet anyway) convinced that it would be a good idea to display the first existing parent taxon above the first set of non-existing ones, given that this might be a very minor taxon which wouldn't then tell you much. But the Reef lobster case is a good one; it should be possible to avoid the need to manually specify |display_parents= in such cases, and adding this wouldn't interfere with existing taxoboxes.

I've got involved in trying to fix spider articles with manual taxoboxes (after Plantdrew's update to the table). It turns out that almost all the species articles shouldn't be at the title they are at as they are synonyms, sometimes of existing articles, or dubious names. So I may not get to looking at the issue here today. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I did the test. You are right about the title object being created regardless of the existence of the page. I misinterpreted "If the resulting title is not valid, returns nil" to mean the existence of the page rather than a valid name for a potential page. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

30 nonexistent transcluded taxonomy templates

I don't know if this is something you would be interested in working on, but there are 30 transclusions of nonexistent templates currently listed at User:Plastikspork/Transclusions_of_deleted_templates/3. A couple of other editors and I are working through these lists, which have about 4000 templates listed. We either fix, remove, comment out, or otherwise deactivate the transclusions. Sometimes a subject-matter expert will know better than we do how to resolve the errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: a deleted taxonomy template transcluded in an article's taxobox or in another taxonomy template would show up in the taxobox error-tracking categories which I currently monitor and fix most days. I see that those picked up in the list linked above all appear to be in user pages, which I have to say doesn't bother me. Should it? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It should bother you only if it bothers you. We are going to clear them off of the list one way or another; the report has a limit of 5,000 pages, which means that we can't see the whole population of nonexistent templates yet (even on article pages), so we are fixing every page that we can, even user sandboxes. I wanted to give you a chance to rescue or fix any templates that were worth rescuing. If you don't see any of those, no worries. I'll take care of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: ah, right, I wasn't sure why it would be a problem if they were in user space, although tidying is always good. Far from rescuing, there's a pile of taxonomy templates that need deleting (see Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates). Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Most of those listed are {{speciesbox}} or {{automatic taxobox}} templates with empty parameters where in the absence of |taxon= it defaults to |taxon=user/sandbox and tries to transclude {{Taxonomy/user/sandbox}}. So they are templates that don't exist (and never existed) rather than deleted taxonomy templates. Could user pages with |taxon= be made to default to something else? —  Jts1882 | talk  08:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882 and Jonesey95: I've now looked through quite a lot of the taxonomy template cases. They seem to fall into several groups:

• If |taxon= is completed, the taxonomy template already exists. In these cases, I suggest completing the taxobox.
• Either |taxon= is absent or if present the relevant taxonomy template doesn't exist, but there is evidence that the taxon is accepted. In these cases, I suggest creating the taxonomy template and completing |taxon= if needed.
• It's a dummy empty taxobox present on a user page as a resource to be copied. In these cases, I suggest surrounding them with <pre><nowiki> .. </nowiki></pre>.

I've done some of them in this way.

I'll put on my to-do list creating a separate error-tracking category for bad taxoboxes in user space; at present these are just ignored. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I now think all of them have been sorted. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: now that Plastikspork has updated the lists, a few more links to nonexistent "Taxonomy/..." templates have appeared. Some are to archives, which I haven't tried to fix. There are some that are deliberate error tests, so the links to nonexistent templates are actually correct. There are a few I need to investigate further, like the one from Template:Taxobox/taxon – I think this template isn't used now, but unfortunately the tool doesn't find uses by Lua modules, so it may be. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Plastid

Hello. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask a question. Recently, I proposed to slighty rephrase the sentences regarding the Paulinella chromatophore to clarify that although it does not belong to the clade closely related to the Gloeomargarita, the term plastid is also applicable there, especially since it is considered a chloroplast. I do not know how to do it exactly, but I feel that this information might be useful for average readers. Perhaps you will find a proper solution to the problem, since I know you are an experienced Wikipedia user, and I have fond memories of our cooperation. Thank you. --Pinoczet (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pinoczet: hmm... Having read through Paulinella and Gloeomargarita lithophora I see there is an issue. It seems to me that there are three cases which could be called "plastids":

1. Organelles resulting directly from the original early endosymbiotic event ("primary plastids")
2. Organelles resulting from a later endosymbiotic event involving a eukaryote that contained a primary plastid ("secondary plastids")
3. Organelles resulting from the later endosymbiotic event that led to Paulinella ("Paulinella chromatophores")

The text of Plastid only seems to treat 1 and 2 as plastids. The question in Wikipedia has to be whether there are sources that explicitly call Paulinella chromatophores "plastids", since we can only write what is in reliable sources. Are there? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Your comment appears to be accurate. As for the sources that call Paulinella chromatophores "plastids", please check the following refs: "How Really Ancient Is Paulinella Chromatophora?", "Diversity and evolutionary history of plastids and their hosts". Are they appropriate enough? --Pinoczet (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems to fit with the definition of plasmid. There might need to be a new term for different primary endosymbiotic lineages. For references try here and here. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Searching for genus-level taxonomy templates directly below a given family

Is there any way to find all genus-level taxonomy templates whose parent is a given family? I've been using "What liks here" and filtering for the template namespace6 however, this will still show me both genus-level templates under the subfamilies/tribes/subtribes, as well as any subfamily/tribe/subtribe-level template which is under this family. As for the latter I could manually ignore all templates for taxa ending with -inae, -ini or -ina; however I may miss a genus that way. Animal lover 666 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a script that should help: User:Jts1882/taxonomybrowser.js. If you say what you want specifically, I might be able to give you the answer you want. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Animal lover 666: If you type Template:Taxonomy/ "parent Araneidae" "rank genus" in the search bar, you will find all genus taxonomy templates whose direct parent is the family Araneidae. I think this is what you want. Of course, there are also likely to be genus taxonomy templates with tribes or subfamilies as the direct parent. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Spiders described in 1798

A tag has been placed on Category:Spiders described in 1798 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Cylindrolobus

I just created this, but honestly, I forgot where the ref is for this, and I'm don't know what the parent is for Cylindrolobus. Thanks. Starzoner (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starzoner: well, the article treats it as a synonym of Eria. Is this correct? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

yes it seems. Starzoner (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, actually this suggests it should be a separate genus, in subtribe Eriinae along with Eria. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Calycanthus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting my mistakes when I tried converting those taxoboxes to speciesboxes. That was my first time attempting this task. I also created my first template. However, because the source in the template seems to claim that this genus' parent taxon is actually Aphodiinae instead of Aegialiinae. I'm unsure of how to proceed. Sorry if I am causing too much trouble. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I partially take back what I said. I found other sources that seem to be more in line with what is on Wikipedia but not quite. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: no problem about fixing the taxoboxes. All I know about beetle taxonomy is that it's subject to as much churn as many other groups. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I got your message on my talk page. I thought it would be best to write here though. From now on, I will use that parameter. I was not sure that the taxon parameter also applied to automatic taxoboxes. I now see how you did it, and I fully get it now. I assure you I will not make any more mistakes. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Peter coxhead. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

JarrahTree 10:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moonlight cactus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cereus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ficus

PC, hope you and yours are well, where do I put the link to the page List of Ficus Species. There are too many to have on the ficus page. It bluelinks 140 or so, but there are 180+ ficus accepted species articles, so we need a list page. Somebody asked for a ref for the 875 species, so I provided. Otherwise I am not sure what the issue is Brunswicknic (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you have done, but seems like 2 steps forward, 2 steps back a bit. Selfref was not appropriate in this context. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: "Self ref" means that we do not describe Wikipedia within Wikipedia, so that the text can be used verbatim outside it. However, it allows the use of templates, so we are allowed to put {{main|...}}, but should not say things like "This list is not broken down to subgenus, but includes species with Wikipedia articles not listed here."

But the whole issue of "Selected species" is highly problematic in my view. I can see some logic in a list that just includes blue links, but not in a list like the one in the section in question. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You mean the ones in the Ficus page? In redoing some genera pages, I have included redlinked species if someone has gone to the trouble of adding additional info (common name, distribution), otherwise I cull them from a "selected" species list. But I do try to include all blue-linked taxa. The trouble with doing that for ficus is going through all the additional bluelinked sp. and finding the appropriate subgenera. I wanted the List of Ficus species as I am doing a couple of new pages, and I was not sure the subgenera are "up-to-date", though looking a little bit at the lit, they do seem to be. Thank you for your work and reply. ¬¬¬¬ (that's not right, what is my keyboard doing?)

@Brunswicknic: not specifically the ones at Ficus. I guess part of it is my dislike (as a retired teacher of software engineering) of duplication and redundancy. It's hard enough to keep one list of species up-to-date, splitting them is likely to cause inconsistencies. But, as I said, I do understand the logic when there are so many species. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Orbea ciliata

Could you take a look at my latest creation, Orbea ciliata, which I made without the abbreviated citation we were discussing, and critique/correct it, its use of templates, its layout, etc? Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 23:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: it seems fine to me. I usually manually add any auto-added taxonbar parameters, because this makes the taxonbar more secure against changes at Wikidata, but this is just my preference. I wondered why you rated it as "mid"? Most species are rated "low" unless they have significant uses.

If you wanted to add any more, the original description (protologue) is here. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Abductive (reasoning) 21:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

At present, there are 79 Top, 689 High, 7,784 Mid and 74,118 Low-importance articles in the Plants Wikiproject. This is a skewed a lot more towards Low than the average Wikiproject. Importance-assessing is for the readership, and depends on pageviews and any mention of commercialization or invasiveness/weediness—in other words, will anybody want to look up this plant? The vast majority of articles receive about 1 pageview per day. In the case of RHS Award of Garden Merit winners, they are all at least Mid, because one of the requirements for AGM is that the are readily commercially available. Any article on a plant that people encounter in their day-to-day lives typically gets over 10 pageviews per day. In 2019 I went through and reassessed about 20,000 plant articles, mostly moving them from Low to Mid based on pageviews. I still was largely unable to make much of a dent in the skew towards Low. Previously, Plants Wikiproject members were operating under the notion that Importance had something to do with taxon rank, which it does not. Abductive (reasoning) 21:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: I'm not sure it is entirely true that Wikiproject members were operating under the notion that Importance had something to do with taxon rank, but I guess the default assumption is that the vast majority of species are of low importance. It's a very good point that AGM plants are more than low, which I hadn't thought of. It might be useful to add this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment, although there could be some dissent re national rather than international importance (cynically I could add, because it's not a US body giving the award). Peter coxhead (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Supposedly there are 320,000 species of plants. At present there are 82,710 articles in the project, but some of these are on higher taxa, lists, botanists, and so on. That leaves 240,000 stubs on species yet to be made. Given that the species that haven't had an article made yet are probably almost all obscure, the skew toward too many Low will only get worse. That's why my system, which might seem radical, of calling any plant species that gets more than 3 pageviews a day, or is called a weed/invasive, or has been introduced outside its native range, or is edible, or is used for timber/non-timber forest products, or is commercially available, at least Mid is not radical. It is necessary. The only thing that I don't consider is a claim that some tribal peoples use it as a medicinal plant, as this is very common, unevenly reported, and has no apparent effect on pageviews. Abductive (reasoning) 13:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: I'm doubtful about the page view count, as once you get down to this level, it's very variable, and also about just "introduced outside its native range", but your other criteria seem reasonable to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I do bend my rules a lot. If I can't figure out why the page has slightly elevated page views (including a thorough search on Google, maybe even looking at synonyms), I don't raise it. Or if I can see that the pageview count is based on an error, such as I just spotted on Thapsia (plant). Here, Thapsia garganica is a candidate for the identity of the legendary Silphium. But Thapsia garganica redirects back to its genus, driving the pageviews up "unfairly". I also have been ignoring minor introductions that have no chance of becoming invasive. I used the Global Compendium of Weeds as my basis. Abductive (reasoning) 10:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Hi. I came across now archived Village pump#Are_policies_being_used_to_the_detriment_of_Wikipedia talk and wanted to let you know that I too faced instanced of misapplication of WP:MEDRS guideline but I haven't a chance to comment on. I suggest you to take a look at this ANI#Canvassing_in_Malassezia request and visit the Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Primary_sources_usage. I suggest you to put the latter on your watch list (but please leave no comment in there as the proposal is rather poor). Thanks!

@Alexander Davronov: this is a complex issue, and has, I think we agree, not always been well discussed. I don't edit medical articles as such, only plant articles. In that context, I regard as important to distinguish between (1) material that directly or indirectly implies efficacy, for which I think MEDRS rightly requires very high standards of sourcing, and (2) material that reports on traditional or ethnobotanical uses while avoiding any claims of efficacy, for which I do not think that the same sourcing standards should be applied.

More generally, it's impossible to write a good article about most plant species relying only on secondary sources, because only a small proportion of species are covered in such sources, and when they are covered, the information is usually well out of date. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thanks for letting me know. I totally agree that discretion should be applied as it's something that WP:RSCONTEXT requires. Otherwise it's disruptive behavior IMO. Anyway, I ask you to watch out for WP:MEDRS/WP:BMI as I think some users tend to overapply it to things that are out of scope of the said guidelines and more discussions are going to follow. Cheers! --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Banana Leathery Berry

In the body of the article this is mentioned, and cited in the first paragraph just after the article lead. See:

The fruit has been described as a "leathery berry". There is a protective outer layer (a peel or skin) with numerous long, thin strings (the phloem bundles), which run lengthwise between the skin and the edible inner portion. The inner part of the common yellow dessert variety can be split lengthwise into three sections that correspond to the inner portions of the three carpels by manually deforming the unopened fruit. In cultivated varieties, the seeds are diminished nearly to non-existence; their remnants are tiny black specks in the interior of the fruit.

Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland: yes, I agree that the fruit is a leathery berry, but the point being made is that botanically it's a berry, which is surprising to non-botanists, i.e. the point is about Berry (botany) versus Berry. It seems to me that adding "leathery" here detracts from this core point, but it can certainly be said elsewhere in the lead, e.g. add "The fruit has a leathery outer peel." Peter coxhead (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

References

DYK for Euphorbia abyssinica

On 10 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Euphorbia abyssinica, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the latex-like sap of the desert candle has uses in traditional medicine but can cause skin blisters and blindness? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Euphorbia abyssinica. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Euphorbia abyssinica), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Cupola gecko

New page for a species with a 'placeholder' specific name - is that something that should find entry into the automatic system (as has been done here)? If so, should the specific name be in quotes? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The usual method of handling this seems to be to put double-quotes around the placeholder or temporary name, as I did first of all at this version. I've now implemented a more complex version which doesn't italicize the double-quotes; see Cupola gecko now. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Much obliged. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata and overlaps

Hello PC, hope you and yours are well. I have had 4 problematic attempts to change wikidata, most related to where a binomial name on wikidata is in fact shared between species. So Myristica fatua Sw. is there currently, but I can not see Myristica fatua Houtt. The former is now accepted as synonym for Virola surnamensis, while the latter is a currently accepted name. I attempt to change the Authority, no, I try to start a new article, no, there is already that name. So, no taxonbar for the WP article, and I move on to an lower-hanging fruit. I have attempted to change the taxon to a synonym but have not been successful in attempts. So for Allophylus cobbe, the Myristica, I need help. Creating a new page also seems a bit opaque. Thank you for your consideration and your WP work. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: ok, I see at least part of the problem. There should be an instance of taxon in Wikidata for Myristica fatua Houtt., since this is the earlier name (1774, although IPNI doesn't have the date), whereas Myristica fatua Sw. is an illegitimate later homonym, dated 1788. Exactly how Wikidata deals with illegitimate names seems to be confused, and I may need to consult someone there to sort out the entry for Myristica fatua Sw. I've created Myristica fatua Houtt. (Q106594643) – the label in a Wikidata taxon item doesn't have to match the entry for the taxon name, so it's useful to include the authority for homonyms. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I've now also set up Myristica fatua Sw. (Q17140240) better than it was before. It's a bit naughty because neither IPNI nor PoWO actually say that Myristica fatua Sw. is illegitimate, although it must be if the dates are correct. However, IPNI and PoWO have different publications for Myristica fatua Houtt., and IPNI's apparently is of uncertain date (see [1]), although the latest date given, 1783, is still before Myristica fatua Sw. (1788). I will send a query to IPNI re adding "nomen illeg." to the latter. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)