User talk:Andyboorman

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search
Gtk-dialog-info.svg Welcome to Wikispecies, Andyboorman!

We like having new people contributing to Wikispecies. Here are a few things that may be interesting:

  • If you haven't done so, we strongly recommend you to create an account. Creating account is quick and free, plus it provides you more features such as preferences and the ability to keep a watchlist to track changes made to articles that interest you.
  • Have a look at Done and to do.
  • Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
  • Templates are there to help you following syntax and formatting rules.

Please ask further questions in the Village Pump.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at the Wikimedia Commons.

We hope you'll enjoy the time you spend on Wikispecies!

You can sign your messages with ~~~~.

Open2universe | Talk 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (To the end of 2013)
Archive 2 (Jan 2014 to the end of 2014)
Archive 3 (Jan 2015 to the end of 2015)

Christenhusz & Chase[edit]

Andy,

I think I share in the opinion of most pteridologists when I say that I don't like it. While I didn't make a specific effort to ask about it, my impression from attending the Next Generation Pteridology conference this June is that it does not have a great deal of acceptance in the community. It looks like Maarten and Mark are going to double down to try to force it into APG IV, but that survey has generated pushback in other areas. I think I would wait to see how the botanical community reacts to the release of APG IV before making large-scale changes. It's possible that, as Christenhusz et al. charge, we as specialists are taking too narrow a view of the question and need to gently acquiesce to large, lumpy families, and I recognize that. It's also possible that they'll irritate enough of the botanical community that APG IV will be ignored by many. I would be cautious and see where the community wants to go with this. Choess (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered feedback and I will refrain from making any more changes and will revert a number of those that I have made, having only a little expertise in ferns! However, I do agree with the wisdom that dealing with paraphyly or polyphyly by chopping families or genera into numerous monogeneric taxa is generally a complete cop out, unless fully justified by all evidence! I also do think that morphology, for plants, can often be a problem not a solution. Also I cannot see the point in accepting early Christenhusz et al. and ignoring the later work, but what do I know. Given that, the debate is fascinating to watch, but I agree that consensus is the key. Regards and thanks again. Andyboorman (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, obviously I am somewhat personally nettled here–as Cole observed, the methodology of this "survey" is strange and a bit suspect. To me it has the air of the "manufacturing consent" tactics more suited to middle management than scientists, wherein self-determined conclusions are dressed up as the consensus of the community. The ostensible rationale of stability through lumping strikes me as philosophically flawed: to the extent that fern taxonomy is unstable, it's because there are gaps in the existing phylogenies which are still being resolved. To the extent that you make the families more "stable" while these questions are still being answered, you also make them less useful for comparison and classification.
Your last point was made when Asparagaceae s.l was first proposed by APGII, but now in light of the context of Asparagales and the subfamilies the situation appears more stable phylogenetically, although as Stevens points out on the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website it is still rather unsatisfactory when looked at from morphology. The "older" families, such as Ruscaceae, Agavaceae, Convallariaceae are still preferred by many. Perhaps it is the same in ferns with an explanation involving homoplasy and the age of the clades or is it trying to get a satisfactory balance where morphology plays more that a "bit walk on" part? Andyboorman (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I think pteridologists like Christenhusz et al.'s early work because it's both comprehensive and informed by molecular phylogeny, clearing up a lot of erroneous classifications based, as you say, on morphology. Their later classification really just pushes some of the clades in the earlier classification down by a rank, which is what's causing the fuss (Polypodiaceae, in particular, becomes enormously large and highly subdivided). Now, it may be that their objective in lumping is to make the concept of "family" in ferns a little more comparable to the same concept in other botanical clades, and that that principles should take priority over the convenience of smaller families to specialists. Perhaps this will ultimately validate their choices among botanists at large, but for now, they've signally failed (IMO) to conciliate their constituencies. Choess (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
A Polypodiaceae similar to Orchidaceae, but at least with the later there are strong morphological synapomorphies. When I used to teach plant systematics I must admit that I felt on shaky ground with ferns and their allies once we got down to family level and into genera, I never got the confidence of true expertise. Your point about stability through lumping also applies to splitting as well, surely? Monophyly is a double edged sward where evidence is weak leaving judgements to individual preference - very unsatisfactory IMO. I am sure that the situation will become clearer as gaps are filled, but probably not for a few more years. As to that survey, I can see why they did it, but it did not clear the air and could be criticised on many levels not least design and interpretation. I would make a good teaching tool for qualitative research methods, as there are so many discussion points! Andyboorman (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Malabaila and Leiotulus[edit]

I see. a controversial topic. Well, this matter belongs to you. good works. …--Fagus (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversial indeed! Reading around the whole tribe and indeed subfamily offers more questions than answers. They are monophyletic but that can not be said for many genera. As the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website notes "Classical generic and tribal limits in Apioideae are a notable disaster area." The reason for this is clear - classification was based upon gross fruit morphology, but when other factors were thrown into the mix, such as molecular evidence and internal detail of the fruit, then genera can unravel. All we can do is reflect the current state and be ready to edit when the science clears the uncertainty. But the necessary changes must be made and published not just proposed I guess. Oh fun! Andyboorman (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

silly little error[edit]

Hi Andyboorman,

I was going through homonyms, and I found that all the species of Sclerochiton Kraatz are using a wrong template. I don't feel like fiddling with Wikispecies-templates, so perhaps you can take care of it? Thank you in advance. - Brya (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No problems will do it later today. Andyboorman (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! - Brya (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Patrol stats[edit]

Thanks to Cgt on danish Wp, we can now see statistics on patrolling: https://cgt.name/patrolstats/wikispecies.html MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the patrolling stats URL has now changed from the da:WP user Cgt's personal web page (listed above) to a URL within the Wikimedia project itself, more specifically https://tools.wmflabs.org/patrolstats/specieswiki.html at Wikimedia Tool Labs. The old "cgt.name" URL no longer works without a proper SSL certificate. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC).

Deletion of redirects[edit]

Ok. Then redirections do not need references. Ok. --Allforrous (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Allforrous: They do, but the main ones are on the Acacieae taxon page (see the discussion also) and at the generic level. Once I get around to the new combinations I will provide synonyms and references for the affected species and transfer data. Apologies for not doing this already, but I am trying to get rid of the red link genera in Fabaceae then I will go back and do some tidying up at the species level. Sorry if this has caused you some angst!Andyboorman (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

WCSP[edit]

Dear Andy,

I see you reversed my edit to template:WCSP. Can I ask why? Uleli (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Uleli: The year format was not the same as was agreed on the pump, being bracketed. As all other years in the reference section are followed by a full stop, it makes WCSP look strange and out of place. Is this OK and sensible? Andyboorman (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes indeed, then I must stop using brackets. Thank's Uleli (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Reluctantly myself also! Hey ho consensus Regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Nadi[edit]

Hi Andy, may I ask you for help with Template:Nadi? In January, you changed the link to the reference. Since then, this alternative PDF also has disappeared. However, there exist two archived versions: [1] and [2]. For the discussion at Village Pump, in my opinion, it is important, that the document with the basic concept is accessible. I cannot do the update myself, as the template is protected. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Franz, I have added a new source for the paper. I have also altered the protection level so that you and other experienced users can alter it as a free access version seems to circulate rather than stay at a static location. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you think we should one of the archives rather than a live source? It should be up to you! Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks. Probably, using one of both archive links, there will be more reliability, that it will not be a dead link again. Anyway, I do not expect a new edition, after Brummitt has deceased. Moreover, I suppose that Kew is interested to keep the scheme stable, as any change only will cause trouble for WCSP. So, it's kind of an archive anyway. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Chloris[edit]

Have you seen these two edits: Chloris dandyana DIFF. and Chloris spathacea DIFF. by User:Succu? What's going on, really? :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC).

Special:Contributions/Fart_poopy_nuts - block and delete[edit]

Hi, please do the needful with Special:Contributions/Fart_poopy_nuts. Thanks. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I have blocked account as vandalism only. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Could you delete vandalism-only pages too? See Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Also completed! Some people - I guess it takes all sorts! Andyboorman (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Well spotted and quickly dealt with. Good work! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC).

Endemism of Muscari dolichanthum[edit]

Hello Andy. Please see User talk:SKas#Endemism of Muscari dolichanthum. Any good ideas or other input is very welcome. (By the way, the discussion includes a link to the Russain Red List, regarding the species' distribution. The Russian text there roughly (!) translates as "Distribution. In Russia [the species] occurs in the Tuapse district [...] Adler district [...], Akhshtyrskaya gorge and on the banks of the Mzymta River [...] Kudepsty, on the right bank of the Psou River. Outside of Russia: in Georgia (Abkhazia: in the surroundings of Gagra, Sukhumi and Pitsunda cape.)"

–Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC).

Hello @Tommy Kronkvist:. Please note that these are just my opinions, but I am sure you remember that we have discussed the issue of distributions on the Pump, but without coming to consensus.
  1. WS is apolitical as are the organisms we catalog.
  2. Distributions of organisms are not linked to political entities expect by historical accident.
  3. Political entities should play no role on the main taxon pages.
  4. Distribution can have a role on what is essentially a taxonomic and classification database, but I will not go into the reasons for my opinion here.
  5. Some commonly used distributions systems have country names within them, but this is more of a tag than a recognition of politics.
  6. Endemism by country is a construct not a factor in an organisms; phylogeny, taxonomy, classification or indeed distribution. Therefore it can be argued has no role on WS, except as perhaps in a category, but certainly not on the main page.
  7. I would like see the template EN removed from taxon pages and counselled against in the advice/help pages.
  8. Contributors who wish to set up Distribution Categories by (their) Country should do so carefully and always reference within the category page, as WS is a science resource after all.
  9. Distributions are used effectively and widely by some contributors, for example @Orchi: and @Franz Xaver: with template NADI.
Finally do we need to take this to the pump? I think so. I would support you or do it myself if template EN was removed from Muscari dolichanthum - it does not remove information as the concept appears in the list of categories anyway and so cannot be vandalism. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

I apologise for calling you a f**cking idiot. No excuses for such vulgarity, but an explanation: it was the result of extreme frustration at once again being accused of getting something wrong which was in fact right! I am only too happy to have any errors I make pointed out to me and corrected, but not so happy to be accused without there being anything to back up the accusation. In other words, it is prudent to take some time to get one's facts right before making accusations. For example, MPF accused me on the VP some time ago of massive copyright violations, but it was easily determined that this was of the very few cases in copyright law whereby it is 100% clear that there was no violation at all! Put yourself in my place, and you can perhaps understand the bad feelings that such unfounded accusations create ... Stho002 (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You are right to call me a f**cking idiot but not in front of the kids or grandkids! At the moment Boraginaceae is a frustrating family on many levels. I was hoping that it would all become clearer as more peer reviewed data were published, but if anything the opposite seems to be happening. Classic lumping and splitting I guess and much is down to personal preference making it difficult for WS, IMO. I was aware of the synonymy that was the cause of our disagreement, but had refrained from placing it on the taxon page due to the recent reviewed papers cited on the family, subfamily and tribe pages that propose splitting Anchusa s.l.. I was hoping for more data to become available in the very near future, but then there were those papers counselling against splitting the genus/family! I have stepped away from this important group of taxa unhappy, but resigned to leave WS as a pig's dinner of mixed approaches. I am also probably wrong in my recent edits at the order, family, subfamily and tribe levels using APG IV. This has not found complete acceptance, as Leubert et al. (2016) and Stevens (2016) propose splitting the order into 8 families! Good luck you will need it! By the way I wish you had not created the Category Original combination, talk about a can of worms. Andyboorman (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference[edit]

Dear Andy,
could you please create a reference-template. I do not have enough knowledge to do it right.
Telipogon diabolicus with the source (2) of here: Telipogon diabolicus
I hope we have a good time in the next future.
All the best. Orchi (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Orchi:, Does this work? I am sure we will be OK, regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
....Thanks!! You are perfect. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Andy,
could you please check the correctness of my templates:

Thanks and greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Orchi:, made a few minor suggestions. Otherwise excellent. Andyboorman (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
....I hope to learn more by you. ;-) Orchi (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

{{IPNI}}[edit]

Taxa to check:

--Succu (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Andyboorman (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I have compiled another small list. Is it OK for you to drop it here too? --Succu (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
OK. Should be fine. Andyboorman (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Great! Here is the list: --Succu (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Andy, I've corrected the orchids. Orchi (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear Orchi, Thanks I think I have got the rest now. Andyboorman (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

KEW[edit]

Dear Andy,
could you please contact Rafaël Govaerts KEW to check the following taxon: Caladenia longicauda subsp. insularis.
The author R.Phillips (Richard Phillips (1778-1851) lived long time ago.
The description you see here: page 105-106] with further taxonomic informations.
Regards. Orchi (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear @Orchi: A very good spot, as there also seems to be a conflict in the format of the authors for the subspecies - Caladenia longicauda subsp. insularis Hopper & A.P.Br. ex A.P.Br. & G.Brockman from Nuytsia and that on WCSP/IPNI - Caladenia longicauda Lindl. subsp. insularis A.P.Br., R.Phillips & G.Brockman. The R.Phillips is a mistake and must refer to Ryan D.Phillips who has worked on the genus - see here IPNI not the older Richard Phillips deceased. I assume the differences in the name between Nuytsia and INPI can be explained but I will ask, as well as pointing out the missing D.!.
Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Andy,
thanks for your work! You are a great detective and we will wait for KEWs answer. Regards. Orchi (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Orchi: Correct author citation is Hopper & A.P.Br. ex A.P.Br. & G.Brockman as per Nuytsia! IPNI and WCSP ammended. Quick work from Kew. Take care Andyboorman (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Andy, thank you very much. Your work is also recognized even at Kew. :-).
Further question: In the moment I like the Australian orchids especially. (Very good work by Users on the en WP).
Could you create a template of this .pdf please: page ??? . Then I could complete the corresponding species.
Regards. Orchi (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Orchi: I think this one should be OK. There is no doi, but the full text is sufficient.

I would use WCSP for the page name references in the Name section e.g. Caladenia perangusta A.P.Br. & G.Brockman, Nuytsia 25: 113 (2015) and keep the generic template for the reference section rather than individualise it, as the reference part of the template will not really work. If you want the individualised templates then I will have a look to see what can be done. Regards and thanks Andyboorman (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: ...just I used your template here: Caladenia attingens and subspecies. Thanks!, please check, if it is correct or give me a sample. (I tried to set the page numbers) Regards. Orchi (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Orchi: Looks very good. I have changed Hopper and Brown to a template as it appears on a number of pages and put "page 58 ff" outside the template so the user at least knows where to go. It is very difficult/impossible to link PDF files to a particular page without a PDF editor or more skill than I have! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Perfect!!! Orchi (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


Dear Andy,
could you please contact again Rafaël Govaerts KEW to check the following taxa:
a. Bulbophyllum chthonochroma Author: not Sieber, but Sieder (Anton Sieder).
b. Bulbophyllum aggregatum Author: not Besser, but Bosser (Jean Marie Bosser)
Thanks and best greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Orchi: Waiting for a reply. Andyboorman (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Orchi: You were correct in your thinking for both species and Kew have altered the authors on their pages. They send their thanks. So well done once again. Regards and best greetings Andyboorman (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Andy,
...thanks for your perfect help. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Charadrius wilsonia[edit]

What do you mean with wikt:en:all singing, all dancing? Announce that I am editing? On the Admins Notice board? Editing with a box? Sorry if I am susceptible. --Bandeira Nunca M C3 A1is.png Sobreira (parlez) 18:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sobreira: Sorry "all singing and all dancing" is an English expression for doing something with lots of added features some of which can be a bit pointless or unnecessary. No insult implied, just me thinking all editors are highly proficient at my language. You asked for help on the Admin Board that is OK, but usually such as request is best on somebodies talk page or on the Pump, again no fault on your part. The use of the Syn box has been discussed a year or two ago and more or less we agreed that it is a bit of a distraction, that is why my links pointed to a simpler way. Hope this helps and once again apologies Andyboorman (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
No offence taken, no apologies needed. I just wanted to understand what I was dancing about. I didn't know so many people here and their wikiproficiency to choose one to ask directly. --Bandeira Nunca M C3 A1is.png Sobreira (parlez) 08:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Just so you know @Sobreira: anyone here can ask me anything, anytime. I will always try to help. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC).

Dipodium[edit]

According to GBIF, Dipodium in Plantae is valid. Only other name refers to insect genus, considered doubtful. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know Dipodium R.Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holl.: 330 (1810) is a valid orchid name according to all authorities on the reference page. Do you mean Dipodium bicarinatum P.O'Byrne, Malesian Orchid J. 12: 67 (2013) for the "other name" above? I am not aware of an insect genus Dipodium do we need a disambig page? Andyboorman (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Dipodium (Insecta) is not up on Wikispecies, but does come up on GBIF as doubtful genus in Diptera. I do tend to create disambig pages to prevent confusions, when I encounter them. I shall make one. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
When you do I will create a new page for Dipodium (Orchidaceae) and transfer the existing data. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I just did, as Dipodium (Plantae), and made MovePage. I did update Template:Dipodium as well. I am sure there is more which has been overlooked. Please check my work. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks I have run up the taxa tree and made the disambig fixes. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You got a message ![edit]

Hello, I really apologies for what i have done. My intention is to maintenance of pages. If i have done mistakes, please do correct them. I am not going to further add or create those categories. Thanks for your message as well reverts ! I am sorry. :'( — TBhagat (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, delete those categories. Regards,TBhagat (talk)
You are well meaning so no need for apologies. Lotus s.l. needs working through to get rid of the species allocated to other genera and the red links need completing on the segregate genera. I will have a go over the next few days and you then can follow what I am doing. I have made a start with Acmispon dendroideus Note the references. Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomen aide memoire[edit]

used on approximately 3933 pages, Andyboorman (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Dear Andy,
I wish you a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year 2017.
Thanks for your great work here.
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Dear Andy, could yo please create the template for this book, if you find time: "Kretzschmar, H., Eccarius, W. & Dietrich, H.. (2007) Die Orchideengattungen Anacamptis, Orchis, Neotinea. EchinoMedia-Verlag, Bürgel, Index: Table of contents; ISBN 9783937107110". You find it e.g. here: Neotinea. I will change the different articles. Best regards. Orchi (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. @Orchi: the template can be found here: {{Kretzschmar, Eccarius & Dietrich, 2007}}. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC).
Gosh that was quick, thanks and Happy New Year to you both. Andyboorman (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
...I thank you. Orchi (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

test[edit]

Dear Andy,
"Collapsible data" . Do you think this test as possibility? Lilium martagon. Best regards. Orchi (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Orchi:. I like this approach. I wonder if it be incorporated into the VN template? I suggest you take it to the VP for comments. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
....unfortunately I have not found an error (Commons) yet. Regards. Orchi (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Dear Andy,
I suggest, that these templates not be formatted in italics:

Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Apropos: Where is User:Ulei ???

@Orchi: Good question. The last Wikimedia edit was made here at Wikispecies in late June 2016. I've sent User:Uleli an email with a friendly remark hoping that (s)he's is okay. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist:...that's very kind of you. Orchi (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Orchi: @Tommy Kronkvist: I have removed the italics as requested and checked that the redirects work correctly. I also think the WS Dictionary could do with a few more definitions, for example homonyn and syntype. Best wishes Andyboorman (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

....I say: Many thanks for your quick action. Regards. Orchi (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

References

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Application for Checkuser[edit]

Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Another application for Check User[edit]

As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Third application for checkuser[edit]

Further to recent messages, I am also offering to serve, so that we have three checkuser operators, to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable. Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional Checkuser Application[edit]

I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Standing for role of checkUser[edit]

Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Checkusers[edit]

With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Holotype blues[edit]

Hello Andy. I didn't forget the Holotype business. It seems Tommy's promise is not going to materialize, so if you want to change the redirect just go ahead, I won't interfere with it. It would make some odd thousand links connect to their unintended destination, but I would sacrifice that for satisfying your wish. We come from different countries with different codes of conduct. What to you might seem a preposterous misconduct to me it might seem perfectly normal. So no hard feelings. Mariusm (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mariusm: No offence taken, just surprise about the use of the template(s) as links to Repository, as my postings on the VP indicated. Not sure that I am too bothered at the moment and will give Tommy more time and perhaps a gentle nudge as the consensus seemed to be more or less clear - if anything here can be clear! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Journal / book abbreviations[edit]

Hi Andy - are you sure on that? There at least used to be a guideline saying that journal & book names should be given in full, but I can't find it in the references guidelines so maybe it's been changed without my noticing? Might be worth bringing up at the village pump to establish a guideline? Of Sciadopitys verticillata, it isn't in the genus Pinus, so we shouldn't call it a Pine when it isn't one: in the interests of education, misleading and inaccurate vernacular names should be avoided - we aren't bound by en:wiki's ridiculous creationist-inspired, anti-scientific rules on pushing incorrect vernacular names here. Also the cultivars (originally named as varieties, before the concept of the cultivar was adopted) shouldn't be listed (otherwise, we'd have to include thousands of other similar "varieties" across wikispecies). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @MPF: I am sure, see here Name Section on the Pump. Equally I am remiss in not updating the Help Section as I indicated! I will get on to this after an urgent update that is needed for Brassicaceae, before it is updated once again in the near future! As to VN I think that the most common name should be used and we should not be over pedantic,as it is not helpful and disconcerting. See here for PFAF a source advocated by one contributor here. As to cultivars definitely a no no, particularly as varieties, sub-species and forms are tending to disappear as a well. However, I am always guided by accepted list of synonyms, but never make a separate taxon page for any synonym, invalid or illegal name and delete or redirect these as required. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I did say "generally fairly reliable", not "wholly reliable"; note my caveats further on in the same paragraph ;-) I do think it is important for wikispecies to be an educational resource for the future, and that means not promoting erroneous vernacular names that best belong in history - MPF (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
But dismissing Umbrella Pine, because it is not a pine is not educational, but erroneous IMO. Douglas Fir AKA Pseudotsuga menziesii and the New Zealand White Pine (better as Kahikatea} AKA Dacrycarpus dacrydioides? Take Dame Violet (Hesperis matronalis) most definitely not a Viola and Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) is neither a Sinapis nor an Allium!. An erroneous VN is one that has no source nor currency and it could be argued that koyamaki lacks currency compared to Umbrella Pine. FYI the cultivars you deleted are technically not cultivars sensu the Cultivar Code otherwise they would have been given an appropriate name long before now. Kew and the RHS are pretty hot on this, hence my inclusion in the list gathered from WCSP. Feel free to check with WCSP they are really great at replying and if they have made a mistake they will correct, but for now - its up to you. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Andy - it's hyphenated as Douglas-fir to show that it isn't a fir, and has been Kahikatea for a long time. Also Dame's-violet to show it isn't a Violet. Garlic Mustard is a mustard (Brassicaceae; 'mustard' covers several closely related genera in the family, just as 'grass' does for Poaceae, 'palm' for Arecaceae, 'orchid' for Orchidaceae, 'cypress' for Cupressaceae, etc.); that it is a mustard that resembles [smells of] garlic, isn't any suggestion that it is a garlic. The first part of the name is the descriptor, not the identifier; standard name formation. The two Sciadopitys "varietal" names are cultivars, listed as such in Welch's checklist of conifer cultivars; they predate the 1953 ruling that cultivars introduced after then must have non-latin names, and don't have to be renamed to remain legitimate cultivar names. - MPF (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: I am not too bothered about vernacular names as I do not think they are essential taxonomic information, which is my main mission here - filling in taxa red-links and updating classifications! Therefore their spelling is not an issue in my edits. As to whether or not the two varieties/cultivars you deleted from Umbrella-pine are one or the other, I suggest you contact WCSP for clarification they may have information that they were collected from the wild in Japan. I tend to blindly follow scientific sources for lists of synonyms rather than detailed cross checking with Bean or Welch, who are historical sources of great value and interest, but generally beyond my self imposed remit here. However, there is a general point that I would like to make - be very careful about deleting any information from pages without referencing your reasons for doing so. Wikis have some editors who scream vandalism at this sort of behaviour. Finally to continue in this manner (not a rant by the way) WS is not meant to make original contributions just reflect what is out there in the wild, so to speak and so Umbrella-pine, however spelt, must stay. By the way I have made a start at updating the Name Section on the Help pages as indicated on the above link and have posted as such on the Pump. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME[edit]

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yet another taxonomic condundrum[edit]

@MPF: and @Franz Xaver: Doing some work on Cephalotaxus using

as basic sources. I am fairly familiar with the genus, but not for a few years now. I was a bit surprised to see the changes in circumscription from Farjon (2010), but Lang is quite clear. The change Cephalotaxus harringtonia to Cephalotaxus harringtonii is logical given that the basionym in IPNI is Taxus harringtonia Knight ex J.Forbes Pinet. Woburn. 217 (-218; plate). (1839), as an honorific for the Earl of Harrington Yew. I have read the protologue and it is fairly clear that the female ending for the species epithet is incorrect. Therefore, Taxus harringtonii should be the correct spelling - not on IPNI by the way and neither is C. harringtonii. However, Lang et al. quote Art. 60.7, Ex.15 as their reason for the change, in your opinion are they correct to use this as justification? It is also surprising that many other authorities and sources still use C. harringtonia, almost as if it was a conserved combination. Any advice would be grateful, before I contact WCSP and IPNI and also finish my edits. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, Ex. 15 is totally irrelevant to this case. Art. 60.7 is the general rule for changing wrong terminations. However, it is open to me, if Art. 60.12 and Recommendation 60C.1 apply here, as Harringtonia in the protologue very well might have been intended as a "noun in apposition" – see Art. 23 –, which must not be changed at all. Anyway, if someone regards Harringtonia to have a wrong termination, how would he be able to apply Art. 60, including Recommendation 60C.1? If not intended as a "noun in apposition", it certainly was not intended as substantival epithets in the genitive case (Rec. 60C.1 b). Knowledge of Latin grammar at that time was good enough, that such an error would not have happened. However, it seems possible to me, that Harringtonia rather was intended to be an adjectival epithet (Rec. 60C.1 d), which then would have to be changed to harringtoniana. In my opinion, Lang et al. (2013) clearly are wrong, when they make a correction to harringtonii. A change to harringtoniana maybe is arguable, however there seems to be long tradition accepting the epithet harringtonia as correct, probably regarding it as a noun in apposition. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou @Franz Xaver: I had a feeling that something was not quite right, but your considered and knowledgeable opinions make a lot of sense now. If it is OK I will take it forward to WCSP for their thoughts, as they really do like to get things as right as is possible. Thanks once again. Andyboorman (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is probably the best to contact WCSP. I suppose, they simply have reproduced the revision by Lang et al. (2013), without having looked deeper into the case. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Concur with Cephalotaxus harringtonia being the correct spelling; this was in pretty much universal use until Farjon decided to change it in his 1998 Kew Checklist of Conifers. The second page Cephalotaxus harringtonii needs to be changed to a redirect to it. Unfortunately, Farjon is/was a leader at WCSP, and used the opportunity to push his (often poorly judged) taxonomic and nomenclatural decisions. - MPF (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: and @MPF: I have heard from WCSP at Kew and Rafaël Govaerts has confirmed that Cephalotaxus harringtonia should stand. Lang et al., 2013 are wrong and Kew have already corrected WCSP. Farjon 2010. A handbook of the world's Conifers as opposed to his 1998 Checklist has this combination also. They make a couple of additional points similar to Franz above. Harringtona could be a locality/adjectival epithet. In addition, they point out that Earl of Harrington is a tile not personal name and so articles on personal names can not apply. I am now glad that I had my suspicions and thanks to Franz for adding taxonomic detail and experience. Finally, in my dealings with WCSP I have found them to be helpful and acknowledge where they have got it wrong, if indeed they have! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I have made the adjustments to Cephalotaxus harringtonia including the synonymy. I have blanked and deleted Cephalotaxus harringtonii, as incorrectly named, until I have some idea of its status. At the moment I do not think that it has any, but stand to be corrected. I have kept Lang et al., as a ref as it is very useful, except for the problem above. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd definitely keep Cephalotaxus harringtonii as a redirect though, as people may well look for it under that spelling; and also a mention on the Cephalotaxus harringtonia page as "orth. err." - MPF (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Done and done cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I've changed to a much better pic (located wild origin, rather than dubiously verifiable cultivated junk), and added a link to the protologue page at BHL - MPF (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: @Franz Xaver: Request for assistance - can you help out with correcting -ii to -ia on this species and related names (basionym, and 3 varietal combinations) at Wikidata please? Every time I try correcting them, User:Brya just keeps reverting. - MPF (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: and @Franz Xaver: I have left this message on Brya's talk page. Hope it does the job. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Well that did not work then! But I am not persuaded by the arguments on Brya's Talk Page to alter our work here. Andyboorman (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman, MPF: OK, I recognize, that also Brya has some point. Actually, the present wording of the code is somewhat ambiguous. As it seems, an editorial oversight has introduced something into the old Berlin Code, that actually was not intended. Proposal 060 can be found here: doi: 10.12705/643.34 – it's free access, although the journal generally is behind a paywall. Let me have a second thought on this matter. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: I have had a look thorough Prop 60. I think I can see where it is going and of course, as Brya pointed out it will help in harringtonia v. harringtonii, if we assume that the epithet is genitive. However, I still concur with your earlier thoughts and Kew suggestions. After 178 years we cannot be clear of motives in assigning the epithet. In good faith we then have to accept that Knight and Forbes knew what they were doing. I am not persuaded by Brya's case for now. Andyboorman (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman, Franz Xaver: I too concur that it is best left with the original spelling; 160 years of not being 'corrected' must not be ignored. Worth noting that in the somewhat similar case of C. fortunei, the original "fortuni" had already been corrected by Carrière to fortunei as early as 1855 (not everyone since had followed this, but many did). - MPF (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have stuck a note on its talk Page Andyboorman (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

question[edit]

Dear Andy,
could you please delete definitively the vandalism on my page.
Greetings and thanks. Orchi (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Orchi: @Dan Koehl: I think I have got rid of it, but maybe Dan can check. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think it looks clean. Thank you for the solution I wanted. I support the proposal of (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear @Andyboorman: and @Dan Koehl:, could you delete the weblink completely please, that it can no longer be made visible and usable in the history. Regards. Orchi (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Orchi, I have now deleted the revisions text and edit summary, but kept the ip address visible. Please let me know if its important for you to delete that as well. As we dont have any local Oversighters I felt it could be good to see the IP. This issue actually arise the question if WS need oversighters? See specifications for oversighters on User rights Dan Koehl (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman, Orchi:, thinking about this, it wouldn't hurt with at least one oversighter on Wikispecies. I may apply for this right, if you both would indicate a support for this. Im not sure everyone knows what an oversighter is, so it would help if I ad at least a couple of votes from the beginning, with some clearifying motivations. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: @Orchi: I think it would be a good idea and will support your suggestion. It is a fairly gentle and useful power with oversight from stewards. It could also support our maturing sense of community. Andyboorman (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I applied here. Maybe you would be kind an open the poll, following the poll opening for nomination of admins? Its better that someone else than me open the poll. Thanks, Dan Koehl (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Somebody got there before me! Good luck Andyboorman (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the solution I wanted. I support the proposal of Dan Koehl. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies Oversighter[edit]

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Oversight nomination[edit]

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Holotype link[edit]

Hello, I still didn't forget about the holotype links in the format of [[Holotype|XYZW]]. I still don't know how many there are but they number more than 25,000. Your change was a big WS link reshuffling! I'm periodically using the AWB to convert them to {{rl|XYZW}} which they should be, but it will take time. The big problem is the user doesn't expect when clicking the repository's blue acronym to end up at a dictionary entry on what holotype is ... Mariusm (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this fix it is certainly best that the holotype link hits the repository which is what we expect. Andyboorman (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Araucaria heterophylla[edit]

Hi Andy - we shouldn't be supporting inaccurate and misleading names, however popular they might be among the 'masses'; it isn't a species of Pinus. Norfolk Island Araucaria is accurate, and is supported; see e.g. here. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@MPF: I am not supporting "inaccurate" vernacular names, but what is reality. They are not purist taxonomic entities, but what people call their local plants. The name "pine" was given to the qualities of timber not the genus. For Norfolk Island Pine and others such as White Pine of New Zealand (Kahikatea (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides), it was used by carpenters on ships far from home, as a substitute for "pine wood" due to its ease of working, reasonable strength and resistance to salt. This terminology is in the same way as seen in Western and Eastern Red Cedars in the USA - the timber had similar rot resilience as the Cedrus wood and cheaper, much to the delight of carpenters, exporters and settlers. In my opinion it is beyond the scope of WS to educate the ignorant masses away from their chosen vernacular names. In the same way that our taxonomy and classification is a mirror not original research, so it should be for VN. If this is not acceptable then just ignore VN, IMO. Andyboorman (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Kahikatea isn't called 'white pine' any more - for exactly the reason I mention. An I'm definitely not of your opinion over this, I do believe it is important to educate over taxonomically inaccurate vernacular names; we should be just as rigorous here with vernacular names, as with scientific names. In the long run, it saves lots of confusion. - MPF (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: Of course it is in New Zealand by the people living there - hence its alternate vernacular name. Your allusion to confusion can be seen as demeaning to users of WS, as they are probably pretty well informed. There is no such thing as a taxonomically vernacular name that term is a non sequitur. WS is not developed as an educational tool, nor a vehicle for personal opinion/research. I would urge you to migrate this to the VP, if you feel so strongly about it. I would be interested in others' opinions and will, of course, be guided by consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello and thanks[edit]

Hi Andy, I dont think you are too interfering, I think the opposite, I believe this is a collaborative prohect and I appreciate your message and recommendations in order to make better contributions. Cheers, --Cbrescia (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cbrescia: Thanks for your kind words. Good luck with your edits and perhaps you could also add a few details on your main page. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

94.122.92.179[edit]

Hi Andy,

I saw you blocking this IP for an indefinte amount of time just a second ago. I would like to attend you to the fact this IP is dynamic and therefor bound to change really quick. An indefinte block could affect eventual new people. Also, I see you manually delete the pages right now. I think a better option in this case is to go the contributions page os this IP and press the nuke button. This is because this IP made ~215 vandalism pages in the span of an hour. With kind regards, Wiki13 (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Hi I saw the mass vandalism and have nuked them. I will leave block for a few hours just as a quick fix. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please also delete his talk page and revoke talk page access. Thanks. Jianhui67 (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
TPA revoked by a fellow admin Andyboorman (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

template:Tysp[edit]

Dear Andy,
could you please take a look at the function of the template:Tysp.
There is in the articles only a colon, but no text. Best regards. Orchi (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for your great work here!!

Calculation of species per taxon[edit]

Hi,

there is a lot of things to explore here in Wikispecies. Is it also possible to calculate the number of species below a taxon, in order to display it like "444 species in: Familie Strigidae" ? This was my intention to add the Category:Species to every species. then the upper taxon or template would somehow calculate this. Scabba (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi

@Scabba: I can see where you coming from, but I am not knowledgeable enough to give you any help of how to get there. Sorry Andyboorman (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Scabba: I don't think the function you are asking for is available yet, but you can use the linkto: search filter to at least come close. For instance searching for linkto:"Strigidae" will list all pages that links to the Strigidae page. This is of course not optimal and using the search results will require some manual work from the user (counting the hits, removing "false positives" etc), but at least it is possible... Here's an example using the above familia: linkto:"Strigidae". In some cases perhaps the intitle: search filter will work as well. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC).
Hi @Tommy Kronkvist:. Wow, the linkto really comes near to this. I will test i further to see if this can do what I try to achieve. Many thanks Scabba (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Polyalthia cerasoides redirect[edit]

Hi again. This redirect seems oddly formatted. You tried to redirect the page to Huberantha cerasoides, but the redirect doesn't work. To add to the complexity GRIN lists it as a synonym of Hubera cerasoides rather than of Huberantha cerasoides:

Tropicos lists them both as "other combinations" for the Uvaria cerasoides Roxb. basionym, and Polyalthia cerasoides (Roxb.) Benth. & Hook. f. ex Bedd. as a synonym:

I'm not sure I have the correct references at hand so I'm not saying that GRIN and/or Tropicos are correct here but... what's going on? :-) In either case the redirect doesn't work. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Hi Tommy. I have sorted out the redirect problem, as I also caught this through my watchlist. This is one of those taxa groups where secondary sources have yet to catch up with the scientific literature. Polyalthia has been dismantled, as you can see from its references and also on the tribe page, Miliuseae. However, one of the original segregates was Hubera Chaowasku (2012), which, as you can see on the Huberantha page, is a later partial synonym. GRIN seems to acknowledge the dismemberment but not the later correction of the name. Tropicos is fine see Huberantha (Roxb.) Chaowasku with its full list of species. COL, Plant List and WCSP show no records for Huberantha, but, like GRIN, COL acknowledges both Hubera and Huberia. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for both the explanation and of course also for creating the new Huberantha cerasoides page. I went ahead and created the Wikidata equivalent Q34243727. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: I most certainly inadvertently do leave a few loose ends behind when doing my genera updates and redlink completions, so please let me know of any problems. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing. That works both ways of course: I'm happy to receive a heads up or constructive criticism when I forget or miss something in my own edits. – Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC).

Use of template IPNI[edit]

Gracias por su información. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: Contento de ser de uso. Disculpa. No soy un hablante de español, así que gracias a Google translate! Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Pteryxia[edit]

Deseo crear esta página. ¿Podría aconsejarme como hacerlo?. Gracias y saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days and only have just back. Unfortunately, my Spanish is too poor to reply in that language, but I will help the best I can. I have made a couple of changes, which I will now explain. When you created {{Pteryxia}} you made a template that needed completing in order to fix the taxonavigation. You can see what I have done here in order to create the template. Basically the genus template is made up of a link to the next higher taxon, which in this case is the tribe Selineae and also the code to link back to the genus page. I have also added the reference for the protologue, completed the full scientific name under the Name section and used the {{a|}} author template. I will make some more changes tomorrow, particularly as I need to look for some papers and other resources for this genus and its relatives. These are required as the circumscriptions are not straight forward. By the way I do not recommend using {{BASEPAGENAME}} as it can occasionally cause problems. Hope this helps for now. Andyboorman (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@MILEPRI: have you had a chance to read the above? The problem with this genus is it is still seen by some as a synonym of Cymopterus, but this is not sustainable according to a couple of papers I have read. I will look further, but I did put work on the tribe on hold because of difficulties in the taxonomy of many of the genera. By the way @Franz Xaver: may be of more use to you as he has a better knowledge of Spanish than me, but I will help the best I can. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Gracias. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Allium aflatunense[edit]

¿?. No aparece la plantilla del taxon.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: He creado la plantilla requerida. Incluye un salto de línea para que uno no sea necesario en la página del taxón. Echa un vistazo y ver lo que he hecho para que pueda tener un ir usted mismo. Hope translate has worked OK! Andyboorman (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Puedo confeccionar lasSectio de Allium, pero las especies creadas que enlaza no aparecen. Creo que aún hay algún error en la confección del taxon. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Dame un enlace a la sectio y especies y voy a echar un vistazo. Andyboorman (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Microthlaspi or Noccaea?[edit]

Hi. On the Thlaspi alpestre page you have stated that it is a synonym of Microthlaspi perfoliatum, however GRIN lists it as a synonym of Noccaea alpestris. What's the most recent and accepted view in this matter? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC).

Hi @Tommy Kronkvist: I have left this for a few months as I was informed by Al-Shehbaz of Brassibase that they were going to implement changes across a number of related genera in Brassicaceae. Relevant to the above involves the status of Noccaea - see Al-Shehbaz (2014), but their thoughts are a lot more wide ranging possibly involving the re-integration of many smaller genera into a broader circumscriptions leading to a significant family update. However, I will now investigate how things are progressing, as smaller changes may have already occured. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC).

Unregsitered editors[edit]

Hi,

Regarding your comments about "anonymous" [sic] editing at User_talk:72.196.99.46, please can you point to a policy, RfC, or a discussion where such consensus was reached? It is my understanding that such edits are no less valued or welcomed than those made by registered editors, whose account names and user pages may or may not reflect their real life identities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I do not really get your point above. Of course all constructive edits are welcome, but please take the time to look a little further. Andyboorman (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I was not asking about constructive vs. non-constructive edits; I was referring to logged-in vs. non-logged-in users; as was your comment to which I referred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
My comments threaded controversial and anonymous/unregistered, but fair enough I added the later. Apologies for this missing word! Andyboorman (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyway suspected silly, disruptive and botanically ignorant duck!!! No offence to you of course. Andyboorman (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Willdenowia[edit]

Hello Andy,

I noticed your edit to Talk:Willdenowia. In my understanding, it is a customary practice to add a hatnote at the top of the page when another page shares a similar title, with the aim of a better navigation. Users will not necessarily look at the talk page to find the link they are looking for. There are other precedents here, see for example Garcia, Pavlova, Webbia or Alfaro. I suspect that the subject has not really been discussed before. Maybe we should have some consistency in the placement, the wording and the style of such notes? Regards, Korg (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andy and @Korg:
I have imported the template {{For}} and a bunch of required modules etc. from the English Wikipedia. See the original enWP version for complete documentation. The Wikispecies version of the template is still very far from perfect, as there are a lot of crazy stuff going on in the invoked For module and the other underlaying imported files. We probably also need to have a look at some involved Lua code, and right now the template's help/documentation subpage is incomplete and incorrect. That said, in its most basic form the template does already work, and I propose we use it as a starting point when trying to establish a "hatnote formatting standard". Please see Austrobaileya for a current example. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC).
I have copied my above edit to the Village Pump in order make more users aware of the subject. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC).

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hi @Tommy Kronkvist: @Korg: I think that we need a wider discussion. It is my understanding that WS is different to WP and others in that the pages contain little additional information over and above that required for the nomenclature and taxonomy. The exceptions being; image(s), vernacular names and distribution all of which have direct relevance to the taxon. In addition, some editors add selected categories off the page right at the bottom. The device we have used here for pages with similar titles is disambiguation, which works well where there are two or more taxon pages. I really do not see the point of adding author names and journal titles as hatnotes, but maybe I am wrong, as placement and links are found elsewhere, for example through {{a|}} templates. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

From a strict Wikispecies viewpoint I think you're correct, Andy, and in essence I agree with you. However this diehard approach to the Wikispecies system is for the most part only working well when only involving experienced Wikispecies' users. We know how to find "homonymous" authors, taxa and journals by the use of Catalog:Taxon Authorities + Category:Series identifiers and other such somewhat hidden Wikispecies resources. Unfortunately this is probably not the case for most other, more infrequent users of the project. Let's say a user is interested in an author named "Pavlova" based on some information they find in a publication. However due to the journal's praxis the author is only referenced to by the surname. The user then heads over to Wikispecies and enters "Pavlova" in the WS search field, and instantly ends up on a page regarding the genus Pavlova. In such cases a hatnote (or similar) would really help, since without knowledge of the taxon authority catalog the user might have a hard time finding any author named Pavlova, whether Ljudmila V. Pavlova, Maria Pavlova, or N.S.Pavlova. But thanks to the hatnote pointing to Pavlova (authority) the user can now quickly find them all. I think this kind of user friendliness is important in order to try and involve more new users in the project. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC).

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks for your comments, Andy and Tommy. Andy, I think I understand your concerns. The hatnote could be seen as quite distracting and somewhat unwanted if the current page the user is browsing is actually the one they are looking for. But on the other hand, it could really be of great help to the user seeking another page, and who could have some difficulties finding it. I agree with Tommy in this regard.

Concerning disambiguation pages, there are several cases where taxon pages are disambiguated alongside author pages. See for example Cotes, Karsten, Mahanta or Zea. To use the example given by Tommy, should we move Pavlova to Pavlova (genus), and move the disambiguation page Pavlova (authority) to "Pavlova" as the main title? In this scenario, the hatnote in Pavlova would no longer be needed. Or should we favour the genus as the primary topic? More generally, should we create a disambiguation page when there are two or more pages with a similar title, regardless of their nature, or should we support the concept of a "primary topic"? Perhaps this needs a broader discussion, as there are many inconsistencies.

If the concept of primary topic is retained, then I think a hatnote or otherwise an indication that a page with a similar title exists would be helpful. Perhaps a good compromise would be to reduce the text of the note, and to change its position. To use the example in Austrobaileya, the note could be changed to simply "Disambiguation: Austrobaileya (journal)" or "See also: Austrobaileya (journal)", for example, and placed at the top right-hand corner of the page, like it is done in c:Commons:Village pump. We could even make it more minimalistic with an icon in lieu of the text: Disambiguation Austrobaileya (journal). Please see also: "Disambiguation page or hatnotes?". Korg (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC) [Message edited on 14:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)]

Thanks[edit]

  • Thank you.. --Fagus (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Plant List[edit]

The Plant List, es la recopilación de plantas más completa que conozco, la pongo en mis ediciones, junto con otras mas, para que el que lo precise pueda contrastar los datos entre ellas. Mientras no exista algo más exacto, tendré que incluirla, a pesar de no estar totalmente al día. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: catol-Hassler es tan completo, pero más actualizado. Si usted utiliza cualquiera de los dos, entonces todavía necesita comprobar los errores para no no ellos en WS. It is boring but necesssry. WCSP es la mejor fuente secundaria e incluso con esta fuente hay algunos errores. Es una lástima que todavía no esté completa para las dicotiledóneas. Espero que traducir funcionó bien! If you want to check or a second opinion then feel free to contact me here. Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Salvia[edit]

Hi Andyboorman,

I see you have included Salvia africana-lutea as a heterotypic synonym in Salvia aurea. There are some problems with this. Firstly, Linnaeus meant the same taxon in both cases; the 1753 and 1762 entries are exactly the same (the traditional approach to abbreviations and symbols used by Linnaeus is to follow his later usage, and in this case the later usage is a completely new name). So, it is not heterotypic. However, it is not a validly published name, so it does not really have a type, and strictly speaking it is not homotypic either. In fact, since it is not a name, it does not have an author, or a date. This presents something of a problem in formatting. - Brya (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

So what is your solution? Surely the "name" can not just be ignored? After all it is still in common usage. Your thoughts, meanwhile I will remove Salvia africana-lutea from the Het list for now and just add it at the top of the list. I really do not understand your point about it not being a name, please explain further unless my explanation on Salvia aurea covers what you meant. Andyboorman (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It is not a name in the sense of the ICNafp, see Art. 12. That is, it is not a scientific name, it is not part of the ICNafp's nomenclatural universe, and none of the features of scientific names apply (it does not have an author, date or type). I think that moving it to the top of the list is a good idea. I have readjusted the text to what I think is more clear. - Brya (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: Thanks for the info and changes to the taxon page. I assume that the same will apply to Salvia africana-caerulea with the same rubric? If you agree I will make the necessary changes to the synonymy, which is a bit scant anyway. Interestingly African Plant Database is incorrect for both combinations. Mind you it still also rejects the use of the narrow circumscription of Acacia. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, these are two very similar cases. As to Acacia, anybody is free to choose a taxonomy of their liking, and sticking with a wide circumscription may be because of a wait-and-see attitude. Who knows what may not happen in the future? - Brya (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I will make the changes to S. caerulea. As to Acacia I also sense a touch of pique and politics. You are right, of course, about choice of taxonomy, which is a weakness here and on WD, as how to assess consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Very likely there is a lot of pique around concerning Acacia and will be for many years/decades to come. And yes, "choice of taxonomy" is the elephant in the room at Wikispecies. Theoretically, this is not the case at Wikidata, at least once it fills up with taxonomic references, but in practice Wikidata is still mostly empty, and quite fragile (better for plants than for animals, but still mostly empty). - Brya (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: Iris, Salvia and Potentilla three elephants in their WS rooms. It is difficult for less experienced editors and we can end up with numerous duplicates. I think they get confused when the secondary sources disagree and with Wikimedia and WP so out of date and off consensus who can blame them. Then we have editors here who think that peer review means gospel. At least with Iris I got them here to leave it s.l. Andyboorman (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but those are the cases where more or less well-informed choices are made. To a degree Wikispecies is comparable to Wikipedias: quality will range from very good (perhaps excellent) to bordering on the outright insane, or completely ignorant. And there is no guarantee that more recent editing will be an improvement: the other day I saw that Opinion 2027 on enwiki, which had been there for years in a modest but informative version has been turned into a self-contradictory, politicized perversion. Mostly any work in WMF-territory is a matter of counting one's blessings: it may turn out it is all gone in the near future. - Brya (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I am no zoologist, but you are right about Opinion 2027 on enwiki, the latest edit is weird at the best. May be I should revisit WD after all data is where I tend to be at. Andyboorman (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned you are welcome at Wikidata, but it is different from Wikispecies. Wikidata greatly depends on bot imports, which can be great, if the right things are imported. One of the effects is that many typos in scientific names, made anywhere in the Wikimedia franchise, are imported into Wikidata and create confusion. Some of these are easily corrected, but there are a lot of obscure names, or names where no original publication is available. And sometimes somebody decides to directly mass import stuff he found on the www (must be good!), with results which must be seen to be believed. And the population of users is more varied, and motives of users are more varied. I had a long-drawn-out period of unpleasantness with a user who insisted that carrots are fruits. At the moment there is a user who wants to use Wikidata as the gameboard to maximize his score in one of the lists the WMF keeps up, and who makes a daily assault at WD:AN, no holds barred.
        But if you keep your head, there is masses of good work to be done, putting in taxonomic references, and author citations. This would decrease Wikidata's fragility. - Brya (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Mertensia emarginata[edit]

He eliminado la imagen de Mertensia emarginata porque, efectivamente, es un helecho. He verificado la imagen original en commons, e indica claramente Mertensia emarginata. Puede ser un error, pero no encuentro un género Mertensia de helechos. ¿Debo ponerla en commons como unidentified plant?. Saludos---MILEPRI (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: Según el autor de World Ferns, Mertensia emarginata es un sinónimo de Gleichenella pectinata Gleicheniaceae, con una sinonimia compleja!. Lamentablemente, WS no tiene las páginas de taxones. Espero que esto ayude. Saludos---Andyboorman (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Gracias, cambiaré en commons Mertensia emarginata a Gleichenella pectinata. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Earlier today the user @Thiotrix: changed the categories on the Commons page from "Category:Mertensia emarginata – botanical illustrations" to "Category:Dicranopteris linearis". World Ferns has two listings for the taxon, both in Gleicheniaceae:
In short, the taxonomy regarding the Mertensia emarginata taxon name seems... complicated. Saludos, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC).
Mertensia Willd. (1804) is a later homonym, so there can be no fern called Mertensia emarginata. - Brya (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The illustration is from the Brackenridge book, so it shows Dicranopteris linearis f. emarginata. The synonymy is also cited at IPNI. --Thiotrix (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for the information. I've marked Mertensia emarginata as unresolved, for now – see The Plant List. However the page needs to be dealt with more thoroughly (perhaps deleted?) by someone with a higher level of entomological expertise than me, and with better access to the relevant publications. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC).
As both names refer to taxa in family Gleicheniaceae and not in Boraginaceae (confirmed also by Tropicos and IPNI), I will alter Mertensia emarginata to a disambiguation page. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've created the Gleichenella and Gleichenella pectinata pages to fill in the gaps. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC).

Template:Blakea (Plantae)[edit]

Hi,

You deleted Template:Blakea (Plantae), but there are five pages calling it. Please review and fix as necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Andyboorman (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)