User talk:Andyboorman/Archive 2

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Geography =[edit]

Dear Andy, I must have slept a little in learning my Geography. ;-) I thank you! Cheers. Orchi (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Andy,
during a diskussion in the German WP I found some days ago on this page: [1] the following Distribution list of KEW.
Do you think, that we can use these informations here? I am considering to build a template with help of experts. Unfortunately I can not do that alone.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
P.S. ....please have a look here: User:Orchi/sandbox 1. I extracted the data from the .pdf – file above. Orchi (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Andy,
do you like this:Elleanthus graminifolius layout or this kind: Sobralia yauaperyensis; perhaps without the numbers?
Long lists should be collapsed (like in Sobralia yauaperyensis)
Do you have proposals to improve our ideas for the important distribution informations?
Best regards. Orchi (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Andy,
News in distribution by eMonocot: e.d. [2]
Greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Andy, eMonocot is in function again. Please have a look in Orchis and Platanthera. I created a template:nadi (native distribution) with help of user:BerndH. The layout of the continentals etc. I took from the html-source of the emonocot page and changed these infos by a macro in LibreOffice Writer in the wikispecies layout format. This info for today. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy, is "Native distribution" in your opinioon o.k for the moment? Greetings. Orchi (talk)

Parthenocissus vitacea[edit]

Hi Andy - I'm a bit baffled by this edit you did. If Parthenocissus vitacea were a synonym of P. inserta, then it would be best to use the Move Page command to rename it, rather than attempt to redirect to an empty page. However, I can't find any reference for this synonymy; GRIN accepts P. vitacea as a valid species, and they are usually reliable (so I undid the redirect). - MPF (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah! I've found the relevant info: Pringle 2010. Looks like GRIN is out of date here (their last update 2007); I'll correct the page accordingly - MPF (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
GRIN is getting increasingly over-centered on the USA and so lacking many key species from elsewhere! Hopefully it will catch up soon. Now that the Plant List has been updated I am using it as a first port of call, but I realise that it is not perfect. Thanks for creating P. inserta by the way. Andyboorman (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on Dipodium[edit]

Dear Andy,
thanks for your expressions of opinion on the theme Dipodium. Please give me some time, to find a way for both sides, our way and the way of Mr. Rkitko. I can not see, that "KEW is wrong". Many people in orchids do not agree with KEW.
Especially MBG goes in the taxonomy other ways often. Also many scientists in Australia, South America or in Germany also believe (rightly ?!?) to have the better or an other taxonomy. A few examples Caladenia / Arachnorchis Drakonorchis Stegostyla or Sudamerlycaste / Ida or Gymnadenia / Nigritella and so on.
When in international Wikipedia groups like commons or wikispecies all directions and opinions of the taxonomy are considered, we will soon have a confused result.
KEW is in orchids the worldwide most accepted institution.
I can not say, whether KEW is right or wrong in the current taxonomy. Surely often only one opinion among many.
On the issue of Dipodium: I would suggest to Mr. Rkitko to clarify the question of right and wrong with KEW.
Expected in the month of April I will meet Mr. Phillip James Cribb. Gladly I'll give him suggestions for correcting the data of the KEW - homepage.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

New on Dipodium[edit]

Dear Andy,
Last week I met Mr. Philip Cribb and asked him, if he is willing to clarify a taxonomic question to the genus Dipodium with a user of the English Wikipedia. Since Mr. Cribb is not constantly present in Kew, he suggested, to clarify the question to Dipodium with his successor, Mr. Andre Schuiteman. I think, he is pleased with the knowledge by Mr. Rkitko of this genus to expand Kew's knowledge. In the case, that Mr. Ritiko has difficulty in finding the contact to Andre Schuiteman at Kew, I can help with his e-mail address. I think, it will be a great pleasure for Mr. Rkitko, to help Kew with his knowledge. I look forward to the results of the discussion.
My English for Mr. Rkitko is not perfect, therefore I would like to ask you kindly, to send him this further message in correct English.
Mr. Ritiko visited the Commons pages again and will find your info surely. (Or in the English WP perhaps)
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


As one of the most active users on Wikispecies, I wonder if you would accept to be nominated as one of its Wikispecies:Administrators? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to accept to be nominated as an Wikispecies:Administrators for WS. What happens next? Andyboorman (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I nominated several editors as admins before, and must have missed your answer. Im suggesting you now, we need more admins. If you still accept, please do so at the nomination page. best regards Dan Koehl (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is quite the right time for me to become an Admin, however, perhaps when the dust has settled! Could we put this on hold for a few weeks? Andyboorman (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Dear Andy,
Thank you for your message and for the notification to Mr. Rkitko.
I am glad, that you accept the offer to become admin here. My vote for you is certainly.
The offer of Dan Koehl to me, to apply as admin, I will not be able to accept. My knowledge in the English language is not adequate for this job,
but I promise, busy and (hopefully) in a good way to help here further.
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Andy - this one needs more careful thought - TPL is clearly in error here, as they treat the genus exclusive of its type species, which is invalid. Either the genus needs to be restored fully, or else redirected to Anemone sect. Pulsatilla. I'm not sure which is best; the submergence of multiple genera into an incredibly wide view of Anemone is not helpful, but equally, Anemone in its traditional sense may be paraphyletic. The sensible option is to move basal species within Anemone to new genera, but this hasn't been done yet. It is also unfortunate that the paper lumping all the genera is (a) not freely available, (b) not that I'm aware of supported by subsequent studies, and (c) based only on cpDNA, which is proving an unreliable phylogenetic marker. What's best to do?? - MPF (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! In that case, probably best to redirect to Anemone sect. Pulsatilla, though this does leave a slight problem in that a few wikispecies pages are still linked to Pulsatilla (Pulsatilla albana, ‎Pulsatilla violacea, and the latter's infrataxa). - MPF (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi MPF (talk) Look lets get one thing straight, it is not always invalid or untenable to treat a genus without reference to a type species, if this was so then hundreds of plant generic names would be consigned to the dustbin. Just have a browse through taxonomic sits such as Tropicos which refer to type species and lecotypes where the note 'Not designated' appears regularly. TPL does not make any reference to typus, but neither do many other sources. Occasionally a typus was not described at the time! More often these days genera are being re-circumscribed rendering the original genus/typus relationship somewhat fraught or at best synonymous. Clearly for many well known genera we are in a period of change to say the least. I get the sense that as change does become more fully accepted these are heading to WCSP, Genera Orchidacearum, Grass World and so on, but in the mean time - TPL is all we have with its very useful csv files converted en masse to wikiformat in minutes!

What does Wikispecies do? I adopt a pragmatic approach, as there are so many gaps down to genus never mind species - add data and more data and at least I try to put typus on all my contributions! I have been told by admins not to make judgments or try to second guess, just report, but if there is a dispute note it. I also feel that users should know more or less where the info comes from - hence my reluctant use of TPL and GRIN, but backed up with other sources where (not always) possible. By the way Sara B. Hoot's 2012 paper is freely available [3] it uses chloroplast atpB-rbcL spacer and nuclear ITS regions and supports the lumping I think, but have only just glanced through it, as I am working on other WS pages. I may re-add TPL to the list if you don't mind when I revisit these pages in a month or so. Thanks and good luck! Andyboorman (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi Andy. Any special reason for blanking the redirect from Gynandropsis to Cleome? Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

Hi Tommy. I came across a secondary source that shows two species outside of the synonymy with Cleome. However, I will revert if I cannot find the primary reference, which I have not done so far! Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh I see. I tried to look into it myself the other day, and finding really good references seems hard. I can only wish you the best of luck – and keep up the good work! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC).
Revert has been done by Stho002, just before I got to it! I have added a very recent reference to Cleomaceae that seems to definitively indicate the synonymy. So my secondary reference (The Plant List) is a bit out of date. Older references have consistently excluded a couple of species of Gynandropsis from their analysis, so there is a bit of an explanation for their error I guess. Got there in the end! Andyboorman (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Little note[edit]

Dear Andy,
After a few days of thinking, I have decided, not to engage with a notice in the „Wikispecies:Village Pump“. Only a short information for you. Please have a look here: [4]
We both had a good way and work in orchids with reference of KEW, MBG and Genera Orchidacearum 1-6 here. Unfortunately, the user:Stho002 has a different opinion of „accepted“ taxonomy of globally recognized institutions. I think, not every taxonomic opinion should be taken three weeks after publication here as correct und right taxonomy. To give an annotation to the new reference is more complex. (The source in Tainia , specified by user:Stho002, is certainly very extensive and potentially very good. But for me it would be an act of fairness also, that the well known institutes will have time to check and appreciate a new publication.)
After almost 200000 edits during the last ten years in Wiki worldwide the term „edit war“ has been never used with my name. As I do not want to waste my time with such discussions, I will accept all changes of user:Stho002 furthermore and do my work here as before.
Other topics I will discuss separately later with you. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Dear Andy,
two little notes:
Formatting references: Are we both the only "stickler for details"? I think, we should find an agreement with user:Uleli. I personally would prefer a form with brackets (to distinguish it from other numbers), but I'm open to this question.
User:Franz Xaver. I am pleased that he works here now.
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Orchi
I think sometimes we are the only ones who use (yyyy)! Maybe it is a European thing? I also think yyyy: is confusing as well and never have used it. Perhaps you could send a note to user:Uleli? One of our templates was altered by him, I reversed the edits and it is still in place.
I have not come across User:Franz Xaver could you point me to a page that he has worked on?
No feedback from User:Stho002 so perhaps he is OK with my suggestions? I think the Tainia/Ania pages look fine myself.
All the best Andyboorman (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Andy, in brief:
O.k., than should we use (yyyy) without point, until a Bot makes general changes in these and other templates.
e.g. Ochna
Tainia is a good way.
Greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Andy, it is sad, that we can not make our good work in peace here :-(. All the best. Orchi (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


Dear Andy, the Mr. Stho002 followed his own way here. Could you please give a notice in Dichaea‎ for the new described species Dichaea bragae, like in Tainia or in "add" form like here Piper. I thank you. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Orchi, In my opinion this is an Add. Do you want me to make the changes? I usually put a reference on the genus page as well. but perhaps this is not strictly necessary. Andyboorman (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Andy, I think a small change such for a new species 2014 Phalaenopsis mentawaiensis in the genus Phalaenopsis is. o.k. Could you please change. You know the reason. Best regards. Orchi (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Orchi, what possibly would be good is a "New" template that explained what is meant by the term. What do you think before the I make any changes? If we like it we could offer it on the Portal. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Andy, Good idea; perhaps with year. Do you create a proposal? Greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Orchi I have changed the three pages above to "Recently described species:" Perhaps I ought to work on this with year as you suggest, but what if we need to add several years? Interesting...Andyboorman (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

....several years?, then we know, how fast KEW and other work. ;-) o.k. without year. We find the year e.g. in the Category:New species 2014. Orchi (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


Dear Andy, could you please have a look at: Masdevallia subg. Amanda . A try in not perfect English terms: Under „References“ a subdivision as in the definition of „Synonyms“ . (I also reference to your post elsewhere to Bibliography). Best regards. Orchi (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

.....just I saw a similar way here: Graphis paralleloides. (Long I searched the term: "Primary reference"). Cheers. Orchi (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi Andy, what do you think about the proposal to Accassidy?: ""A little proposal: If you use the term "===Synonyms===" from the Wikispecies tools instead of "===Synonymy===" you can use the automatic tool "Create Redirects".
If you are interested, I think, Ancyboorman will explain the way of use. You can save a lot of time"". :-) Regards. Orchi (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I got notification of this suggestion as it had my username embedded in it. It is common in revisions of Lepidoptera to include a chronological list of combinations and synonyms, starting with the original description and ending with the most recent published combination. Because this list includes combinations of the valid taxon name as well as junior synonyms, it is not strictly correct to title the list "Synonyms". Hence the use of the wider term "Synonymy" which covers all such matters rather than those taxa which are just synonyms. Could not the "Create redirects" tool also be configured to work on "Synonymy"? Where can I find more info on use of this automatic tool? Accassidy (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Accassidy, if Andy you declared the function, I have a way for you to use "Synonymy" furthermore. (Just I tested). Regards. Orchi (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you tell me where to find and how to use the automatic "Create Redirects" tool. Accassidy (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Since I have difficulties, to formulate technical and difficult questions in English, I am very thankful, when I can take the great help of Andboorman.
I'll try it to explain:
1. This tool was created by User.Rillke for us in Wikispecies.
2. You should create the following page: „User:Accassidy/common.js“ . An exact copy of this page: User:Orchi/common.js. At the moment I have the page set for you for serving use of ===Synonymy===.
3. Restart your browser and you should find the term „Create Redirects“ in the tools left on the page.
4. Visit a page, created by you, with synonymy and start two times the „Create Redirects“ link.
5. If there are further questions, I think, Andy will help. Orchi (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a go tomorrow. Accassidy (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually had time to do it tonight. It worked well. Will do some more tomorrow. I note that after the first click and highlighting, you can click on names you don't want made into redirects. This is useful to avoid some un-necessary additions and loops. Accassidy (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant. You are better organised than me, I usually have to go back to tidy up the list, once more info comes to light! Andyboorman (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Crous et al., 2011[edit]

I have done what you requested, but you could have done it yourself (I am under no obligation to do it, the doi was useful enough by itself) Stho002 (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC).

  • I will do so the next time as a doi has little meaning to a casual user. Andyboorman (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


  • I have accepted your invitation to revert your edits on Proteaceae. The formatting was needlessly complex. We need to keep things simple (but at the same time with a useful data structure). Your time would be much better spent adding new content. Just please make sure that the content is verifiable (=justified) and links are provided to refs. wherever possible Stho002 (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "Your time would be much better spent adding new content." Pots and kettles? Fair enough with the refs but I also think Selected References is a redundant term, as References are always selected unlike a Bibliography. "Just please make sure that the content is verifiable (=justified) and links are provided to refs. wherever possible." I always do. Back to content and just to let you know I will be working on Proteaceae, starting with the Subfamilies, Tribes and Subtribes then to Genera, using Weston, P.H.; Barker, N.P. (2006) some people's unfinished business I guess. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


This was a really silly idea - I just don't understand the rationale. I have deleted the template. I could use some help removing the template from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Moty. It is obvious when a taxon is monotypic - there will be just one listed species! There is no purpose in tagging these taxa with a template. What's so special about 1 species? Are you going to add a template for 2 species, 3 species, etc., etc.? And everytime a second species is described, we would have to remember to remove the template from all affected pages! Why, why, why??? Stho002 (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not my idea or template you will need to bring this up with the bureaucrats. It is commonly used by other editors, admins etc. I hope you are not having a go at me!!! Why, why why??? I like the idea as it adds information for the user and I only use it when a taxon seems to be truly monotypic. I have tried to support you please do not pick a fight with an ally. Andyboorman (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
.....why, why, why??? I have no words. Orchi (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
....indeed?!Andyboorman (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to bring it up with the bureaucrats, it is just a silly template that someone created without due thought. Don't be paranoid, I was not "having a go at you"! I was just really puzzled as to why you would use it, as it serves no useful purpose. Stho002 (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Perhaps we all fall into the neat template trap. The highlighting of a monotypic taxon is a hang over of a past with an emphasis in systematics. Their existence begs a number of questions, which are perhaps not really in the scope of WS I guess. However, it could be useful information for sophisticated users in the right place. Take our beloved Knightia, it may be monotypic, but has a place in a very interesting story and it is oh so tempting to drop a hint or two and of course it deserves its unique status. Likewise Welwitschiaceae or Amborella, but at least the latter has got some powerful, if not strictly taxonomic references. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand the significance of monotypic taxa to systematics, but the template was more trouble than it was worth, as I hope you can now understand. At the very least, it should have been a category, not a template! But even then, there is really no point, and it is more complicated (i.e. what about nothospecies and/or palaeospecies - do they count against monotypy?) Ironically, if it had of been a category, I wouldn't have been able to hide it as I have now done by way of a null template! My strong advice to you is that our priorities here should be to add missing taxon pages, with emphasis on verifiability of red-linked taxon lists (e.g. using my "justification boxes"), and adding useful references with doi or BHL links, etc. These are the most important things, not templates for monotypic taxa (which could change at any time with splitting from molecular taxonomy, etc.) I just don't want to see editors wasting their energies on less than useful things Stho002 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Much of the above is your opinion, which is fine. I hate to see admins getting involved in arguments. My engagement with WS IS to fill in the red-links, particularity where there are peer reviewed journals of use! NO paleospecies do not contribute to monotypy, as they are not extant, but how can nothospecies contribute, confused? Why bother to get bothered by something that exists and maybe of taxonomic interest and relevance? If it annoys valued contributors, my advice is to back off and restore the status quo. Or at least ask opinion on the pump or fellow admins. "justification boxes" I like, thanks, great potential for adding value, definitely exploring - Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
One can argue ad nauseam for the pros and cons of tagging monotypic taxa, but the main point here is a technical one (that it should have been a category, not a template!), and there was no discussion before the template was created and implemented. You seem to be bothered enough about the issue to have a little rant on the VP, so whay don't you take your own advice and "back off" and maintain the current status quo (i.e. no moty template)? Stho002 (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Not my template. Another silly debate, why? Andyboorman (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Content removal[edit]

  • Please do not revert because of formatting issues if this results in removal of useful content. That is an abuse of admin powers. Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Here we go again I am not an admin. What is useful about a format? Andyboorman (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I am reporting you to bureaucrats for removing useful content, with regrets Andyboorman (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who removed the useful content, not me! I see now that you are indeed not an admin (probably for the best), my mistake. You just don't seem to be open to rational discussion. You seem to want everything to conform to your own preferences, even when these have no rational basis. That is unfortunate ... Stho002 (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
You took out incertae sedis according to the reference you provided. I do not have any preferences. Andyboorman (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that wasn't useful content. It just overcomplicated matters, when there was a better way. You then removed useful content when you undid my edit (i.e. you removed the overview of genera). "incertae sedis" isn't a taxon, it just means "unplaced". It is already obvious from the Taxonavigation section for each of the genera that they are unplaced to subtribe, so there is no loss of content. Just try stopping to think once and while, please! Stho002 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry. I do not accept your rationale. I am out of Proteleales please do not follow me! Andyboorman (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


Adding those kinds of annotations to articles has never and will never be acceptable on this or any other Wikimedia site. Please desist. I'm not being confrontational here. I'm just pointing out the facts and giving you a calm and polite warning. Stho002 (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


I can find nothing that supports your statement at Camellia × williamsii "This is most likely a garden hybrid not a nothospecies, originally bred in Cornwall by John Charles Williams". The therm "nothospecies" is used for any hybrid and does not account for its origin. I have changed your entry to include your edit of the origin only,, I hope you don't mind Uleli (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not care one bit, but there is plenty of evidence for this hybrid's origin in cultivation. You will need to look through the RHS Lindley Library in Sloane Square, London for the breeding records from J.C. Williams at Caerhays Castle in the 1920s for the primary records. I would not use the RHS A-Z encyclopedia of garden plants. United Kingdom: Dorling Kindersley. 2008, as you might get a slap from an admin. It would be even better to delete the page if WS is not interested in artificial hybrids, even though the plant is important in the Camellia world. I have used the term nothospecies in the past to notate only natural hybrids, as artificial hybrids appear to be outside the scope of WS. But of course there is an admin who is busy deleting the word nothospecies itself from WS! Andyboorman (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to say thanks for letting me know. If your are ever in London, the Lindley also will have W.W. Smith's original 1949 article in the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society, BHL have not digitized it. Been there fascinating place with very helpful librarians. Andyboorman (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Journal article citations[edit]

  1. Don't use "date accessed" for published journal articles! You are the only person in the world who does that!!
No I am not and it has it uses for web sites that have a quick turn over, but will drop it if it helps stopping you stalking me!
  1. Use reference templates
Not for single journal entries it is a waste of my time, but I use it a lot for multiples, thanks for doing the template Marx, H.E. et al. 2010, by the way saves me a job later today!
  1. Use doi in preference to url
Not always available from some journal web pages, but have started to use it when I can, as I can see the point if a url changes, thanks for reinforcing a point that I had already picked up on.

Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Please do not use TPL on Verbenaceae as the genus list is based upon WCSP and other cross referenced sources and it may just add unnecessary red links, which somebody else will have to resolve. many thanks Andyboorman (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


I have just written some advice on the User Page of Stho002. I ask also that you contribute to a period of quiet reflection, while everyone calms down a bit. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You must have seen my last post on User talk:OhanaUnited then? Happy to oblige. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Noted, revised. Accassidy (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

date consitency[edit]

Just curious... I have changed date consitency from (2014) to 2014: because I saw that as the date consitency in references in many templates. You reverse them. Did I miss a discussion? I have no personal opinion, I just try to follow the trend Uleli (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I tend to use (YYYY) as I think it is clearer than YYYY: and that is what we often use in the UK and USA (well mostly) particularly Kew! It is also commonly seen in citation and reference lists in the botany papers I read, so when I copy the paper details (YYYY) tends to just get used automatically. Also if you look at the scientific nomenclature for plants it follows, for example, Ambrosina Bassi, Ambrosina: 1 (1763). Stho002 consistently uses YYYY: on his templates and that is also what I used when I lived in New Zealand, I guess it is a Southern Hemisphere date format. I have tried to discuss on the Pump but it got caught up in the messes! Anyway I am happy to go with whatever people decide, as I have used both, but NOT to change the format for plant names that would be unacceptable. Andyboorman (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I also prefer years without brackets. Of course, several styles of formatting are in use. Would it be acceptable for you to follow the lines, that are used in Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden - see e.g. at this page. This is not exactly what I did until now. However, I think this is a good compromise. Also some other Journals, e.g. Novon, Phytologia, Brittonia, do more or less the same. Also Taxon, Systematic Botany, Harvard Papers in Botany, Willdenowia, Darwiniana do not use brackets, but Kew Bulletin and Austrobaileya do. So, it is not a North-South issue. The advantage of Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden is, that it is in BHL, so everybody can easily see, how it looks like. Maybe better is Systematic Botanic which differs by setting name of journal in italics. But is is not so easily accessible. Your opinion? --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Just for your information, in Zoology papers an author's name and date in round brackets, such as (Bethune-Baker, 1899) reveals that the species was originally described in a genus other than the one in which it is currently listed. This may be different in Botany. Accassidy (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the same. The difference is that in botany the combination author is obligatory. So you have the basionym author in brackets and the combination author without. Moreover, in botany, year of publication does not belong to a correct author citation. But conventionally, author citation is often followed by an indication of the place of publication in an abbreviated form, including year. You may see this as an example in Chascolytrum uniolae. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Would you mind advising User:Franz Xaver not to modify live pages as "examples", but to use the sandbox or his user space instead, please? Stho002 (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Many of the conventions that you wish to rigidly (IMHO overly rigidly) adhere to were not made with the computer age in mind. There is absolutely no need to hard write an abbreviated version of the reference citation when we can easily hyperlink directly to the reference template itself. Stho002 (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of your opinion, but I would like to discuss this with Andyboorman and Accassidy. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I hope that you are going to include me in that discussion, just in case you might inadvertently misrepresent my views/the facts Stho002 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course, you may present your points. However, you should not be disappointed, when I don't give a reply to them. It's is not that I think your aim or the idea behind is wrong. But there are also other aspects to be considered. And I hope, finally, to come to a compromise which combines traditional conventions (of zoology/botany) and the possibility to link to a reference template. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I look forward to hearing, evaluating and debating those other aspects Stho002 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: @Accassidy: The way I see it we have these two recently edited pages as examples of the consistent uses of dates in botany. Chascolytrum uniolae and Typhonium (please ignore incomplete use of templates and other data that needs adding for now). I do take your point that Kew is now more or less on its own with the use of bracketed dates in names. However, the use of colons after the date in journal and similar citations is not as common as it appears to be on WS. Clearly modifying templates is no big deal. To modify already created pages will need to be done on an ad hoc basis, of course. Would it be a good idea to take this to the Pump or is it just me who needs to alter their edits? Actually, I have no strong preference either way, except out of habit colons look dated and "wrong". Andyboorman (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, this issue has to be discussed at the Pump. In my opinion, a discussion should be divided into two parts, one concerning with formatting of references/reference templates in the reference section, another concerning the name/synonyms section. Both issues, not necessarily are linked together. Anyway, before this, I would like to prepare a subpage of my user page, showing the same reference in the formatting style of different journals for comparison. Probably, this weekend I will have prepared a page with samples. In my opinion, it will be best to select the formatting style of one important botanical/zoological journal as a recommendation for WS. (I have a preference for something that is as simple as possible.) Maybe, we should aim at finding consensus on a rule, not a recommendation, as the latter most likely will be too vague in practical application. Somehow or other, it will need some time to change. I myself, also have used colons after the year. However, when comparing recent formatting styles of journals I have noticed that (almost) nowhere colons are used, and also I have not found semicolons between names. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I can understand and follow the links for both pages, so I have no over-riding concerns about differences in style. In pages I create in Lepdioptera I use just the "author, date: page(s)" type of citation within the synonymy section and list the referenced document title "Proc. Zool. Soc. London" or whatever only in the References section. This better facilitates the use of Reference Templates. There will always be differences of style, but providing we consistently provide good data those differences are excusable. Accassidy (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Seems a good idea to let User talk:Franz Xaver get his ideas together and we can have a look on them on his discussion page with a view to going to the pump. I agree with him that this should be in two parts, references/reference templates and also names and synonyms. Finally, so it was not just me colons are less used in plant science journals these days, phew! Andyboorman (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please use reference templates[edit]

(CC @Accassidy:) I have created a reference template for your one of your recent edits: Template:Wong et al., 2010. Please use it so that we can keep track of where the reference is cited (by way of the "what links here" function). Thanks Stho002 (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: (CC{{@Accassidy:). Thank you for the template, which I did not get round creating to last night. As I have said before, I will use templates where there will be multiple instances, which will be the case with this one - about 3/4 I guess. However, I would have used all the authors rather than just Wong, S.Y. et al., as they all appear on the paper and all authors should be credited in a list of references. They may also appear as first or second authors in other papers or templates used in WS reference lists. The "reference page" link seems to go back to the template, is this what you intended? I will not edit your template. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, adding {{subst:reftemp}} immediately after the reference citation on a new template page will automatically add a link back to the reference page itself. It will also automatically add the "find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference" link on each page the reference template is used. Also, it will automatically add the reference template itself to Category:Reference templates.
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: So it is best not to try and add a link to the papers reference page or is there a work around you could show us? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Resrored Template:Nadi[edit]

I Restored Template:Nadi, but putting it back on pages from where is was removed is very time consuming, so I'm not pursuing it. Mariusm (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have largely gone back by itself! Thanks I will let things cool for at least a week or so and then raise this on the Pump. Andyboorman (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, also this issue should go to the Pump in due time in order to be clear about it. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


You are now an Admin. Congratulations. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do my very best to be a good Admin! Best not do too much for now though and just ease myself in. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Welcome aboard. Yes, tread lightly in certain areas. Accassidy (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Felicitations on your promotion! I hope you'll value cooperation above exactitude. Mariusm (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Andy, congratulations for you!! I think you are the right man and for me one of the best. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template dispute[edit]

I reverted the 2 templates of yours from candidates for speedy deletion back to original content. Mariusm (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note though that neither {{Renner 2004}} nor {{Nauheimer 2014}} are linked by any other page, in favour of the newer templates {{Renner & Zhang, 2004}} and {{Nauheimer & Boyce, 2014}}, which both uses the standard naming scheme (i.e. with comma). Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC).
Thanks, it would have been polite and informative, if Stho002 had told me that was the reason for his actions. I will take this as a learning exercise and use the comma format in future, so thanks and noted. I guess we do not need to redo all other older templates, that would be silly surely? Andyboorman (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually almost all of the author reference templates already use the comma format; see Category:Reference templates for examples. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC).
You are correct, what put me off were the recently created Cusimano 2011 and Cabrera 2008, which were subject of a bit of a dispute. I guess I must have got put off by the creator of these templates. I must get up to speed with templates now that my red link work is going better. However, I have been put off from creating them for a single reference instance due to time constraints. Have I been remiss in this regard? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Not in my opinion, no. I hope and believe that we all always try our very best – vandals excluded – in respect to the circumstances at hand. Sometimes we are pressed for time, and the quality of our work might temporarily decline accordingly. However, even then it is quite easy to avoid adding outright factual inaccuracies to articles and reference templates, and most often we (and others) have the opportunity to come back later to complete our work. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC).
My modus operandi indeed and I hope mixed with politeness and cooperation! Andyboorman (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Thanks[edit]

No problem. I probably should have closed your RfA as a formality before I left since I was the only neutral bureaucrat who didn't vote in it. But I guess Dan once again voted in a proposal and considered himself to be "neutral" and "uninvolved" in the process. I still can't wrap my head around this nor think of any democratic elections that allows the individual in-charged of overseeing an election to vote in the same ballot box without having eye-popping "conflict of interest" flashing non-stop. This further strengthens that my departure is the right decision. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As an Admin, I will have to be and am trying to be circumspect. Thanks and good luck. Andyboorman (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Minor Template Problem[edit]

Yes, its easy for the odd comma, or a space, or an underscore, to go missing and then the Template doesn't work as it should. It is wise to check links from an species page after you have made the template. If this is not done then there may be some carry over to other similarly-made Templates. If you find one its probably best to advise the creator who can then double check others. Otherwise, they will probably be picked up in general use and eventually resolved. I think most of mine work, but it is possible that they occasionally have a problem I did not spot. My approach is to try to help others to review their own work and learn from the process, rather than just to spend my time correcting other peoples' minor errors. Seems not everybody thinks as I do. Accassidy (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Accassidy: The problem cannot arise if you use {{subst:reftemp}} to create a reference template (unless you subsequently move the page). It is not a minor problem if people create hundreds of templates which don't work properly ... Stho002 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with your template. The only differences from one of mine are minor. I put a full stop after the author name and date, but before the title of the paper. I also put the web hyperlink into the journal page range rather than afterwards with a "full article at..." type of statement (see Template:Cassidy, 2003). Accassidy (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy:The main problem (with Boorman's examples) is that the web link is redundant, given that the DOI links to the exact same web page! Stho002 (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002: So maybe there are two links from the page to a reference document. So what. I would just leave that and move on. Minor redundancy is not a problem here and may actually be useful under some circumstances. Accassidy (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: It isn't two links, it is one link repeated. I do not consider it to be "minor redundancy" Stho002 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, he has changed it now, so that the repeated link is gone, but we are left instead with a verbose and pointless statement "Full article available on line as PDF or HTML", as if we didn't know that from a simple click on the DOI. Stho002 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002: Verbose it might arguably be; others might think it aids clarity. I am somewhere in the middle. But surely it is not the best use of your time to be copy-editing other peoples' syntax. Accassidy (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy:It doesn't add to clarity. It overcomplicates the reference section of pages on which it is placed, thereby actually detracting from clarity. It adds nothing but unnecessary verbosity. The overall clarity of WS pages is something that I treat very seriously. Stho002 (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but your opinion might differ from that of others, and you cannot assume that yours is always right. Often, two different views can both have value. A lot will depend on the experience and semantic approach of the user. So please understand that your insistence on always being "right" and others "wrong" can itself appear simplistic and monocultural. Perhaps you could try to be a bit less dogmatic over issues of formatting and syntax, while retaining academic rigour over matters of actual taxonomy in the strict sense. Accassidy (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy:You are not making much sense, Alan. I alone am not being dogmatic. Unlike others here, "my opinions" are based on rational reasons. There is simply no good reasons for, and at least one good reason against Boorman's excessive verbosity/redundancy. As I say, forget me, just focus on the reasons. As an additional point, I wholeheartedly agree that "a lot depends on [relevant] experience", and I remind you that I have by far the most relevant experience editing here of anyone here Stho002 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
OK my rationale. In botany, except for American Journal of Botany (1997-2014), full text articles are very rarely available through DOI, so IMO it makes complete sense to alert users when this is the case. These articles are often very important, involving a paradigm shift, as is the case with the two under consideration. Therefore, this alert would be rare, but useful. Secondly, a similar rubric is used to highlight the availability of full text articles when these are be obtained from a source other than the DOI. Of course this is part of the link, but the rubric is there often with no other details. I accept that in the templates under discussion it may be redundancy to add the additional link to the full text, as the rubric would be sufficient on its own. Andyboorman (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Sorry Boorman, but this is nonsense! A click on the DOI at least gives the user the abstract and makes it immediately obvious if they have access to the PDF. Access to the PDF will depend on the user, i.e. which subscriptions to which journals they have. Maybe what you are trying to say is that some journals/articles are open access. I would not object to putting the words "open access" or "OA" after a DOI in these cases, but your present "system" is confusing to say the least! Stho002 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Sorry Stephen, you clearly did not pick up on my point that journals such as Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society are subscription only, but sometimes make full access available to articles of major importance. What is the harm in alerting users to this, after all is just three words? I agree the "open access" tag is a good idea. I have made few reference templates so do not have a "present system". Andyboorman (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Boorman, what do you mean I "didn't pick up on your point"?? That was what I said! If you insist on making it obvious to the user, in advance of them simply clicking on the DOI, that it is an open access article, then just use the words "open access". Then at least it makes some sense ... Stho002 (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Stephen Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society is NOT open access. Andyboorman (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Oh, for goodness sake! I know that! But some individual articles in it are open access, which is why I am suggesting that you can mark those articles as open access, not the journal! Stho002 (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Accassidy: At last consensus. "Open access article" to articles and "Open access" to journals, but we will have to be careful, as some journals are "Open access" only after a fixed period of time, so cannot be necessarily added to their WS category without caveats. Andyboorman (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Accassidy: Which is precisely why it would be best not to bother labelling them at all, and leave it to the user to click on the DOI and then see if they can access the PDF or not. What you are doing is adding mere unnecessary complexity. Stho002 (talk)

Oh my, Thorpe I see that you have made unsolicited edits to the templates in question, not unexpected! Andyboorman (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Answering my own question[edit]

@Dan Koehl: @Tommy Kronkvist: @Accassidy: and @Stho002:. I have asked a few times should nouns in journal titles be lower or upper case? Some editors maintain always lower case, I am not so sure. Legal deposit libraries (national libraries) tend to display their lists of journal tiles in lower case, except for proper nouns. For example, The British Library, US Congress Library, University of Cambridge, German National Library, National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa)...the main exception being the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Cased closed? Possibly not, as all major journal search engines; Science Direct, ingentaconnect, JSTOR use upper case, as do the journal home pages and most importantly for plants IPNI. In addition, all journal reference lists use upper case. Conclusion? IMO it is too complicated to differentiate between reference lists and ISSN categories. Both approaches are right and let us respect others' views and preferences even when translating hard copies to templates. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There's also different practices in different languages. As you say, in the English and German languages both lower and upper case are used, depending on each editors' personal preference (except of course proper nouns in English and every noun in German, which are always upper case). The praxis is more rigid in Swedish, where we almost always use lower case, again with the exception of proper nouns. This goes for all titles (fiction literature, scientific journals, music albums, movie titles and so forth), and also for titles in English, if the context itself is written in Swedish. To sum it up, it all can be rather confusing... As you say there really is no right or wrong here, and it would certainly be better if we all focused on adding new and correct material to Wikispecies, rather than arguing about correct material that is already in place. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

Welcome messages[edit]

Hello again Andy. I took the liberty of moving the friendly welcome message you added to User:Botpet from his user page to his talk page (User talk:Botpet) since that of course is a much better place for it... :-) Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC).


Dear Andy,
I wish you a Merry Christmas and all the best for a peaceful New Year 2015.
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)