User talk:Fagus

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Fagus/Structured Discussions Archive 1 on 2019-01-30.

Archive: 2010–2016

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

  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)

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)

pages for sources[edit]

These are fine, but could you make sure you put them in category:sources wher you create them? Circeus (talk) 23:22, 2 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)

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)

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)


Hello @Fagus: I notice that you are working on Minuartia, which I have now arrived at during my work on Caryophyllaceae. This genus has been dismembered starting in 2014 - see particularly Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) on the taxon page. Unfortunately the new circumscription has yet to reach all other authorities and of course the Plant List will be out of date. However, Hassler of COL is pretty well on the ball, as it was revised in Jan 2017. To cut to the chase your species list now contains many synonyms. I will add the "new" list very soon, but leave the "old" list for comparison and in order to make it easier to work on. I have added a number of papers to many pages in the family, but I find Hernández-Ledesma et al., (2015) particularly useful. Still a work in progress, but regards for now. Andyboorman (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of synonyms in Sorbus species[edit]

Hello Fagus, and thank you for updating Sorbus and transferring species that are now considered in new genera. But I noticed, that you did not copy the synonyms chapter to the new species pages, although you moved the redirects. For example, Sorbus torminalis (-3.285 bytes) is now redirected to Torminalis glaberrima (299 Bytes only!). As for now, a lot of information is lost for those species, so I hope you are intending to add the synonyms later. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I created a template for your reference Sennikov & Kurtto and author categories, which you can see at Torminalis glaberrima. And please use author links with template:a to avoid links to disambiguation pages like Sennikov. Hope this will help for your work. Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Good luck for this project! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No diacritics in sortkey, please![edit]

Hello Fagus, please stop your editwar at Category:Süleyman Doğu taxa‎. In template:taxa by author, the second name is just the sorting key, and diacritics like Ü or ğ are not allowed here! Regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(For clarity: "sortkey" = "DEFAULTSORT" data.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Crucifers[edit]

Hello. Are you aware of this reference Al-Shehbaz, I.A., Mutlu, B. & Dönmez, Ali A. 2007. The Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) of Turkey, Updated. Turkish Journal of Botany. Ankara 31(4): 329. PDF. You could make it into a template and it would be useful for your work on Turkish flora. See here Pseudosempervivum gurulkanii. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering[edit]

(Discussion copied and continued on User talk:Andyboorman#Just wondering.)

Hello. What is the reason for adding {{}} to various entities in templates, such as Template Salviinae? It does not appear to have a function. Andyboorman (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Populus macdouglii[edit]


I'm missing in Populus: Populus macdouglii. I don't know how to add plant names, so can you fix it? PeterR (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@PeterR: The name you request should be Populus macdougalii Rose (1927)? In which case it seems to be a synonym, according to most sources I can locate, of Populus fremontii S.Watson (1875) or more correctly the autonym Populus fremontii subsp. fremontii. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Cousinia and templates[edit]

Hello. I have had to modify a lot of your work on Cousinia in order to place the genus and sections in the accepted subtribe - Carduinae. One of the problems was the way you used templates and so see the edit history here Template:Cousinia sect. Cousinia as an example of my edits. It will make later modifications at the sectio level much easier. Basically the use of Echinopsidinae was not needed as the subtribe was embedded into the genus template. Another point Echinopsidinae is a subtribe in the Cactaceae and so was an error on your part, I guess you meant to use Echinopsinae a monotype? However, as far as I am aware the correct subtribe is actually Carduinae - see Susanna & Garcia-Jacas (2009). But if you have a latter reference which I am not ware of please share. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Another hint[edit]

I have found that the only way that hybrids can be automatically linked in IPNI is to use the ID code. An example here with {{IPNI|178291-1|2013|13 November}} for Arctium × batavum. Also some admins really do not like {{BASEPAGENAME}} no sure something to do with coding and bot edits, WD links - really not sure, but I always now edit it out. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


As the originator and main editor of many pages under Cyanus and its species, I was wondering whether or not you intend to dismantle these and place them in Centaurea subgen. Cyanus. The vast majority of sources and scientists maintain the synonymy between Centaurea and Cyanus after all.? I will place a few papers in Centaurea to support the recent changes in subgeneric and sectional classification in due course, but do not intend to implement the implications at the moment. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Not bothering with this either? Andyboorman (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

New "C" template[edit]

Hello Fagus. Can you please explain the intended use of the Template:C you've recently created. What is it for? Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC).

Please enlighten me[edit]

What is the function of {{DISPLAYTITLE:''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''}}? I never use it when creating taxonaviation templates. When I delete it it seems to make absolutely no difference to appearance nor function. Looking forward to your reply. Andyboorman (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


Hello the consensus is not to use this template. You are the only user of it, as far as I can see here. I made made a start at getting rid of it. Could you please help. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I notice that you have not bothered to act on this request. Also your well meaning, but erroneous use of {{BASEPAGENAME}} on taxon pages are still not dealt with, for example Nepeta. Any chance of dealing with these problems even if bit by bit? Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Still using SN, why? It is so annoying to police an experienced editor, please no more! Andyboorman (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Sections in Nepeta[edit]

I can not find any support for the use of sections in the genus Nepeta. Before I get rid of them I am contacting you for your feedback. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sectiones on Nepeta[edit]

I am proposing to get rid of Sect. on Nepeta, unless you can provide references and evidence for why they should be kept. My reading of the evidence is that so called related species that were conventionally placed in sections are in fact scattered across a number of sections rendering the subgeneric classification unsustainable. Current thinking is that in order to maintain stability in nomenclature we need to be very careful in micromanaging sub-classification in genera and species. Any thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinus nigra[edit]

Hi Fagus - could you hold fire on Pinus nigra, please - these "subspecies" are hardly distinct, at best only significant at varietal rank, not subspecies. Their listing as subspecies is more due to nationalism than botany. There are only two significantly different populations distinct at subspecific rank, a thick-needled, cold-tolerant eastern one (subsp. nigra), and a thin-needled, less hardy western one (subsp. salzmannii), separated by a 600 km range gap across the Adriatic Sea and the Po valley of Northern Italy (Christ 1863, Koehne 1893, Delevoy 1949, Dallimore et al. 1967, Vidakovic 1974, Christensen 1993 & 1997, Scaltsoyiannes et al. 1994). To make subspecies of other minor variants makes for a very top-heavy taxonomy for the species compared to related taxa, and obscures the important difference above. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

For information, Farjon (2010) accepts three additional subspecies, these are found on WCSP. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Farjon just followed Flora Europaea (1993) because he didn't want to upset local feelings; "The distinctions remain slight and it is questionable that these should really merit a classification recognizing so many subspecies; it reflects a long-standing European tradition of endless splitting more than sound taxonomy in my opinion" (Farjon 2005, Pines, 2nd. ed.: 145). This five-subspecies classification doesn't reflect its genetics (e.g. Scaltsoyiannes et al. 1994), which shows two major divisions, each with several minor divisions better recognised at varietal rank; see e.g. Gymnosperm Database for a better classification. - MPF (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the updated Gymnosperm Database circumscription for Pinus nigra. I suggest you update your links from the archived version to the current. I must point out that your preference is of no consequence here on WS, we have to go on the current consensus. Spitting is not eurocentric, as an example see Acacia, but is then often followed by lumping, then spitting and on and on - annoying! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Changed to follow the same flawed source. This is one case where I - from my deep familiarity with the species - consider very strongly that we should not follow WCSP (which, if I recall rightly, our guidelines do allow exceptions to slavish adherence). - MPF (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course slavish adherence is not recommended, but that is just what you are doing. You see a flaw - I see consensus. I am also familiar with the genus. When in doubt go with consensus is always my recommendation. Businský is just one expert among many after all and has strongly held opinions, which differ from Farjon, Chase, Christenhuz and others in some instances. Taxon pages can be constructed to express these differences amongst experts without making a judgement one way or another. You do not even need {{Disputed}} for such minor concerns. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
It isn't consensus, it is just lots of sources blindly following one source because that source is set up as an authority, but without checking the evidence. The evidence - both morphological and genetic - supports the subdivision of Pinus nigra into two major taxa, each of which is further subdivided into 2-3 lesser taxa. That isn't best demonstrated by subdividing the species into 5 taxa of equal rank. - MPF (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── That is your opinion and I am not trying to change it, although I totally disagree with the blind leading the blind tone, as it is insulting to RBG Kew and other expert botanists working on Black Pine. My point is that we can not allow WS to be a vehicle for individual editors opinions, surely you agree with this as a crat and given past bad blood here? Taxon pages can be set up to reflect differing taxonomic opinions, as long as they are supported by evidence sourced through the Reference Section. It does not even need lengthy explanations on the page, but perhaps a note and some additional thoughts on the Discussion Page. For Pinus nigra and Pinus wangii this is easily undertaken without an edit war. Incidentally Govaerts will rapidly change database entries, if contacted with robust evidence that they are wrong or out of date. I speak from experience, all it requires is an email. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you're overstating my opinion a bit there with "blind leading the blind", it is more the pressure to conform to tradition. It doesn't significantly affect the taxa accepted much, just the rank at which they are accepted; Flora Europaea's subspecies concept is much narrower than that used elsewhere, leading to an imbalance when compared to other species in the genus from other regions. I'm not sure though how you would set up the taxon pages to reflect more than one taxonomic opinion, unless you have duplicate pages. - MPF (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@MPF: Does this paper change your opinion as regards Pinus wangii, if not why not? Averyanov, L.V., Nguyen, K.S., Nguyen, H.T. & Harder, D.K., 2015. Preliminary assessment for conservation of Pinus cernua (Pinaceae) with a brief synopsis of related taxa in eastern Indochina. Turczaninowia, 18(1): 5-17. PDF in English. Govaerts has these var. also as synonyms of the variable Pinus fenzeliana in spite of Businský R. 2011. Pinus fenzeliana Hand.-Mazz. (Pinaceae) still misinterpreted? Phyton 51(1): 77–87, which Averyanov also discounts. Andyboorman (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: - no; I've read the protologue of Pinus fenzeliana, and don't see any reason to disagree with Businský's neotype, collected at the type locality on Hainan, being an appropriate choice. I have cones of both P. fenzeliana and P. wangii (and its subspp.) in my herbarium, and they are not remotely similar. The cones of P. kwangtungensis are a very close match to those of P. wangii (barely distinguishable). I see Businský has also recently synonymised P. cernua with P. fenzeliana (Phyton 56 (2): 129-152, 2016); judging by the photos of the cones in the Turczaninowia paper, I would concur. - MPF (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@MPF: Brilliant I sense an email to Govaerts coming along in the very near future with respect to this whole complex. It will be interesting to see what Kew make of this south Asian complex. I feel that they will go with the synonymy you mention above at least. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: - excellent, thanks! MPF (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Taxa authored 2[edit]

...please repair this template. There is no more difference between female and male authors. Orchi (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I repaired for all functions. Orchi (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Bellevalia lipskyi[edit]

Вульф,_Евгений_Владимирович E.Wulf not appears in Pl Index by IPNI Please See Bellevalia lipskyi attribution E Wulf then this annotated Bibliography is nor correct?--Penarc (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Template Inc[edit]

Please undo your changes of {{Inc}} and repair this template. The translations in different languages are now missing. Regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Alyssum sect. Odontarrhena[edit]

Hi This section has now been raised to the rank of genus Odontarrhena, as has Meniocus. As the originator of this section, do you have time to transfer the Odontarrhena combinations? I will deal with Meniocus and other bits and pieces. By the way the sections in Alyssum are longer sustainable and should be dispensed with. I will add the key reference indicating this in due course, but Španiel et al. (2015) also is worth a read. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pharmasotic Botanists[edit]

Hello Fagus, this category is misspelled. Since it is empty, I think it should be deleted. What do you think? Sileps (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

IUCN template[edit]

Hello Fagus! The {{IUCN}} template seems to be broken: see for example this revision of the Anas bernieri page. As you can see the IUCN link there leads to a "502 Bad Gateway" HTTP error message. The most likely reason for the error is changes made by IUCN themselves to their webpage and/or database. Is it possible to fix the template? Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC).

The template has now been corrected. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC).

mystery template[edit]

Hey, Fagus, I just came across {{Turkish}}. As it is not actually used by any page, I am at something of a loss as to what it's intended for and whether it's actually used. If it's not in use, should I delete it? Circeus (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

WCSP template[edit]

This template does not work with hybrids as it stands, for example Pinus × attenuradiata you have to take the x out for some reason. It appears not to be the template but the WCSP search codes. It is annoying! Andyboorman (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi Fagus - hope you won't mind my making a few small requests about your recent edits:

  • Please don't remove location information; this is important data about the image.
  • When chosing a photo from Commons, please give strong preference to natural wild origin specimens over cultivated specimens (usually of doubtful origin, and frequently misidentified), and (where relevant, and available) photos of the nominate subspecies / variety, rather than other infraspecific taxa, on a species page. This 'future proofs' the image against species splits and transfers.
  • Please don't set a prescriptive '300' pixels size, as this affects how everyone sees the image, as it over-rides personal preferences. I am using a large screen so like large images, so I set my preferences to 400 pixels. Others may be using small mobile devices and want only a 100 pixel size. This was covered in the Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 49#Default image size.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

out of scope[edit]

Castanea crenata - Vegetative Key
- Leaf blade abaxially tomentose.

This is out of scope for WS and belongs on WP. Please do not use on taxon or discussion pages without taking it to the Pump for discussion. Just a warning that I will delete if I come across this template if a discussion is not being undertaken in the next day or so. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

CDF Checklist of Galapagos Vascular Plants[edit]

Hey, I'm looking at Template:Jaramillo Díaz & Guézou, 2017, and I can't quite figure out if it's citing a paper document of some sort with a database version, or just basically the website. These calls for rather different style of reference (I may be not looking right, but I can't even figure where the authorship attribution is coming from). Circeus (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

For the source of this citation see here: . Linum cratericola is actually the only article where this reference is used, details for this species can be found at . I don't see anything of additional value for the article. It seems that PWO has been used for the article, but instead of this database, references from the PWO's Bibliography are cited. Other examples are Template:Govaerts, 2001 and Template:Govaerts, 2003, Kew-internal Access databases which have never been available for the public. I think PWO should be cited, and secondary citations of works which have not been consulted should be avoided. -RLJ (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah. I see, that clarifies things a lot. Circeus (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)