User talk:MILEPRI

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Eponyms and removing of authorship[edit]

Hello MILEPRI, the eponymy is only for the basionym, which was named in honour of some person. Not for all later combinations, as they keep the epitheton just by rule. And PLEASE stop removing the taxa by author-categories of botanical combinations! Thanks, --Thiotrix (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thiotrix:. I don't quite understand what you want to tell me. Could you clarify it for me? First: (the eponymy is only for the basionym) eg: for John Lindley only Lindleyi. If it only works for one name, what is the template used for: Eponyms? I think this template does the same function as the taxa by author template, where all the taxa edited by said author are welcomed. Second: (stop removing the taxa by author-categories of botanical combinations). I have only eliminated the author categories in the redirected pages, since this was agreed by the community, in the accepted taxa what I do is add it. I would be grateful if you could tell me, with an example, where I am wrong to correct it. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1.Two examples: Gigartina agardhii was named by Setchell & Gardner in honour of Agardh. Later it was combined to another genus as Mastocarpus agardhii. The category of the eponymy should be on the redirect page of the basionym, as this name was coined as an eponym. Another example Schizymenia dubyi: The eponymy is for the basionym Halymenia dubyi, but not for the combinations Iridaea dubyi, Kallymenia dubyi, Euhymenia dubyi, and Schizymenia dubyi.
2. Author categories for zoological taxa are always on the taxon pages, not on the redirects, as was agreed by the community. But for botanical taxa, combinations have their own authors. So Schizymenia dubyi (Chauvin ex Duby) J.Agardh is authored by J.Agardh, while Halymenia dubyi Chauvin ex Duby is authored by Duby. That's why author categories are also on redirect pages for botanical taxa.
3. What is your reference for the eponymy? There are two Agardh researchers, for whom Gigartina agardhii could be named. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix:. I do not understand so many difficulties to include an eponym in the list, since most taxa appear without the basonym, which would lead to study the origins of each taxon, in addition to the fact that although the author is changed several times and even becomes a synonym, the name of the taxon does not vary and it is this that is reflected in the list not that of its authors, you should consult the opinion of @Andyboorman:, since I do not have a high level of this language and I do not I can have an in-depth discussion on the subject. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El término 'basiónimo' se utiliza para indicar qué nombre era el nombre original y válidamente publicado del taxón. Entonces, todos los nombres tienen un basiónimo. Saludos -- Andyboorman (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No elimine páginas basadas en una sola fuente secundaria.[edit]

See Sutherlandia para su último ejemplo. PWO, COL, Tropicos, etc., no son lo suficientemente definitivos como para realizar cambios importantes utilizando solo uno de ellos. Es diferente si se ha encontrado con un nuevo artículo científico que aclara la incertidumbre. Donde COL y PWO coinciden en una sinonimia genérica que es buena. Cuando no lo hace un individuo, el editor no debe emitir un juicio sobre quién tiene razón. Esto se llama "Investigación original" y está absolutamente prohibido en todos los Wikis. Revise sus ediciones y revierte los casos en los que acaba de confiar en PWO o COL e ignora otras fuentes. ¡Esto es muy importante! Saludos cordiales y feliz año nuevo. Andyboorman (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your COL template is broken[edit]

I suggest that you fix this by using a bot to make a blanket change to {{Catol-Hassler}}. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:. ¿Como puedo solicitar a un bot que cambie template:CoL por template:Catol-Hassler? --MILEPRI (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ask an experienced user of AWB such as @RLJ: I am sure he could help and at least let you know what is possible. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would regard myself as a learning user of AWB. I think it would be favourable to use the citation forms recommended by Catalogue of Life, and to cite, as far as possible, the individual datasets (e.g. WorldFerns, WorldPlants etc.) and not the whole database system. Note that some of these datasets are available also elsewhere, eg. and and WCSP, without any differences in content. The templates "COL" (concerning the whole catalogue) and "Catol-Hassler" (concerning the individual dataset WorldPlants) differ in their content, although WorldPlants occupies a large part of Tracheophyta treatments in the Catalogue. Maybe the use of "Catol-Hassler" also needs revision. AutoWikiBrowser could be useful, but I am still searching a solution for complex filtering, eg. searching for all Fabaceae articles which contain the template COL. --RLJ (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your help and experience. Keep me posted. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Astragalus and Orophaca edits reverted do not repeat OR, please!!!! Andyboorman (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orophaca is accepted by ILDIS (which has not been updated since 2014), but not accepted by POWO and by Hassler ( and Catalogue of Life). All species with blue links in Orophaca redirect to Astragalus species. I think the redirect to Astragalus is justified. --RLJ (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is accepted by Hassler/COL according to this link. Strange and perhaps this link will update soon. I have no problems with the synonymy, just I feel that it is not good practice to base any synonymy on a single source. It is been known for a long time that the mega-genus Astragalus will be getting even larger. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please do not use Ene as somebody has a AWB bot trawling through correcting it to Jan. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Leopoldo G. Sancho taxa[edit]

This category is formatted like a taxon authority page. I thought about simply moving it to mainspace, but Leopoldo G. Sancho redirects to Leopoldo García Sancho. Are they the same person? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are the same person according to IPNI. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4:, OK, It is the same author according to Authority control . --MILEPRI (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxa authored 2[edit]

Can you please note that this template is merged into Template:Taxa authored? It is now a mere redirect to Taxa authored and should not be used any longer. Best wishes, --RLJ (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RLJ:. Thanks for the info, I had understood that the correct one was authored taxa 2 and was changing them. Greetings.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The link to COL does not work please use Catol-Hassler instead. See Vachellia farnesiana where I have made the corrections. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:: Si observa mis ediciones recientes, comprobará que siempre pongo Hassler desde que me advirtió en enero que estaba roto el enlace. Gracias nuevamente.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman:: He comprobado que Template:COL tiene miles de páginas con enlace roto (he llegado a contar 3000 y continúa la lista). Sería conveniente que un BOT hiciese las correcciones, ya que hacerlo manualmente ocuparía mucho tiempo. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gracias por la información. Colocaré un aviso en la Pump pidiendo a los editores que no utilicen la plantilla. También preguntaré si alguien podría usar un bot para cambiar COL a Catol-Hassler. Atentamente Andyboorman (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hola, MILEPRI. Te agradecería que me explicaras a qué se debe esta reversión, en la que restauraste una versión claramente vandálica. Creo que te has confundido. Un cordial saludo. —Hasley (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hasley:. Recibí notificación de que la página había sido revertida y observé que ya había sido deshecha la edición por Vd. pero habían quedado una gran cantidad de emoticonos que es lo que he querido eliminar. Gracias por su ayuda. Saludos. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MILEPRI (talkcontribs) 15:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Vale, en todo caso quiero notificarte que ya los he retirado. Un saludo. —Hasley (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check links[edit]

Hi. You seem to be making an error on a lot of your PWO links. Sophora toromiro See here. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:. I cannot find the anomaly that it indicates, since POWO binds correctly and the data that appears (that already was) see that it is correct. Could you clarify the error for me? Greetings.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have used ! instead of | between June and 4. I have spotted this error a few times. Perhaps you are using a macro to make the links? Andyboorman (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman:. OK entre jun y 4 había puesto ! en lugar de |, eso ha sido esta mañana al cambiar la fecha. Gracias por su ayuda. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MILEPRI (talkcontribs) 08:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC).

Reverting legitimate reverts[edit]

Hello MILEPRI. Why did you make this revert of an already legitimate reversion of vandalism? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist:: Este tema ya fue resuelto, adjunto copia del tema:

""Hola, MILEPRI. Te agradecería que me explicaras a qué se debe esta reversión, en la que restauraste una versión claramente vandálica. Creo que te has confundido. Un cordial saludo. —Hasley (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hasley:. Recibí notificación de que la página había sido revertida y observé que ya había sido deshecha la edición por Vd. pero habían quedado una gran cantidad de emoticonos que es lo que he querido eliminar. Gracias por su ayuda. Saludos. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MILEPRI (talkcontribs) 15:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Vale, en todo caso quiero notificarte que ya los he retirado. Un saludo. —Hasley (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)""Reply[reply]

Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello MILEPRI, as Triclisia subcordata obviously is no eponym of Friedrich Ludwig Diels, I have moved the category to the redirect Triclisia dielsii. Best wishes, RLJ (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RLJ:. Gracias por la correción del error. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. I have reverted your edits for Canscorinella due to a taxonomic opinion over which WS can not take a side. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have had to revert your edit on Irlbachia alata as your redirect is disputed see note on the page. Be very careful when assuming that one secondary source has to be taken over others. Andyboorman (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way. the whole of Helieae is under flux and so I would avoid editing there for a month or two. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calió and team are preparing to publish a complete revision of Helieae, which is likely to mean considerable changes in species circumscription across many of the genera. That is why I have suspended working on this tribe. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genus templates[edit]

<br /> not needed with template gbr, as a line break is built into this template. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is true. The templates {{gbr}} (for genus) and {{fbr}} (for familia) both ends with a built in line break, in the same way as the {{glast}} and {{famlast}} etc. templates that we use in the Taxonavigation sections. So please don't manually add a <br/> line break after those, since this would in effect actually add two line breaks, which brakes the layout and looks bad. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist:. Thank you for the information, which I already knew and apply to the pages that I edit. I only found myself in problems in the edition of the genre "Gentiana" in which I found the double space in the subgenres, I tried to correct it, but it was impossible believing that it would be a temporary error of the system. Now I see that it has already been corrected.--MILEPRI (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Well... the Gentiana page needs to be changed anyway. We should only name our taxon pages after real taxon names, and the Taxonavigation section on the Gentiana page includes a link to a page named "Insertae sedis (Gentiana)". The taxa on that page needs to be included in the Gentiana page. Then the "Insertae sedis (Gentiana)" page should be deleted, for two reasons: 1) there is no taxon named "Insertae sedis (Gentiana)" so the page should not have been created in the first place, and 2) the word "Insertae" is incorrectly spelled. It should be spelled "Incertae" (from latin incertus = 'uncertain', 'doubtful') and not "Insertae" (from latin insertus = 'introduced', 'inserted').
We have the same problem with a lot of other pages as well: 2 pages with "Insertae" and 108 pages with "Incertae" in their page title. All of them must be deleted – but first the taxon names on them needs to be copied to the proper pages. I extend a ping to Andy Boorman, should he have any comments. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Ambiguous synonyms[edit]

Hola. Por lo general, no creo páginas de taxón para sinónimos ambiguos, como los que se encuentran en Hassler. No son muy aceptadas, pero tampoco se comb. ined. o la opinión de Hassler y, por lo tanto, no son taxonomías realmente válidas. Ellas pueden presentar un verdadero dilema para WS. See Enicostema verticillatum. Espero que mi español tenga sentido !! Atentamente Andyboorman (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:. Currently I take the Hassler data (synonyms and subspecies) as I believed it was more up to date than POWO. I take note to have it as a priority.--MILEPRI (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do the same more or less, but double check. Usually there are no problems, which is encouraging. If Hassler disagrees with multiple sources then it causes problems with acceptance and validity. I always run the taxon through Google Scholar, as well. However, ambiguous synonymy has no taxonomic standing and should not appear in a list of synonyms without more evidence. Hassler on its own is not enough. Enicostema verticillatum has to remain as the only accepted name for the species until further work establishes there has to be a change. There is a major problem with distribution, as Enicostema axillare is found in Africa, Asia and Arabia, whereas Enicostema verticillatum originates in the Central Americas. This is a very rare disjunction! I think that Govaerts et al. have looked at this and this is one reason they accept Enicostema verticillatum for now. However, I am confident that this species is accepted in the local flora of the Central Americas and this gives validity to my taxon page. Whether or not Enicostema littorale needs its own page is another story, but Hassler includes Enicostema verticillatum in their synonymy! A right mess for such a small genus. Andyboorman (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way the autonym only has validity in relation to E. a. subsp. latilobum and so you will have to research and create this page, if you think this is required. Andyboorman (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken redirects[edit]

Hello. I bring this and this to your attention, as you are responsible for a number of these broken redirects. Would you be so kind as to work on the required red link species as soon as possible. Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:. I have verified the data of many of the taxa and I observe that the vast majority are from unedited pages that have had their synonyms edited. I think it would be more useful to destroy these pages, which would be edited at the appropriate time. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is one approach, the other, which I am taking, is to gradually make the correct pages and then the broken redirect special page is a useful resource, so hold off nuking them please. I am doing this as most plant genera are no longer red linked and most of those that are have a problem that needs resolving. I am now happy to move onto species pages and these seem like a good excuse, particularly as I have created a lot of broken redirects. Saludos.-- Andyboorman (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman:. If it seems appropriate to you, I would like to help you in this task and I suggest that to avoid making a page at the same time, for my part, make those between Acanthaceae and Gentianaceae, families that I have already updated, and You the rest of the families. Saludos. --MILEPRI (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. If you check IPNI you will see 7 species added since the WS list was updated. Cheers and a big hint to do a sort by on IPNI when updating pages. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:. The new species have already been included. I observe that he has managed to make species appear on the IPNI list by date of acceptance. How do you get it?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brilliant well done. On IPNI click on Sort by and select Date Published - Newest First. Hope this helps. Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman:. OK, Gracias.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use {{TOCcompact1}} not {{TOCcompact2}} for species lists = see Goodenia. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Following our discussion, I have completed a taxon page for Cyrtandromoea in the Phrymaceae family as per the updated PWO and Luna et al. (2019). Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. In my opinion Lohmueller F.A. 2005. The Botanical System of the Plants[1] is a link not reference. Not important, but we should be consistent. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also please remove splast on typus or type species as it is generating an unwanted format change. See Heliconia changes. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also IPNI is written as
@Andyboorman:: Agradecido por la información. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no hay problemas. Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exacum broken redirects[edit]

Hi will you be fixing your broken redirects in Exacum. They are in this list or can be found in Special Pages on the left hand frame. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC) I am going through mine, so really can not correct those made by other people. Have you got the Move function in the More drop down list? Andyboorman (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:. Parece que en su dia hice la página Exacum tetragonum, redirijí los sinónimos y olvidé grabarla. Gracias por la información. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New resources for Cacti[edit]

Hello. When working on cacti add {{CACO}} and check the latest information. It is is not yet in PWO etc., but soon will be. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cacti are not ferns[edit]

Please do add {{CFLW}} to cacti it makes WS look ridiculous! Please reedit as soon as possible!! Andyboorman (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:: OK.--MILEPRI (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WCSP and CACO[edit]

Hi Cacti are not in WCSP. CACO seems to be working OK now. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi MILEPRO, as nearly all the names with this epithet were created in the 19th century, and as "funkii" is the male form, they are very unlikely to be dedicated to a female botanist born in 1947 who should have "funkiae" as eponym. I have therefore reverted all your recent edits concerning this eponym. Best wishes, -RLJ (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RLJ:: Muchas gracias. --MILEPRI (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check with CACO[edit]

Hi I reverted your redirect on Selenicereus urbanianus, as I am exclusively following CACO. Kew will be implementing most of their changes, but it will take a few months to appear on PWO. Not sure about Hassler. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry. You can not just blank Corynopuntia and redirect, this is because of a problem caused by Corynopuntia nigrispina, which has not been placed in Grusonia. It is untidy, but that is not our problem just reality. Happy holidays and all the best for the new year. Andyboorman (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:: OK. Happy holidays and all the best for the new year. --MILEPRI (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

APC template[edit]

See the edit history for Jacksonia alata for a couple of improvements you may wish to follow. All the best for the new year. Andyboorman (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vernacular name of Iris florentina[edit]

Hello MILEPRI! I saw that some time ago, you added the Spanish vernacular names "Betulia" and "Lilio morado" to the Iris florentina page. However the Wikispecies guideline say that we should only add one vernacular name per language. Could you please edit the page again, and only include the one (1) most common Spanish name? The flowers of this species are normally white, and in many languages the vernacular names include the words "white" or "alba" (for example "White iris" in English and "Giaggiolo bianco" in Italian). However they can be blueish, and perhaps the purple/violet in "Lilio morado" added by you is the correct Spanish name? I don't know, but I'm sure you do. Face-smile.svg Thanks beforehand! Kindly, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]


Hello. Be very careful with Trimezieae, as the synonymy is not at all settled. It could be seen as legitimate for WS to have two names for the same taxon, if it is a disputed circumscription! See this Discussion. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:. I'm done updating the tribe. When they reach a consensus, I will update this tribe again. Saludos. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MILEPRI (talkcontribs) 09:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

World Checklist of Vascular Plants[edit]

Good morning. The printed material linked here {{Govaerts et al., 2021}} has been replaced by the online {{WCVP}}. You can use this instead. Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:. OK. --MILEPRI (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerodendrum glandulosum.[edit]

Your edit has been reverted as it resulted in a non-standard page format. Andyboorman (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Not sure how useful is Govaerts, R. (2003). World Checklist of Selected Plant Families Database in ACCESS: 1-216203. The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew as it is nearly 20 years out of date. Hence my note removal on Kalaharia. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is not useful. It is a 19-year-old version of WCSP, a Kew-internal Access file, unavailable to the public, indicating that they accepted the name some years ago or not. Nothing else. --RLJ (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi I thought the community had decided not to use taxonavbar after a discussion as it does not appear to function correctly in all instances. Do you know something we do not? If so please let the community know via the Pump. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:. While updating the genre Stachys I noticed that RLJ had included a very interesting novelty for page visitors, the taxonbar, since instead of the usual 2-3 references, it adds 8-10 or 20 new references that expand the data on what was consulted. I think it is very interesting to return to this topic because it seems like a good option. I have tried the taxonbar on insects and bryophytes (where it is very difficult to find references) and it adds data that an editor would have neither the time nor the patience to find. After your reminder I am in doubt whether or not to continue using it. Please guide me so as not to make the mistake of doing what the community has agreed to.Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman:. I just made the Synandreae tribe, in which there are no direct links. With taxonbar would appear: Wikidata, ICBI & Vascon. Those data will not be able to see those who enter the page. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to remind us of this vote [2]. as the use is banned for now. May be it is time to revisit the discussion? In the meantime it should not be be added and could be removed. Andyboorman (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop adding this template you are acting out of consensus. If you want to use it then start a Pump Discussion with a view to vote. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template has been removed from all taxon pages. Please do not use it anymore. However, feel free to restart the Pump Discussion. Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you know of a way of making this template look like the Wikipedia versions either the Spanish or English? Also can we get rid of the Plant List and say replace it with Hassler? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman:. It is a very good idea to replace Plant List with Hassler. Saludos — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MILEPRI (talkcontribs) 08:22, 14 April 2022.


Thanks for adding distributions on some taxon pages. However, I would suggest that its use on pages where there is a wide distribution, such as Callicarpa is not very helpful. Going from an incomplete continental list to a very large country list is not that useful for the reader. It would have been better to break this down into regions then countries as per the citation on nadi. For example, the distribution for Madagascar would be Africa - Western Indian Ocean - Madagascar. See this Orchid page as an example Agrostophyllum. Trying to be helpful! Andyboorman (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again some nadi sections are not conforming to WS standard. I may have to silent delete if they are not corrected, as this gives a bad impression of WS, given the high quality of the rest of the page. Thanks
@Andyboorman:. ¿A que página se refiere?. Unicamente no diversifico las regiones en los géneros que tienen muchas especies. En las especies siempre las divido por regiones. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Era Lycopus (Lamiaceae). Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Govaerts 2003[edit]

Not sure adding this unavailable source to all of your edits is helpful. The data is available elsewhere on the reference list after all and it is not accessible. Please note that all of its data has been added to the continuously updated online and freely accessible source World Checklist of Vascular Plants. Adding it to taxa that have been extensively emended since 2003 is an error. Not sure what to do about this. However, if you can justify its inclusion I would be very grateful. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: Only include this reference if it appears in POWO. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it is a duplicate and not required, in my humble opinion. POWO and WCSP are updated from WCVP which is the base database and has replaced Govaerts 2003. Andyboorman (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: I take note not to include this reference in the pages I edit. Saludos --MILEPRI (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not remove links from Reference List[edit]

I notice that you have started to remove links from the Reference Section. I assume as you are adding Taxonbar, the consensus is we do not do this. Andyboorman (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: I had understood that only those from which the data had been taken for the creation of the page would be left in the references, since the rest would appear in taxonbar.

An error that I appreciate is that when two data of species appear in taxonbar, there is a solution, I put taxonbar|from=Qxxxxxxx, and only the indicated taxon should appear, but this does not happen and both continue to appear , has this solution or I make some unknown error. Greetings.--MILEPRI (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • OK, not an expert on taxonbar, are you saying that the template taxonbar automatically deletes the duplicate sources from the Reference Section? If so then we need to alert somebody more knowledgeable, if not and there is a duplicate then we will live with this. Do not manually delete from the Reference list, as to a reader this is a key section that indicates the sources used to construct the taxon page. Taxonbar is just another added non-essential extra like nadi, image, vn, categories and so on. Andyboorman (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • My key reference links are WCSP/PWO, Catol-Hassler, IPNI (essential for genera and species) and Tropicos (plus its offshoots) and occasionally APC and APD. Deleting these from pages I create/edit will automatically lead to a roll back - sorry. Andyboorman (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: Este texto aparece en las recomendaciones antes de la votación: @Thiotrix: by default Taxonbar retrieve the identifiers of the item linked to the Wikispecies page, e.g. for Halimione portulacoides it is Q888227. However you can force the display of the identifiers of your choice, e.g. Taxonbar|from=Q17244388 would have retrived only the identifiers from Q17244388. And you can force the display of identifiers from several synonyms as I did in example in Halimione portulacoides, Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC) the relative documentation is availaible in ENWI en:Template:Taxonbar#Multiple_Wikidata_entries Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Saludos


Hello. I have just noticed that you have been creating a lot of orphan pages. These have no connection to other taxon pages, for example a species page whose name does not appear on the list of species of its genus page. It usually happens when updating a species list and we remove blue link species, but without either deleting them or placing into their correct synonymy. I also did this in the past but no longer as it creates a lot of extra work. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: I assume you are referring to Cinnamomum which has recently updated the species and removed the ones not listed in POWO. I will look at the links to correct this, although when making the pages with an image I am already changing them to their new reference, I will look at the ones that do not have an image to do the same. Thank you for your warning. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still coming across orphans, for example Hedysarum are they yours? Andyboorman (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation formats.[edit]

Will you be standardising your citations to bring them in line with WS guidelines? For example, Rodrigues de Moraes, P.L. (2012). The Lauraceae collected in Brazil by Ludwig Riedel - I Harvard Papers in Botany 17: 185-216. This is just a cut and paste at the moment and is available from JSTOR as well. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: I don't understand what you mean, specifically, because I'm putting the reference as you. says, see Dicypellium caryophyllaceum. Saludos. --MILEPRI (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have to rewrite the citation as we use them on WS, which is not the same as the original source, because we require consistency using the modified Harvard system. You do write templates so you must know what I mean. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made the template as the reference might be useful elsewhere. Andyboorman (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just to let you know that a homonym is not a synonym and therefor does not belong under the synonym section. See my correction in Oryzoideae. I would be grateful if you could edit similar occurrences. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. MILEPRI (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erianthus (Poaceae)[edit]

¿Repararás los enlaces? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:. Estoy en ello. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gracias amigo Andyboorman (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello friend. It looks that the eponym category is not correct. See here, p.29 Jobling The Abeille you refer was born in 1843 and the generic name was created in 1850. Apparently all the specific names abeillei (for birds) refers to certain M. Abeille, a "colector and naturalist from Bordeaux", not the entomologist you related. Cheers. Hector Bottai (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gracias por la correccion. Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Por nada! Hector Bottai (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This resource now redirects to PWO and probably should not appear as an additional reference, as it is superfluous. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:. Gracias por el aviso. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]