User talk:EauOo

My talk pages rule are non-existent.

If you post here, I may answer here or on your user page.
If you wish to keep conversations together, or move back and forth, or use talk-backs, and wish me to do the same, good luck. Eau (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit more, talk less. 14:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This user may have left Wikipedia. EauOo has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome

Hello EauOo, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

EauOo, good luck, and have fun. --Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

Hello! EauOo, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Species Database

Nice! (Great signon too.) Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (For the compliment and noticing the sign-on--you have no idea how many were rejected before I could think of something fun and usable!)

The article could use some work, though. If you can edit anything, that would be appreciated. --EauOo (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cylindrospermum, EauOo!

Wikipedia editor Ironholds just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for this great new article! :)

To reply, leave a comment on Ironholds's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

The latter; I used to write a pile of articles on New World rodents, which is as close as I come to work surrounding species, I'm afraid :). I (think) I still have JSTOR access; if you need anyone to go a-hunting for sources, just drop me a note! Ironholds (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great! Thanks so much for the offer - and welcome to Wikipedia :). Ironholds (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Algae

You should have been here half a decade ago; Wikipedia would have been more to your liking. You've run into some common problems:

Articles on major topics tend to get ossified (tree and algae being good examples). This is unfortunate, but not always bad: if there were more leeway, a new editor could make substantial improvements, but also do substantial harm to an article that has stood for years. I stopped working on major articles, because you end up spending more time negotiating with other editors than researching and writing. Some people are good at that, and they are basically the inheritors of the major articles.
You really can't exhibit a point of view. This is more than NPOV; everyone looks at the world differently. But to succeed in Wikipedia, you have to pretend that your view is the consensus view. I'm seeing this in more and more areas, and although it may be good for science, it's bad for pedagogy: looking at things in different ways is what makes good teachers good, (I say pretend, because every medium-to-large article embodies clear points of view, left there by editors who built the article back when it was less of a problem.)
There are many editors like EncycloPetey who are still active after a long time because they've developed defense mechanisms. Honestly, there's no other way to stay. I thought the points he made to you were certainly valid, but over the time he's been here, literally hundreds of editors (maybe thousands) have edited articles he cares about, and only a portion of those edits have been worthwhile, so it's understandable that he's cautious and may sometimes seem abrasive. It's this "wearing down" that keeps me from being an active editor any more.
You can't ever afford to take anything personally (I don't know that you are, but I also don't know that you aren't). Nobody gets positive strokes anymore in Wikipedia except from their friends, from people cultivating them for favors, and from newbies who haven't been roasted yet.

All that said, I agree that "algae" is an ecological entity, but I think they are merely "not plants" rather than "simpler than plants": kelps have cells that are so similar to sieve tubes that they give me the willies (I use them as the most astounding example of convergent evolution), and in general their similarities to plants are uncanny.

If you want to work on articles where you don't get crapped on, go for individual species and genera that are not of economic importance. There are many thousands of them yet to be written, similar articles serve as a good guide, and if you reference them, you never get challenged.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Yes, I shoot images of kelps (and all other plants), and I write about the brown algae, they are amazing, and I wish I could time travel a hundred million years to their future. EncycloPetey's defense mechanisms, however, blinded him to everything but arguing. The article now basically says what he disagrees with that I can rewrite in comprehensible and documented prose to show the diversity and complexity of the simple while emphasizing the real complexity and beauty. But I can also just write hundreds of articles on species and genera. Thanks. Eau (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And by images, I mean the beautiful micrographs that give you the willies when looking at the cellular differentiation in the Laminariales. Eau (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see those. Are any online?--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some are online, and you have probably already seen some. I am going to start uploading to Wikipedia with permission from my research institute. That is kind of where I was going with the algae article. I am still more comfortable being anonymous, though. Eau (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to seeing your work on Algae. I've been staying away from pages to do with those wonderful organisms, as well as the "lower" land plants, after a run-in years ago with the very same editor that you've just tangled with. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will not do battle with him, though. Too bad, the article requires organization, referenced, updated. There is much other work I can do. Thanks for the support. Eau (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tree

I noticed your contribution on the talk page of the article Tree where you advocate, as far as I can make out, returning to the original version rather than trying to improve mine. I am absolutely baffled by this, and the comments of others. Please could you explain what is wrong with my version. Have I got the botanical details wrong? Is the structure unsatisfactory? Is it too simplistic? Is my article really the rubbish that Mark Marathon tries to make out? Or is this the wrong way to go about improving an article as basic as Tree (see the section on Algae above)? Please be frank. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article was badly written and needs a major rewrite.

Your edits on wider topics and higher taxa paint broad pictures from articles of limited scope, a non-valid synthesis. You have botanical details and ecological details wrong, and you include information in the lead that should be explained in brief at later points (Arctic trees) if included. The structure is difficult; not all trees have flowers. I question your background in basic biology, and your understanding of articles you Wikilink, but especially your use of genetics, and evolutionary and taxonomic information.

It is like the Wolbachia article you cited as a reference, an inexplicable choice and stretch, when the article does not mention trees or oxygen, and is about a facultative endosymbiotic parasite and (apparently) mutualism, that you use as a source for a comment about commensalism? I don't know where to begin. From a few diffs, it appears that other editors have problems when they challenge you in areas where your background is limited. To discuss your incorporation of the Wolbachia article into Tree would waste time, and it would not get the article anywhere near to being rewritten. It would be better, imo, to revert to before you rewrote the article, outline a strategy on the talk page, and move forward from there. Eau (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EauOo, to be fair to Cwmhiraeth, the Wolbachia problem is one picked up from the Ecology article. Yes, limited background is a problem. I'd also suggest, that as mentioned on Cwmhiraeth's talk page now, there may be a fundamental problem with Core Contests, one that I certainly wasn't aware of before, that someone with limited expertise in an area is encouraged to do battle with a fundamental page. I find that rather horrifying. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be even more fair to Cwmhiraeth, he identified that the article is a problem and no one else was correcting it, so I don't know what he should have done instead but ignore it and allow it to stand, which seems to be what is advised to do. I don't know about the Core Contests? Eau (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, the advice seems to be to leave stinky things alone, which is very unfortunate. Core contests are something that I've only heard a little about, but there's also for example the GLAM WikiProject (Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums), which I think I will now be wary of participating in. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. My botanical knowledge is limited and in particular is deficient in the area of genetics, evolution and taxonomy. So I did my best to improve Tree, a poor article on a general topic, the sort of thing a schoolchild might want to look up in Wikipedia. I knew that if I got any botanical details wrong, others would be able to put them right. I used as my main guide to the article's layout and structure a book called "The World Encyclopedia of Trees" by Tony Russell and Catherine Cuttler. It had a section on flowers and another on seeds and that was good enough for me. Also there are several sections in the article that are of general interest and not botanical at all. I would prefer to see my structure improved and the article remain comprehensible to a general audience, but if the consensus goes against this, then so be it.

Looking back through its History I see the article has hardly changed over the last three years (500 edits ago). Why didn't all these people who care so much about trees improve the old article themselves? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees (gods forgive me, and hoping that all here are native English speakers). But it's important to see the trees, too. I've already mentioned why such articles tend to be conservative, and suggested approaches for dealing with that. Some of your statements above verge on assuming bad faith. I don't think anyone believes the article is perfect, or doesn't want it to improve. AFAICT the pushback to your edits was entirely based on factual errors and oversimplification of terminology.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, your response concerns me, that you add details, knowing you lack the knowledge and counting on others to correct you when you are wrong. In the meanwhile, the article is accessed with your incorrect information, possibly by thousands of readers. You do not take readily to people changing your edits. You admit that you have added references that you did not read or understand. You agree you do not have sufficient knowledge in the areas of botany, "genetics, evolution and taxonomy," and, on you go adding the information. Granted the article was bad and needs rewritten, spreading misinformation does not appear to be an improvement on the situation. Eau (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source access

Hi Eau, I noticed a comment you left on Ironholds' talk page about having access to sources. You don't have anything that could get me access to this do you? It's a spanish language book, so it would need to be in a library database of some sort. Ryan Vesey 00:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My library owns a copy of the book, but it is not available in any of the e-editions. Do you need something particular out of it? I would have no problem pdf'ing a photocopy of a few pages. Eau (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the name is somewhat generic, so it may not be the correct book. But, what are you looking for? Eau (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what the exact portion is. It's for the article HMS Doterel (1880). It appears like Doterel is talked about somewhere between pages 120-135 or so. There's also information on Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary) in the book that appears to be somewhere in the same range. It would be great if you could assist me and thank! On another note, you might be interested in watching WP:RX. I'm sure you could assist other editors there too. Ryan Vesey 00:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the book in the next few days, and see if I can find anything for you. I am fond of 19th-c ships and South America. If people ask me, I will look for sources if not too inconvenient, but I work full time, and I am committed to improving some algae articles, so I will probably not seek out areas like WP:RX, but thank you for mentioning it. Eau (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and take your time. I'm hoping my school library might have some sources as well. I have both articles just about ready to be considered "Good articles" but I need a few more reliable sources for a couple things. Thanks for the note on my talk page as well. Ryan Vesey 00:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oocystales

The reference I found on wikispecies was this: Guiry, M.D. (2010). Oocystaceae. In: Guiry, M.D. & Guiry, G.M. (2010). AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=160589 on 2010-11-09

however the validity of this seems extremely doubtful.

Additions to botanists list

Great to see additions to List of botanists by author abbreviation. Can I just ask that you keep to the format of the existing entries? In an entry like:

F.E.Fritsch - Felix Eugen Fritsch 1879-1954

the two "dashes" are en-dashes, not hyphens (if you're not sure how to enter these, I suggest just copying an earlier line and changing the relevant bits) and the dates should be in parentheses, giving:

F.E.Fritsch – Felix Eugen Fritsch (1879–1954)

On my system (Mac OS X, Firefox) the difference between a hyphen and an en-dash isn't visible, but it can affect some searches. It's a bit annoying that the style adopted in this page isn't exactly the same as IPNI, so copy-and-paste needs some changes. Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information; it did appear to be a copy/paste from IPNI, but, yes, I can paste an en-dash from the prior entry and add parentheses. Eau (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Some real fruit for you, much nicer than the fruit of the white fir (oh, sorry, you probably didn't want to hear those, or the lovely bouquet of flowers that precedes them, mentioned)! When I came back to see what had happened to that page, it was very good to see that you had cleared that section away entirely. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would've gone for pine nuts, too, but these look like Watsonville strawberries, so I am all over them. Now, be good and get thee to the tree talk page and help keep that reproductive ba$#ard out of the article, for which I thank thee in advance. Eau (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By which I mean only the words, not their author. Eau (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tree again

Please replace the section of the article Tree that you removed. See here for wikipedia policy on the subject. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing me with the policy I need to quote, with flowering gymnosperms and copyrighted material, nonsense and copyvios fall under this description from the page you cite:

Things you can remove entirely include libel, hoaxes, vandalism, nonsense, copyvios.

Eau (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another dictum that might be pertinent is "Improve rather than remove". You appear to be too busy to improve but yet have time to review and remove. Not at all helpful in my book. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the link, or just contribute without following? I don't know how to reply to your thought that making conifers dicots is an improvement. On what, Darwinian evolution? Creationism? I am still down for pine nuts, though I am going to ask Young Earthers to post elsewhere than my talk page and articles in the future. There are plenty of blogs that will welcome your evolutionary rewrites. Eau (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anabaenopsis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tropic

Crinalium epipsammum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Terrestrial

Cylindrospermopsis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Type

Scytonemataceae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Please accept my apologies, you are correct, this is not a blog, the article coal scrip is neutral and will remain soCoal town guy (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're good then. I will see what I can add. Eau (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for helping, its not easy to maintain neutrality, when you have lived it.....but, that is not for hereCoal town guy (talk)

I know. Eau (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the AfD was closed...

"An order in the Chlorophyta has a single citation from the 60s, is not mentioned in a single algae text book from the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, or 10s, and Wikipedia should perpetuate this order through cyberspace? Why?" - because Notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a publication makes a mistake, and is available on Google Books, but the correction is not, why should Wikipedia perpetuate the error? Orders in biology are not just groups that appear in one publication to establish their permanent notability in the 1960s, then disappear and are never before or after mentioned until someone creates a Wikipedia article; this is a major groups of organisms, and its orders are well-defined clades that appear in thousands of publications about the organisms, and these clades appear also in dozens of textbooks; I went through my entire stack, 2 shelves of algal textbooks, and found not one mention of this order. So, than you for establishing the order; however, that is not how taxonomy works. Eau (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are, of course, welcome to recreate the article any time you want. But if you tie it to a single source from 50 years ago, and cannot show that it has ever been used again by anyone but Wikipedia, the article will be deleted again. All taxa are notable. Just because a name is used, does not mean it is a taxon. Eau (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA comments

Thanks for the comments on my BRFA. Sorry if you feel it's a closed shop. I'm perfectly happy to help with the algae category if and when the bot is approved. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is cool, it seemed it was a discussion for the Wikipedia community, but it appears you are creating bots just for the bot approval people. I will suggest, when I get a moment, that they clear this up, so other editors don't mistakenly think they are welcome to partiipate in the process when community input will only waste community and club members' time.Eau (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I struggled and failed...

... to parse your recent comment at the Teahouse, but I came away with the sense you thought I was criticizing you. If I misread you, never mind, if that's what you thought, I actually agree with you. Sorry if there was any confusion.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat, personally criticizing other editors appears to be the driver of this bus called Wikipedia, with writing, creating, improving, editing articles attached to a dangerously loose trailer. I am getting very used to it. It seems that biting back is the required response also, so I hope I did not offend you by taking the lead in that. I won't be stalking you for it, seeking revenge, or even remembering it in a few days, and I have opted out of watch-listing and contributing to the teahouse--seems safest. Eau (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Authority refs

Hi, and welcome. I've moved the discussion here to avoid cluttering the FAC page. I'm a little concerned about what appears to be a good faith, but possibly unilateral, policy change in referencing biological authorities on Wikipedia. I assume that you're not actually challenging the fact of the correct authority being Linneaus 1758, so it comes down to the referencing.

It seems to me that, when it's possible, it's good to show the original source. For normally uncontroversial info, like who the authority is, I would think this would be sufficient, especially as these old texts are PD and can be read on-line if there is any doubt whether Linnaeus really did name it Rana bufo — I didn't link because it's a big download.

Having to have a second authority to verify an uncontroversial author attribution seems excessive

I'm not sure where you see a consensus for changing the current practice on referencing authorities

I think its pointless just giving a few example FAs with Linnaeus, it's GAs "A" class, "B" class as well, and Temminck, Bonaparte, Laurenti and all the rest too. — I wouldn't even know how to search for all these, although I'm happy to concede that your software skills may well be much better than mine.

Life's too short to make too much of a deal on this, and obviously it's up to you, but I think it would be better if there was a discussion at an appropriate forum (Tree of Life project?). If I've missed such a discussion, my apologies, and ignore the above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomically it's a big deal, and Wikipedia is very bad with few taxonomists. I am working on this particular FAC because I believe the editor is, in spite of being rather nasty about it, attempting in good faith to improve important Wikipedia content.

It is trying, in my opinion, to find that Wikipedia is sourcing to Linneaus; every single organism that Linneaus named has been cited for hundreds of years in the taxonomic literature. Taxa names change through time as more evidence puts better constraints on relationships among taxa. If you source to Linneaus, have you established that the name has not changed since then? In this case, the original genus name, apparently, has been changed by a later taxonomic authority. That is the citation for the original Linneaus, and a modern peer-reviewed scientific paper, preferably a review article, or a textbook, is the source for the change of authority from the second authority, both with citations to the original literature when the authority is named.

Wikipedia bemoans the lack of expertise, then seems to go out of its way to slit the throats of experts. There is nothing onerous about doing this. All of these organism featured articles should be citing modern sources that include the current taxonomies of the organisms; the Linneaus citation goes in the taxobox, as I have seen on many well-written articles on organisms in Wikipedia. But, the editor of the common toad article took a lot of information from the Linneaus text that is actually from other texts about Linneaus' taxonomic work, withotu citing those works. Removing Linneaus as a primary citation will also stop this bad habit of not citing those who wrote about Linneaus.

But, yes, if this is the practice, citing Linneaus as the sole authority for a binomial, the matter should be discussed in a broader forum and nipped. Eau (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current name and the original name should both be sourced, so perhaps we are not as far apart as it appears. It looks from your comments above as if you've had some bad experiences at Wikipedia, for which I can only apologise. I've not tracked this, but if you are receiving unprovoked unacceptable abuse, or ad hominem attacks, let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to see this discussion, which is very relevant to me, so I hope you don't mind my joining in. For plants, where the families are covered, I normally reference only to the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Quality online taxonomic databases, like WCSP, always cite the original literature, so why would we need to include it as a reference in Wikipedia? Only a reliable, up-to-date secondary source can show that this is the name currently regarded as correct (e.g. that it was validly published, has priority, is in accordance with modern phylogenetic studies, etc.). A reference to the original literature is usually of no value to a Wikipedia reader (although there are special cases, e.g. in explaining debates about the nomenclature of a taxon). It would also seem to violate WP:RS by using primary sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it may be RS if one was using the original to support an opinion or a claimed result, it can hardly be RS to source "Linnaeus' book said..." to the book in which he said it. It's nonsensical that a modern text saying Linnaeus originally described the toad as Rana bufo is more credible that the Systema in which he said it. I agree that a reference for the current name is also needed, but that's a different issue. You seem to be suggesting that if we quote "To be or not to be..." we should source it to a modern text, and not to Shakespeare? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a good comparison. We are not particularly interested in whether Linnaeus (or anyone else) wrote a particular combination of words. We are interested in whether those words are the currently accepted name or synonym for a particular species or not. Only an up-to-date and taxonomically reliable source can be used to reference such statements. Referencing to the original source will tell you that Linnaeus first described a particular cactus as "Cactus melocactus". What it won't tell you is that 1905 Vienna botanical congress rejected the name Cactus so this combination of words can't be the currently accepted botanical name of a species. No comparable question arises in the case of Shakespeare's words. There's simply no parallel. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, were you aware that this is the practice on Wikipedia in FAs, to use the original Linneaus as the only reference for an authority name? You seem to understand that the original Linneaus establishes nothing about the correct binomial today, but, without careful checking on my part, my thought was the original was only used in taxoboxes not as a reliable source? Featured articles should be stopped from the practice if this is the case, as obviously Linneaus establishes nothing about the current validity of a binomial! Eau (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not for plants as far as I know. Go to Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Biology and click on a plant article. Sadly a lot of them (e.g. the Banksia articles) don't have a reference for the authority names in the taxobox, which I think they should have. However, the taxonomy section in FA plant articles (e.g. in Banksia ilicifolia) typically has a mixture of original and secondary references – the original ones primarily when discussing the history of naming, which is reasonable, the secondary ones to establish what the current name is. Names and authorities in fungus articles are mostly referenced to Mycobank, as I would expect. So what makes you think that having only original references is the practice? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] If I'm following this correctly, the statement in question is "The common toad was first given the binomial name Rana bufo by the Swedish biologist Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae in 1758.[3]". Using Systema Naturae as a reference is indeed OR: There is no indication in the source that (1) Rana bufo is the same as the taxon called "common toad" in English, and (2) this is the first publication of Rana bufo (yes, we all know that modern nomenclature began with Linnaeus, but he didn't know that). The source sources that Linnaeus gave a species that name in 1758, and it (the original Latin) is the most reliable source to his genus and differentia, but that's about it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am getting called pedantic a lot on Wikipedia. I do realize that taxonomy is a foreign planet to most people, but I have seen well-written articles on Wikipedia with Linneaus in the taxobox, but the current taxonomy backed up by a modern reliable source, as it should be, and even when still tied only to Linneaus as an authority. I will correct the existing FAs. Eau (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia should be edited by pedants; precision and accuracy of language should be among its chief goals. So take this as a compliment! Peter coxhead (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truth. Eau (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1, as they say.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(belatedly) I must say it makes sense to have a current taxonomic authority reference. I'd not thought of that even though it is obvious. Maybe the consensus/current secondary/consensus ref for the taxobox, which leaves the historical ref(such as Linnaeus, Persoon etc. for the prose where it was described)....hmmm. Agree pedantry is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is how we know the name is correct. I usually just add IPNI, but would prefer to take the time to use an actual source that Increases the utility of the article. Eau (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at FAC

I have opened a discussion about the issue here. Eau (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dinoflagellate taxobox hell

So I wanted to look up Alexandrium. At least there was a hatnote directing me to the two species with articles, but no sign of Alexandrium (genus). Not a surprise that Gonyaulaceae and even Gonyaulacaceae are redlinks, but Gonyaulacales is a redirect to Gonyaulax. And Dinophyceae redirects to dinoflagellate, which has nothing useful about classification of the group. I don't want to just go in and fix deprecated names; do you know what system people are using now? Should I ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an online dinoflagellate project that links to literature on current names, genera and species, families, and Cal's ToL page for higher level classifications, up to Alveolata (C-S) should be good. I just started working on some it infrastrucfure with a dinoflagelle group, though, and I will also ask at work tomorrow, but will, of course, get their references also. If I get time to redo the upper level classifications, I will use C-S where he is commonly used, then the algae textbooks, however, there are some Wikipedia issues where I need to discuss usage, taxoboxes, etc., with other algae editors, and the project appears dead, and the only other really knowledgable algae editor with Wikipedia insider ability was just drummed off of Wikipedia. Yes, the marine eukaryote taxoboxes are hell. I needed Petey to help with them. I am going to start cleaning up articles by deleting bad taxoboxes, though. Wikipedia is grossly irresponsible about unsupported taxonomies, and the level of social networking required to get consensus with editors with no knowledge of the topic is insanity. Eau (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask next week, I am not at work this week, I forgot. I might have e-mails, but I will get around to. I suggest you delete bad taxoboxes and redirects and uncertain ones, this is better than the wrong information. We can add them back in when the information is sorted. I found an old AFD about a wayward bot that created thousands of algae articles that had to be deleted; in my opinion Wikipedia should have deleted a lot more at the time.

For various reasons I'm loath to get heavily involved in Wikipedia right now, but I'm always happy to help out colleagues, if you have any lifting I can do. I teach all these groups at the undergrad level, and I know ICN rules (although not ICZN, which I suppose is sething else that needs to be decided here). I'll probably create Alexandrium (genus) later today, since the name seems to be currently in use even if it's not the best choice.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to and capable of writing the taxonomies based on tertiary sources, the heavy lifting would be to just read the primary taxonomy for each; it is a difficult area even for an expert, and I believe the reason for a back-up is to prevent these hard core conversations after the fact with heated up editors with limited knowledge of a topic. Well, it won't prevent that, but it will make me less of a target than I would be as a newbie editor rewriting really bad, but long-standing articles. Eau (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common toad FAC

You have been helpful in improving Common toad which is currently at FAC. This is just to take you up on the offer you made on September 9th to sort out the Taxonomy section which, as you rightly point out, is beyond my capabilities. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was stuck in the field for longer than expected. This pretty much means I have no time until after my field work at the end of the month. If we are not camping remotely, I will have time in the evenings, but otherwise I am limited to mobile phone editing, and it is too hard to access sources and go back and forth. I see, however, that other editors are working on the article. Eau (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, EauOo. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.
Message added 00:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout 00:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

==Zapata Rail==a As far as I know, and I may be wrong, the Zapata Rail, has never had another binomial name. So it wasn't clear to me why the Birdlife ref, already present elsewhere, needed to replace the original source. To me, the fact that the original name and the current name were the same, and both referenced, adds to an article, whereas you seem to think the original name detracts from the article. But life's too short... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anywhere that the original name detracts from the article. You used original research and decided the name today remains the same as it was. Actually, you just failed to cite the current taxonomic usage of the name. That Linneaus or anyone named an organism a hundred years ago does not decide the current taxonomic usage of the name, and that must be cited in Wikipedia just like it must be cited in an article about the organism in a peer reviewed journal. Modern taxonomists decide correct usage, not Wikipedia editors. Eau(W)oo (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The presence of the name on a current list somewhere with the authors' name without parentheses will indicate the binomial is original. The IOC list will allow us to reference that the name is consensus. I presume this is what you mean? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even for peer-reviewed literature on an organism (Olympian or not), outside of taxonomic proclamations and literature, there is no requirement to do more than cite the consensus. (Bird articles on Wikipedia have more sources from non peer-reviewed literature, a good thing, as there tend to be excellent, accurate, well-researched tertiary sources on birds, and in the case of most bird articles, I guess peer-reviewed literature would not be required for the correct binomial, and, yes, the IOC list would suffice.) It is a courtesy, considering how our taxoboxes are set up on Wikipedia, to cite the modern consensus within the text of the article, then add a citation to the original authority in the taxobox. Unless you are a taxonomist, though, it is purely original research on your part to consider that the original name is still in use. The current name must be reliably sourced to current literature. Eau(W)oo (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Intermontane Plateaus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Epoch and Washington

Uinta Mountains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Uplift

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 22:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was some good advice on the type of experience you could gain to be a good admin candidate, but weigh it and continue to improve your content editing, and you may also become a good admin for content editors. Good luck, Eau(W)oo (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. AutomaticStrikeout 02:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]