Jump to content

User talk:MtBotany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


🌿Welcome

[edit]

I don't bite. I also do not have all the answers, but I will do my best to answer questions if you have them. If you think I am wrong, I am open to being convinced otherwise by logically supported, evidence based, succinct reasons. And as I state on my user page if you have a plant from the Southern Rocky Mountains or surrounding countryside that needs an article I will give it a higher priority on my list of things to edit. —🌿MtBotany

6000 Wikipedia edits

[edit]

This is edit number 6000 in the English Wikipedia. Total of 8300 across all projects. 69.5% of these edits have been in the main article space. This has come close on the heels of 8000 across all projects and no much has changed since then, but I am marking this moment. Plant editing continues to be my passion with only occasional forays into reverting vandals when I notice them. Onward to 9000. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plant editing and RFA

[edit]

Maybe you just need to widen your idea of what acceptably botanical editing would look like? I did roll up Macer Floridus just for you, you know. :P -- asilvering (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Truthfully, I missed that article while looking through your xtools list of most edited articles. It is acceptably plant adjacent. So are parks. Because. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

[edit]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Penstemon for you!

[edit]

Hi MtBotany, I promised quite a while ago to return the favor for your excellent help in getting Hypericum perforatum through GAN. My weekend project has been to write up Penstemon gentianoides, which I am now quite happy with. I think it's relatively complete for a relatively obscure species, but would love any input or additions you might have! I may give it a nomination at GAN at some point, which would be my first non-Hypericum attempt there. Let me know if you venture into any projects you would like to collaborate on in the future and I am happy to do so! Fritzmann (message me) 22:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fritzmann2002. Well done on locating sources for the article, plants outside the anglosphere are harder to work on than the well studied floras of English speaking countries. I was surprised to see that the species is/was thought to grow in Columbia. I know it is the most southerly of the penstemons, but I had thought that the genus did not grow further south than Honduras. I may have to double check the sources on that. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symphyotrichum campestre

[edit]

Hi, MtBotany! Thank you so much for adding a nice Distribution and habitat section to Symphyotrichum campestre this morning! You must have read my mind that it was on my list of things to do today because somehow it had gotten to Start-class quite a while ago without having one. Even though in Start-class, sections aren't needed, I like to have them in the ones I do. Symphyotrichum is my favorite genus, and I am guilty of creating all those stubs a few years ago (oops) when I was newly doing plant articles. Are there any other articles you are planning to work on in that genus (or in any of the others I have listed on the STS participants page)? Let me know in case I already have something in progress! :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson I watch all the aster family plants that grow in Colorado, so last night I noticed your edits before going to bed. I worked on it this morning since you had not gotten to the distribution yet and it nagged at me having seen the section head without any content. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just put those in there last night to remind myself. You are fast! I could barely keep my eyes open at that point last night. Thank you! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

[edit]

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in botanical author citations

[edit]

Hi, @MtBotany! Your work is beautiful. I am seeing you put dates in author citations. We don't put dates in botanical author citations in the taxoboxes per WP:PLANTS. The ICNafp standard is to not have them. You could bring it up on the project talk page (I doubt that very many people would agree to have them), but unless the consensus is changed, could you please not include them? It just adds work and inconsistency, as well as confusion, when a small percentage of articles have them based on an editor's preference. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson I agree that there are standards in botany to not have dates as part of citations, but that's not what the speciesbox/taxobox is. It is a Wikipedia standard to give information to readers rather than a scientific citation. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template is silent on putting dates in the information boxes. If this is a consensus it should be in the template. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Very good point and I thought it was there! Let me see if I can find it somewhere. It seems things are buried in the project pages. I hope it's not just on a talk page and never got put elsewhere! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson It is entirely possible there was a discussion, but it was not documented afterwards. Or maybe there have been moderately inconclusive discussions. When I went looking I did not find anything definitive in the archives, but it is entirely possible that I missed the critical discussion by using the wrong search words. Having a date in the information box seems useful instead of having that information down in the section on taxonomy where casual readers are likely to skim over it. Though on the other hand when the synonyms are particularly long it starts seeming silly to try to cram in another byte of information. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just one who likes to have things the way they are supposed to be. I'd hate to think of having to change tens of thousands of articles (I know we wouldn't do that) to have the dates in the taxoboxes, but that's not my motivation. My thoughts are if they aren't supposed to be there, then let's leave them out. If they are, then let's put them in. If it doesn't matter, then I don't care. And, you are absolutely right. However it is, it needs to be documented. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson I think I get that. I've keep thinking about asking the question to try to settle it but also fearing the potential for an indecisive quagmire with bad feelings, so I keep putting it off. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Which could go into a 2-month long discussion and basically get nowhere. <eyeroll> – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @MtBotany! In between working on liverwort taxonomy changes and sleeping, I did manage to find some information related to botanical author citations and dates. I don't have it organized yet, and I'm not sure what we are going to want to do with it, but I just wanted to let you know I'm working on it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this in the documentation for {{Taxobox}}, the parent of all of the taxoboxes. See Template:Taxobox/doc § Authorities for complete text.

The following examples illustrate the different conventions for names, dates, and punctuations in the different kingdoms.

  • Animalia
    • Original name valid: Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758
    • Organism reclassified: Panthera leo (Linnaeus, 1758) (originally Felis leo)
  • Plantae
    • Original name valid: Magnolia virginiana L.
    • Organism reclassified: Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) Rich. (originally Orchis pyramidalis)
  • Bacteria
    • Original name valid: Vibrio cholerae R. Koch 1883
    • Organism reclassified: Streptococcus pneumoniae (Klein 1884) Chester 1901 (originally Micrococcus pneumoniae)
    • Old name revived: Salmonella enterica (ex Kauffmann & Edwards 1952) Le Minor & Popoff 1987
This text was a part of a merge on 20 October 2009 of WP:TAXOBOX which at that time was a redirect to Wikipedia:Taxobox usage, which at that time looked like this. Wikipedia:Taxobox usage now redirects to Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system.
Similar text to what I quoted above was a part of Wikipedia:Taxobox usage at its creation on 23 October 2005. When Wikipedia:Taxobox usage was merged into Template:Taxobox/doc on 20 October 2009, the change comment was "merge WP:TAXOBOX here, as it's a usage guide and not a style guide". To me this means it's not "binding". It looks like it was simply expected or assumed that the authority parameter would follow the conventions of the various kingdoms. I have not found these usage instructions carried into the discussions of the subdivision or synonyms parameters.
My searches in the WT:PLANTS archives were for "authori", "author", and "dates". I found one very long and very heated discussion on the subject in October 2007 on this archived WT:PLANTS page. It may have been first discussion on this topic there. If you can take the time to read it and get past some of the insults, there were some good points brought up. This discussion was, possibly, before the databases such as POWO, WFO, IPNI, etc., which now provide us with sourcing that wasn't available then. I'm wondering if this was before Wikipedia's formal approaches to discussions and consensus (RfC, and others that I don't know the acronyms to). It does not look like a conclusion was drawn. There does seem to be a consensus in that discussion not to use dates, although the discussion fizzled.
Subsequent discussions were in November 2011 and June 2013. Neither of those came to a conclusion. I could not find others in the WT:PLANTS archives, but that does not mean they don't exist.
I realize none of this provides you with the guideline you are looking for. It does make me wonder why others have said it has been decided by consensus (and I have followed that example). I may have to open the can of worms on the talk page and ask the question. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found another discussion in Template talk:Taxobox archives. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson You found two more discussions (I think) than I did when I looked, so score for your research skills.
I have a couple ideas why people said there was a consensus.
One, they're mostly on one side and last academics standing. Through the foibles of human memory they remember their side as being much more persuasive and have not gone back to look because all of us think we don't need to double check what was actually said. And having more stick-to-it-ness than most they outlasted their critics.
Two, there is a greater respect for academics and academic traditions now than in the past so while in 2007 there was a heated debate even some of the pro-dates side may have changed opinions.
Three, they might be mostly misinformed because it has been passed along like a game of telephone where everyone is whispering around a circle. "I think this way is better" becomes "This way is preferable" becomes "this was the consensus".
Looking over the participants of the 2007 discussion I find in order of participation:
And now person experience. I've only seen MPF and Lavateraguy around. Everyone else is either gone or no longer participates in the plants group. And Lavateraguy barely participated at in the discussion. So some support for the, "It was so long ago that most of the participants are WikiGhosts," idea. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson I've just read the third and fourth discussion, which I think I have not seen before. No one comes right out and says it because the discussion is very informal, but there are clearly more against the dates than for them in the 2013 discussion. So that is where I think they're remembering there being a consensus, especially since PlantDrew participated in the later discussions and is still around where most of the other people have left.
I personally think having dates in would be good, but I'm persuaded there more or less is a consensus that is not properly documented. So if I want to put them into the info box I really do need to actually participate in a discussion. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just occured to me to check the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. In the sidebox, scroll down to the Science section. There is "Taxonomy" which is linked to Template:Taxobox/doc that I had quoted earlier. Clicking on "Science" in this sidebox takes you to Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (science). The documentation of the Taxobox is officially a part of the MOS? Let's see if I can find when and why that was added there. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. I completely missed the standard message at the top of Template:Taxobox/doc.

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

So if I am understanding this, it is already in the MOS that botanical authorities will not have the date included, based on the examples given in Template:Taxobox/doc § Authorities. It still does not cover subdivision and synonyms parameters. My opinion is that the documentation of a template is a very bad place to have part of the MOS! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MtBotany: My comment above where I said, To me this means it's not "binding". It looks like it was simply expected or assumed that the authority parameter would follow the conventions of the various kingdoms, was my misinterpretation. It looks like it is "binding" as much as binding can be on Wikipedia, because it is a part of the MOS. I will use the shortcut WP:TAXOBOX for the Template:Taxobox/doc page in the below summary.
History:
  1. Taxoboxes were in discussion at the WikiProject Tree of Life talk page since at least 2003 (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 1). At that point, they already existed somewhere.
  2. Development of Template:Taxobox began on 29 May 2004.
  3. "Wikipedia:Taxobox usage" was created on 23 October 2005 and included information on authority conventions, similar to how it looks today.
  4. "Wikipedia:Taxobox usage" was tagged as a part of the MOS on 28 July 2006.
  5. Template:Taxobox/doc was created on 7 October 2006.
  6. "Wikipedia:Taxobox usage" was merged into "Template:Taxobox/doc" on 20 October 2009, making the template documentation a part of the MOS.
Observations:
  1. Taxobox authority parameters are to follow the conventions given at WP:TAXOBOX#Authorities.
  2. Because authority style is a part of the MOS, articles that veer from this can justifiably be changed to follow the style guideline.
  3. Authority style guidelines for subdivisions and synonyms are not explicitly stated at WP:TAXOBOX, which could leave this open to interpretation by editors.
  4. I did not see a mention of the taxobox instructions being a part of the MOS in the discussions I found on WT:PLANTS (2007, 2011, 2013).
  5. Although it is unusual, and perhaps not a good idea, to have template documentation be part of the MOS, pros are it can avoid duplication of efforts as well as confusion if one is changed and the other isn't. Cons are that it is in an unexpected location and possibly not known of.
Tracking down whether or not there was a "consensus" as we know it today of the now-MOS for the Taxobox might be difficult, if not impossible.
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Plantae Barnstar
For your excellent work on Penstemon articles, especially Penstemon albomarginatus and Penstemon barbatus! You've gone above and beyond with your contributions to WP:PLANTSSTS and I have really enjoyed reviewing your work :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk

Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethmostigmus Thanks. I've enjoyed it. Though now that Archive.org / Biodiversity Heritage Library is more fully operational I'm starting to hear more of siren call of red links. Less than half of the penstemons even have stubs, though I know the Mexican ones will be harder to write about unless I can get a PDF of Flora Mesoamericana so I can run passages through deepL. I don't speak Spanish... yet. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MtBotany&oldid=1258695874"