User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Peter coxhead. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Combining two sources to come to a new conclusion

I added the tag. It was improper synthesis. I explained it more on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: the sentence you tagged was "Numerous implausible claims have been made regarding health benefits from drinking kombucha, ranging from promoting gut health to curing asthma, but there is no evidence to support these claims."

Now "implausible" is not encyclopedic, and should be removed, but this didn't seem to be the reason for your tagging. I guess it could be argued that "these" goes too far, but this is a different issue: when a long list of claims is made for some herbal medicine, and a reliable review addresses only some of these claims and provides good evidence that they are not substantiated, how do you word the account of the review? There is indeed no evidence that any of the claims has been supported by evidence, and referencing a negative is always difficult to word, but nevertheless important. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the most recent post on the talk page, this: Kombucha is an extreme example in several ways: there is no convincingly positive clinical evidence at all; ... In conclusion, none of the numerous health claims for Kombucha is supported by clinical evidence seems to precisely support the sentence you tagged as synthesis. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The part "ranging from promoting gut health to curing asthma," was from another source. The 2003 source did not verify it was "these claims" for promoting gut health to curing asthma. The synthesis part was the content that was not from the 2003 source. QuackGuru (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I'd like to understand what you regard as acceptable, whether or not I agree. Would this have been ok in your view: "Claims have been made that kombucha has health benefits ranging from gut health to curing asthma.^[1] None of the numerous health claims for Kombucha is supported by any clinical evidence.^[2]"? I'm doubtful that separating the material into two sentences alters the interpretation likely to be put on it by a reader. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Separating the content using each source to verify each claim would avoid the SYN violation. Yes, the content above would have been ok in my view.

I decided to replace the content using the 2003 source to avoid the SYN violation. Both ways would remove the SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: well, I accept that I missed the force of "these". However, I can only say that I think you violated the spirit of WP:DRIVEBY if not the letter, since your only real objection was to this word. The two sentences you find acceptable are no different to "Numerous ~~implausible~~ claims have been made regarding health benefits from drinking kombucha, ranging from promoting gut health to curing asthma,^[1] but there is no evidence to support ~~these~~any claims.^[2]" I still cannot see that readers would interpret either the two sentence or the one sentence version any differently, and synthesis lies in what a reasonable reader will take the meaning to be.

Anyway, thanks for your responses; I do now understand your action.Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This first part also failed verification using the 2000 source: "Numerous implausible claims have been made regarding health benefits from drinking kombucha,...". The 2003 source verifies the content except for the word "implausible". Each citation can be placed where it verifies each claim. My edit was respecting SYN policy. Sometimes I prefer to tag, discuss and then fix the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Discussion_on_having_links_to_portals,_where_the_portal_is_about_the_topic_the_category_is_about

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Discussion_on_having_links_to_portals,_where_the_portal_is_about_the_topic_the_category_is_about. See here for discussion. Thought it is best on the WikiProject page Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

wikidata

Hi @Peter coxhead: I am hoping you can either fix or tell me how to fix https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ogmograptis I presume the problem arises because on the english wiki Ogmograptis redirected to Ogmograptis scribula, but the genus is not monotypic so I changed the redirect link for Ogmograptis to an article (and changed various other redirects..). Hope you can help or have some suggestions. Cheers. MargaretRDonald (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: I see that Jts1882 has already fixed it. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. (things can happen fast on wikipedia) MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

1RR

You have violated the 1RR at Palestine, you are required to wait 24 hours after your edit has been reverted. Additionally, asking that your change be retained while the discussion occurs is curious, you are the one that needs consensus for your change, which was introduced and edit-warred over. If you do not self-revert I will file a report at AE requesting sanctions. nableezy - 17:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nableezy: please study the sequence of edits at Palestine. You will see that I did not initiate this change, but restored a change that had already been made. It is quite clear from the talk page that there is no consensus as to the best ordering of languages, so the most consensual way forward is not to make changes until the discussion has ended. I was merely asking that you waited until the discussion had ended, which still seems quite reasonable to me, although the edit sequence does make it difficult to apply WP:BRD in a straightforward manner, so I suppose there is a case for reverting to before the whole sequence began. I'm sad you decided to wikilawyer about it rather than accept my request, but I guess this has become normal for Israel/Palestine topics. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then it reverts to its original state. And regardless of whether or not you initiated this change, if your edit is reverted you must wait 24 hours to re-revert it. That isnt wikilawyering, it is requesting that you follow the same rules as all of us, instead of taking advantage of the fact that a now blocked editor edit-warred this change in, with your help I might add. I take it you are declining to self-revert? I have the report ready to save at AE, but I would much rather you practice what you preach and not edit-war a contested change in to an article covered by discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 19:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nableezy: the logic of wikilawyering is that you can insist on the rule being followed, regardless of my request that you allow further discussion, so of course I will self-revert. I remain disappointed that this is your response to an argued change which, if nothing else, makes the article less partisan, following history rather than politics. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It is incredibly hypocritical to ask that no reverts occur when a discussion is occuring when your revert is what has introduced a change to the stable version of the article. Your change is what is new here, your change is what requires consensus. I feel much the same about your insistence on a. including folk etymology without any sourcing, and b. claiming using a term not in common usage ahead of the term used by a majority of the population in the region is what makes the article less partisan. Regardless, at the very least, thank you for self-reverting. nableezy - 19:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nableezy: "folk etymology"??? Not me.
It's because it's a language used by people currently living in the area that starting with it is political and partisan, rather than starting with a neutral historical term. That's my sole motivation. Why is that wrong? Instead of wikilawyering about the process, it would be better to address the issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Then you havent been paying attention to your reverts. Your reverts, both times, restored The root of the name "philistines" comes from PLŠ (פלש) which in both Canaanite and Hebrew (a Canaanite dialect) means: "Invader" (פולש). sourced to this I have addressed the issue, on the talk page. Asking you to obey the same rules is not wikilawyering. Asking others to not revert your change, when it is your change the requires consensus, is still hypocritical. You are more than welcome to argue for your change, and if it has consensus you are more than welcome to make it. nableezy - 20:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

spinifex curse

once you have oz deserts on your watch - they will repeat endlessly they seem to attract children with the fascination of a bouncing ball - badly expressed but suspect you will the get the gist JarrahTree 14:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I realize what you mean. Once I'm sure that my edits have 'taken' re the correct species for "spinifex", I'll lose them! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Cephalothorax

Hi there, I noticed in your edit to Cephalothorax, your actions didn't match the edit summary; it seemed you meant to remove some content, but all you did was add a stray ref tag (the ref error was the only reason I noticed). Just wanted to bring this to your attention, in case something still needed to be removed. Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Monospecific genera

In your edit summary for Ba humbugi you wrote convention for monotypic genera is to use Species box template -- is that just because the article was moved from Ba (gastropod)? That is do all monospecific genera have the convention of using the speciesbox, or just those whose article titles have been moved to the name of the sole species due to other articles happening to exist with the generic name? I don't understand this convention; if an article is about the genus, then the taxobox should be about the genus as well. It's not always the case that the species designated as the type species of a genus is always the same as the valid name for a species which, at the time of writing, happens to be its only species. It seems clearer to have the taxobox be for the genus which allows for both |type_species= and |subdivision= -- what is the benefit to using the speciesbox?

I don't normally edit gastropod articles, so it may not be the convention for this group when the genus is monospecific and doesn't need disambiguating. It is the convention, in all my experience, for plant and spider articles, which I mainly work on. (This particular case is slightly different because I was aware that the article was going to be moved to the species as per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA.)

The general argument, I think, is that the bulk of the text of an article about a monospecific genus will be about the species. So the taxobox should reflect this. A speciesbox necessarily includes the genus, and its name will be in bold. Putting the sole species in the subdivision box would very much de-emphasise it.

See Template:Speciesbox#Monospecific genera, which sets out the convention.

As just one example, I think the taxobox at Myosotidium accurately reflects the text of the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Noted. I still think the article should be about the genus, similar to polyspecific genera which don't have enough content for individual articles about each species. The superficial identities between a monospecific genus and its species is just based on on the taxonomy as of a particular year, so to me it makes more sense to say "X is a genus, and {{as of}} 2018 its only species is X. y." But I guess one can just as well do "X. y is a species, and {{as of}} 2018 it is the only species in the genus X." It just means if a new species gets added the entire article needs to be re-written to be about the genus instead of about the species. But I realize I have a minority view on this.

If there is a consensus to use speciesboxes for monospecific genera, I suggest that be made explicit in WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA that even if the title, article, categories, and corresponding wikidata entry be in reference to the genus, that one should use a speciesbox -- because that isn't immediately obvious to editors trying to figure out how to write these articles. In any event, thank you for clarifying this matter for me. Umimmak (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the guidance at WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA isn't what I would have wanted in the first place, but it's now long-standing and has been used to set up a large number of articles, so it's what we have to work with.

Re Wikidata, note that the taxonbar links (or should link) to both the genus and species entries in Wikidata. It's a problem with Wikidata that it can't handle links that aren't 1:1 – this doesn't just affect monotypic taxa, it's a problem whenever one language wiki splits an article and another doesn't (e.g. we have both Berry and Berry (botany), but other language wikis have only one article because usage in that language is different, and an arbitrary choice has to be made as to which of our articles to link to). I'm strongly against allowing the Wikidata tail to wag the Wikipedia dog.

I think there's usually a difference between extant and extinct monospecific genera. For extinct genera currently with one species, if another is discovered, typically this is just added to the article, since there's usually not enough information to write a separate article. So for extinct genera, it makes sense (to me at least) to use {{Automatic taxobox}}.

For extant monospecific genera, what usually happens when another species is found is that the existing genus article is converted to an article about the former sole species, since most of the content was already about the species, and a new article is created for the genus and the additional species. I must have done this dozens of times for formerly monospecific extant spider genera – the rate of discovery of new spider species is quite high. So for extant monospecific genera, it does make sense to use {{Speciesbox}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Spiders described in the 1750s has been nominated for discussion

Category:Spiders described in the 1750s, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

What am I missing?

I created the page Big-lip damselfish but I am getting a category error "P" for Category:Fish described in 1877 and it shows Category:Pomacentridae instead of Category:Pomacentrinae, which is what was typed. What am I missing? Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Quetzal1964: I smiled when I looked at the wikitext, because it's always reassuring to see someone else making the same mistake as I frequently do! You'd typed "{{ }}" instead of "[[ ]]".

There seems to be a difference of view on using the "described in YEAR" categories. Because this actually means "first given a scientific name in YEAR" (most common species were described long before they were given a scientific name – Aristotle described many species about 2,000 years before Linnaeus started modern nomenclature), in many areas of the tree of life it's normal to put the "described in YEAR" category on the scientific name redirect when the article is at the English name. However, this doesn't seem to be the case for fish. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Kombucha

I am also unhappy with the quality of the reference that provides the long quote for conditions people believe kombucha helps. That is why I added the immediately following disclaimer sentence. I did a PubMed search limited to clinical trials that yielded nothing. Ditto a look at clinicaltrials.gov to find ongoing research. David notMD (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: "absence of evidence" is a perennial problem in the area of pseudoscientific medicine. If popular sources make silly claims, which seems to be true for kombucha, no-one is going to spend time carrying out expensive and time-consuming scientific trials. So there's no evidence either way. In my view, it's better not to report implausible unsupported claims in the first place, but clearly other editors disagree. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Up to the present, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Federal Trade Commission have not taken any regulatory actions against companies making kombucha health claims. That could change, especially as a few large companies emerge with products sold nationally rather than locally or regionally. What lawsuits there have been have been about sugar content being higher than the label states, or alcohol exceeding federally set limit of 0.5% for non-alcoholic beverages. I see that for Kevita, a brand PepsiCo bought in 2016, the claim that it contains probiotics does not rest on kombucha's fermentation, but rather the post-fermentation addition of B coagulans. Sneaky, eh? David notMD (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Calandrinia corrigioloides

Calandrinia corrigioloides is the accepted name of this species. However, the corresponding articles in various other languages have commandeered the image and use the wikidata item Parakeelya corrigioloides. Is there some way to fix this up so that the english and other language articles link, and they use the accepted name?? MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Pardon my interjection, Margaret and Peter, but I have wondered the same thing. I have seen the use of two taxon bars for available names at this end (en.wikipedia), both names being cited in the content. I also found that using a synonym statement can only be used to deprecate one name at wikidata taxon items [pages], which I view as improper, an article using either name is not wrong per se. — cygnis insignis 01:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The short answer to Margaret's question is "no".

Unfortunately, in spite of repeated discussion of this issue at Wikidata, those responsible there are either unwilling or unable to allow anything other than 1:1 links between Wikidata items and language wiki articles. So where there are articles and Wikidata items at different synonyms:

As Cygnis insignis notes, here we can, and should, put links to all synonymous Wikidata items into the taxonbar.
Each Wikidata item can, and should, link to every other synonymous Wikidata item using the "taxon synonym" property. This doesn't "deprecate" any of the names at Wikidata; the links may or may not go to names that are taxonomically acceptable.
Before the advent of {{Taxonbar}}, I would have said that you then pick the most popular name used by language wikis, whether or not it's the one we use, and link our article to the corresponding Wikidata item. However, this has two problems:
- the unchanged problem that it's a kind of MOS:EGG – a reader clicking on a link to another language wiki or to the Wikidata item would expect the destination to be at the same name;
- the new problem that the taxonbar won't put the name we use at the top.

So now I think we just have to accept that unless and until Wikidata fixes the problem, and models language wikis correctly, we should link our article to the Wikidata item with the same name, regardless of the fact that this then won't show links to other language wikis using different synonyms. If we are more up-to-date than they are, then eventually they will follow suit. (Remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now fixed up Calandrinia corrigioloides and the corresponding Wikidata items as described above. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Brassicaceae

Dear Peter, I've put a lot of effort in the Brassicaceae article last year, so from time to time I have a look at it. There are several things I think could be improved, but I do not want to spend time doing it, as I try to concentrate on South African Proteaceae. The issues I'd like to raise are:

The gallery introduced by User:PhaseLock. I'm not against illustrating differences within the taxon, but these three images just seem to be random, not having a function here.
The section on the impacts of the introduction of Alliaria petiolata in North America by IP:107.77.192.209 seems inappropriate for this article, and I think could be largely deleted (exempting the first sentence) and integrated in the article on Alliaria petiolata.
The Template:Cruciferous Biochemistry that is included at the bottom seems rather inconsistent in its content.

Perhaps you can have a look at these issues. Thank you in advance. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje: some immediate thoughts:

You're quite right about the gallery, and the images aren't very good anyway. I think it would be better to try to improve it rather than just remove it.
You've also quite right re the excessive material on Alliaria petiolata in North America; much better at the species article. I can add it to my "to do" list, but Brassicaceae doesn't interest me particularly – bulbs and succulents are my "thing"; currently I'm working on Eucomis (probably of more interest to you too).
I'm not a fan of nav templates generally; very few seem of great value to me. I've fixed it to be collapsed in the article, which is a minimal step (and I suspect will be resisted).

Peter coxhead (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Good to know you agree. I'll think about the gallery. Perhaps I can find material that better illustrates parts of the tekst. I'll let you know. If you could do some weeding in the Alliaria section, that would be very helpful. Thanks! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Hey man. I finally understand what you mean now by "category described in year." I understand what you are talking about now, and I'll change my ways. Sorry for making you frustrated. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: no problem (I'm not at all frustrated!). Peter coxhead (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Cyperus tegetiformis

Thanks for catching that, I've moved it over to Cyperus malaccensis and reworked the article to show tegetiformis as a synonym. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

YYYY-MM dates

Thanks for your reply at WT:MOSNUM. I'm replying here because it's tangential to the current discussion on that page which is now many messages past our brief exchange. My question was intended as a friendly inquiry about where you think the YYYY-MM date format might be used. I didn't mean to suggest that I was demanding citations, but the link you provided was useful. I would never claim that YYYY-MM is never used, and I wouldn't even claim that YYYY-MM is never used outside of the context of computers, but in my experience it's vanishingly rare outside of those specialized contexts. I think nearly anyone familiar with it in those contexts probably encounters YYYY-YY as a date range far more frequently in the much more widely known context of sports seasons. Although I think the chance of confusion is very small, I do think it's a valid argument that Wikipedia ought to eliminate that possibility by avoiding YYYY-YY date ranges. My real complaint was the unchallenged assertion that "YYYY-MM is one of the most common date formats used by North Americans", which is not only untrue, but I think was dishonest and a deliberate lie. Since that claim is so transparently false and utterly ludicrous I have no idea what was expected to be gained by it. Quale (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Quale: I agree that it's rare – "vanishingly rare" may be an exaggeration the other way, but who knows for sure? Anyway, we basically agree. As I noted at WT:MOSNUM, the real disagreement is between those who favour strongly worded positions in the MoS and those who are willing to accept more flexibility for editors. I have to say that having started out as one of the latter, I have moved somewhat towards the former – the more I have to deal with vandalism and incompetent editing the more authoritarian I get, rightly or wrongly. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Peter coxhead. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Chromidotilapia

Hi Peter, can you look at this Automatic taxobox and tell me what's wrong, I can't get the article title to italicise and cannot see what the issue is.Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(tpw) Looks like there was some stray punctuation (a vertical bar: | ) in the taxonomy template. Fixed! –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hyperik: very well spotted! It's not clear to me why this causes that particular error, but as long as it's fixed... Peter coxhead (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Kiwifruit

Everything is cited, if poorly, not a reason to revert. the old info was 100% incorrect. Please stop descriminating against IPs been doing this longer than you. Been reverted 6 times and no one had the curticy to go to the talk page, or fix what they don't like. I am an IP not a vandle. 67.252.6.84 (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

67.252.6.84: your edits look like vandalism, because:

You are not respecting the existing ENGVAR, which is New Zealand English, as clearly noted on the talk page of the article, including the date formats. You need to do so.
By all means remove incorrect information. I am completely in favour of your doing this. But the new information you added was in poor English (consistent with the three spelling mistakes and poor punctuation in your comments above) and did not improve the article. It just looks like vandalism, and makes it hard to know what you were trying to do.

If you can explain exactly what you want to achieve, I will try to help you to make acceptable changes. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Dockrillia/Dendrobium

Hello Peter Coxhead,

Need your help please. I am trying to clean up and expand articles on the Australian dendrobiums. WCSP lists Dockrillia and several other genera as synonyms of Dendrobium, so I have cleaned up the Dockrillia page but am stuck with changing some of the species names. Moving D. cucumerinum, D. pugioniforme and D.striolatum worked okay but I'm unable to move Dockrillia wassellii. Worse - I have moved Dockrillia linguiformis to Dendrobium linguiformis but I should have moved it to Dendrobium linguiforme (stupid spelling mistake) and can't now fix my blunder! Any help would be greatly appreciated.Gderrin (talk) Gderrin (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed now, as per comments at User talk:Plantdrew#Dockrillia/Dendrobium. (Not changing the ending of the epithet when making a genus move is one of my all too common errors!) Peter coxhead (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I hate bothering you again with a similar issue but I can't figure out how you made these fixes. The new problem is Serpenticaulis bowkettiae - I can't move it to Bulbophyllum bowkettiae, I suppose because the B. bowkettiae article is already a redirect? When you have time, any help would be greatly appreciated. (Australian orchids nearly done - thank goodness.) Seasons greetings! Gderrin (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC) That's great Peter. Thanks very much again for your help. Gderrin (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gderrin:

Done. You need EM rights to be able to swap pages when the target can't be over-written. I've suggested at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover that you be given them. If you get these rights, WP:SWAP explains how to do a swap, or, much easier, use User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap.js, which is explained at User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Neobenthamia gracilis

(In reference to your help today with classification_status from taxobox template):

Hi Peter cox and pinging Gderrin because my issue sounds similar to theirs (on your talk page), and I'm interested in, and cultivate a couple of Dockrillias. Template talk:Taxobox#Change needed for classification status for Gderrin if interested.

I took an interest in the classification status parm because I want to flesh out the article for Neobenthamia gracilis, which is currently a redirect to Neobenthamia, a monotypic genus. Can you tell me Peter, is this an accepted practice here on WP, of redirecting a species of a monotypic genus to its genus article (or even vice-versa)? I can't find anything that says yea or nay. This particular case (of N. gracilis) is interesting, because recent phylogenetic work places it in Polystachya, where P. neobenthamia is a synonym already. Several name registries have already placed N. gracilis in Polystachya (including WCSP). But its still mixed at this time, ie "more research reqd". The species is notable as it is listed in CITES Appendix II.

I'm not entirely sure where the article should sit in WP. Any suggestions? Prime Lemur (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Prime Lemur: see WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. Yes, it's clear policy (for animals as well) that we have a single article on a monospecific genus. It will be at the genus name unless that needs disambiguating, when it will be at the species name. So if you want to write more about Neobenthamia gracilis under that name, you should do so by adding information to Neobenthamia.

However, if WCSP, and hence PoWO, accept the transfer to Polystachya, then I certainly would. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thanks again. I have a couple of journal articles to read ... then have another look at the WP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime Lemur (talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Pelargonium sp. Striatellum

I don't think it can be automatically dismissed as not notable even if it isn't properly named; it's listed as endangered by the New South Wales Scientific Committee ([1]) and included in the Australian Plant Names Index ([2]). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I take the point, but WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies, in my view. When the species has a scientific name, i.e. has been formerly described, then we should of course have an article. However, there are some very knowledgeable Australian plant editors about, so I'll happily leave it to their judgement.

@Casliber and Gderrin: what do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree about NOTEVERYTHING and would not want to see hundreds of articles about undescribed orchids, but this article sure is interesting. :@Melburnian:'s opinion more important than mine since he started it. Gderrin (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of the subsections of NOTEVERYTHING apply here. There are enough sources to describe it encyclopedically (in more detail than plenty of other species articles I've come across), and at the very least it hits GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The advantage of a simple rule ("wait until there's a name and formal description") is that it deals with the not uncommon situation that an editor sees a mention of a possible new species in a journal and then creates an article. Anyway, I think it would be good to have other views; maybe ask at WT:PLANTS? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. For what it's worth, Omeo Stork's-bill already redirects to the present article, and it wouldn't be a stretch to create redirects for the other synonyms, so I think the risk of accidentally creating a duplicate isn't that high (especially if it's on the species list calling attention to itself). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Normally I would say wait until described, but as it looks like it is endangered IMHO it will have been studied sufficiently (and is notable enough) for an article. Then again I am an inclusionist. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, as I said at WT:PLANTS, I'm happy to accept that this is an exception – so long as it's clear that it is really an exception. I guess Melburnian thought so. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

christmas and new year

trust you had a good christmas, and all the best for the new year... JarrahTree 14:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: and all the best for the New Year to you too! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001

I was trying to add a taxobox to Draft:Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001 and I couldn't figure out how to make it work 100%. It's using a manual {{taxobox}} now, and the rank isn't showing up because I put "strain." I also tried using {{infraspeciesbox}} and {{subspeciesbox}} and they both also aren't quite right. I'm hoping another set of eyes on it will help. --Nessie (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, none of the taxoboxes explicitly support "strain" for bacteria. Is there a source that sets out bacterial nomenclature, so we can understand how it should be treated? I don't think the strain name is really a trinomial with a separate authority, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems the bacterial code doesn't cover infrasubspecific subdivisions, although an appendix offers some guidance. Strain isn't one of the preferered subdivisions mentioned in this description: infrasubspecific subdivisions. According to appendix 10 there are a number of overlapping preferred terms that can describe a strain or group of strains: biovar (usual abbreviation: bv.), chemoform, chemovar, cultivar (usual abbreviation: cv.), forma specialis (abbreviation: f. sp.), morphovar, pathovar (usual abbreviation: pv.), phagovar, phase, serovar, and state. Jts1882 | talk 09:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Guidance on taxonomic rank categorization

Hi Peter, happy new year. :) Looking for some guidance/history on why we "doubly" categorize articles taxonomically by name/clade and rank, e.g. Ranunculaceae is both within a subcategory of Category:Eudicots (subcategory Ranunculaceae), but also in Category:Eudicot families. Why not just classify the article Ranunculaceae in

then use tools to easily find Eudicot families, e.g. "find all articles in 1) Category:Eudicot & its subcategories and 2) Category:Families (biology)"?

The current system is difficult to maintain—must hunt to find which taxonomic rank category is appropriate, confusing to new editors (speaking for myself), not standardized across TOL WikiProjects, and prone to overcategorization (e.g. see Caftaric). They are already diffused by name/clade, why also diffuse by rank? I'm tempted to suggest they all just be merged upwards into their respective Category:Taxa by rank and deleted, but there must be some reasoning not to?

The discussion of appropriate taxonomic categorization has come up recently, as WP:Gastropods currently partially uses a different system: see Category talk:Gastropod families. Thanks for any insight. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The system existed before I started serious editing of plant articles; I only wrote it up to make sure that I understood it, and to guide others. So I'm not the best person to say why it was set up that way.

Some points that occur to me:

Maybe the tools didn't exist initially?
The most important problem for me, and why I would strongly oppose such a change unless it were fixed, is that you can't do the same thing with PetScan results as you can with a category. If I find Eudicot families in the way you suggest, I get a list. That's it. If I look at the category, I can, for example, use Cat-a-lot to recategorize, which is the main way I sorted out some of the Caftaric mess. But if this were fixed, I agree with you that over-fine categorization isn't a good idea.
I think that an active wikiproject is as high as I would ever go. So if the same tools could be used on combined category search results, it could just be e.g. "Plant families". The reason is that experience shows that unless a category system is "owned" it won't get looked after. Caftaric/NotWith/socks got away with messing up the system for as long as they did because they kept away from active projects and their low level categories that were on watchlists.

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I would probably agree that WikiProject is the finest the rank categories should go. Could you get a list into AWB to do the same tasks as Cat-a-lot?

I started this comparison table for taxon categories: User:Hyperik/Taxon_categories. Really just trying to wrap my head around it...and aim for some amount of consistency across taxonomic groups.

For example, I noticed that Category:Plant taxa and Category:Plants by classification were recently deleted, though one or the other, or both, is used for other taxonomic groups. I think retaining some sort of subcategory like that would be helpful, especially for groups with a large amount of immediate descendants like Category:Ants (subfamilies) or "useful"-but-not-immediate descendants like Category:Birds_by_classification (orders).

Similarly I think Category:Plant taxa by rank and the like as container categories is useful, rather than having them "clutter" up the main category pages. Currently the rank categories for plants are split between Category:Plant taxa by rank and being directly grafted to Category:Plants. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Allium pskemense, Allium thunbergii (and also Mangifera indica)

Well, is there any agreement which has been made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants that we do not display DD category on a template of each biological article ? I regard DD as significant proof of some attempts to evaluate species, other than NE. Eryk Kij (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@エリック・キィ: I was just acting on what I have seen before. Let's ask at WT:PLANTS to see if there has been any decision. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Parent references

Hi Peter, Can you check why there is an error when parent references are missing? See Template:Taxonomy/Brasityphis. — Ganeshk (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ganeshk: you haven't specified the parent, so that's why the parent's reference is missing. --Nessie (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@NessieVL: I see the issue now. Thank you, — Ganeshk (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Nutmeg

You have reverted my interwiki to Polish, but have you put it in Wikidata instead? No! Why? I do not understand. Or maybe I understand, I guess, because it's probably for exactly the same reason why I hadn't put it there earlier. Beacuse it's so complicated that it's really discouraging for me. Maybe it's good for fans of Wikidata, not for me. But my experience says that if you put an interwiki into an article itself, a bot (or a kind person, like a fan of Wikidata) will transmit it to Wikidata. So why not leave it to a machine (or another person)? I do not want to be accused of starting a war of edits (or whatever it is called) so I kindly ask you: would you please either put this information into Wikidata or revert your revertion, put the interwiki back there again and wait till a bot (another person) does the job? Thank you in advance. noychoH (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It is complicated, if I understand the Polish article(s) correctly.

You put the interwiki pl:Gałka muszkatołowa (przyprawa) at Nutmeg. If you go to pl:Gałka muszkatołowa (przyprawa), it's a redirect to pl:Muszkatołowiec korzenny, which is linked to the English page Myristica fragrans. But there's also a page pl:Gałka muszkatołowa, which is another redirect to pl:Muszkatołowiec korzenny. So:

The problem is that the English Wikipedia has two articles, at Nutmeg and Myristica fragrans, but, if I understand correctly, the Polish Wikipedia has only one, with two redirects. Wikidata does not handle such relationships well.
If a redirect is to be linked, then it should be pl:Gałka muszkatołowa → Nutmeg. So I could try to link nutmeg (Q83165) to the redirect pl:Gałka muszkatołowa – would that be right?

Peter coxhead (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the time taken to read in a language you probably don't understand. To answer your remarks I have analysed all the aspects thereof and I have to tell that it's really a tough issue. The problem with it lies (as usual) with the ever-going discussion for whom the Wikipedia is: rather for the scholars in a given discipline or for the general public. Being myself a scholar I vote for the second option, as scholars have plenty of their own specialised literature and they do not need to wander into Wikipedia to get information in their discipline, what more - many (if not most) of them openly despise Wikipedia. Unfortunately most of the Wikipedians are not scholars but fans of certain disciplines of sciences, which is not a bad thing in itself. The bad point is that they try to behave like scholars, who they are not. Instead of conduction their own research and publishing its results elsewhere they treat Wikipedia as a substitute for own research, which is not only against the rules of Wikipedia, but also against the "rules" of common reason. I have found this attitude especially deeply rooted among Polish Wikipedians who specialise in botanic, or more generally in biology. Why? I don't know. According to my humble opinion Wikipedia should be for general public so it should have the articles published in such a way that an average person would find an article on the interesting topic.

Now I have analysed the article pl:Muszkatołowiec korzenny in Polish Wikipedia to which both redirects described by you point and I have found out that:

a) Although it begins with the description of the plant, subsequently it concentrates on the spice and 3927 characters (including spaces) out of the total of 5636, and 168 more relate to both the plant and the spice, which makes that 72.7 % of the text is about the spice. One of the two footnotes is about the spice (the first one is about taxonomy). The link to Polish Wictionary (Wikisłownik) also leads to the name of the spice, not of the plant. This shows the real content of the article, and the real interest of the Wikipedia readers. Almost everybody has heard about the spice "gałka muszkatołowa", or seen it (you can encounter it in every grocery shop) or even used it, hardly anybody (including myself) has heard about "Muszkatołowiec korzenny" before. Of course, one can learn this last name from Wikipedia, and that's very good, so I do not intend to remove the Polish redirect from "Gałka muszkatołowa" to "Muszkatołowiec korzenny". So probably (imho) most of the users of the Polish Wikipedia would prefer to have an interwiki to "en:Nutmeg" than to "en:Myristica fragrans" (from where they can also, of course, get to en:Myristica fragrans. At least myself I would prefer to.

b) I have analysed why the Polish Wikipedia has two redirects to "Muszkatołowiec korzenny" (I have not been conscious of it before your answer), seemingly (to myself) from the same Polish term, and I have understood that one of them should not be a redirect but a disambig page, because there is another usage of "Gałka Muszkatołowa" (this time both capital letters whereas with the spice both should be lower case letters) - namely of an artist club/café which existed in Cracow in the eraly 1920-ies. So I have changed the name of the article about the artist club into pl:Gałka Muszkatołowa (klub), and I have rewritten the article pl:Gałka muszkatołowa into an disambig page, leaving the pl:Gałka muszkatołowa (przyprawa) intact. I have also accordingly rewritten the header of the article pl:Muszkatołowiec korzenny to reflect these changes. I still have to do the similar thing with the header of the pl:Gałka Muszkatołowa (klub).

I have to admit that it was a hard thing for me because since the time Wikipedia editing has moved from source text editing to so-called visual editing, I have competely lost my ability of creating new articles, adding templates etc. It used to be so easy five years ago, now it is for me as hard as a nutmeg (ok, as a chestnut).

c) I have taken my time also to analyze all the interwikis going out from both English articles. The first look shows that from the en:Nutmeg they are 66 of them and from en:Myristica fragrans they are only 43 (same from pl:Muszkatołowiec korzenny) which immediately show the world-wide preference for spice to a plant.

Out of 84 languages (Wikipedias) that have one or both articles, 25 have both, 41 have one with an interwiki link to en:Nutmeg, and only 18 have one with an interwiki to en:Myristica fragrans. I have decided not to loose any more time by analysing the content of the articles in 50 languages I can read with understanding (until today I was persuaded I can understand something like 30 languages, now I can see there are probably double of that, since in the list above I immediately cannot find 6 languages of which I know I can understand them. – How many are there those I haven’t immediately thought of or about which I do not even know? God knows!), nor even in the 18 that have the single entry linked to en:Myristica fragrans (or actually the 12 of the latter that I could understand).

(I could send you an xls file of this analysis to your e-mail if you like; to export it to a Wiki format would probably require from me learning too much today).

d) What seems to me also important is that both links from en:Myristica fragrans to spices obtained from the plant, i.e. to a nutmeg and to a mace (a spice unknown in Poland, so it not only has no entry in Polish Wikipedia, but is not even mentioned in the pl:Muszkatołowiec korzenny), lead to en:Nutmeg, which shows also the preference of the English speaking world to this name.

All these analyses show to me immediately that there should be an absolute preference in interwikis to en:Nutmeg, not to en:Myristica fragrans for languages that have only one article in which spice is discussed. I do not want to impose this decision onto other language Wikipedias, but at least it should be so for both the languages of Poland, i.e. Polish (pl) and Kashubian (csb). So if you can, please redirect these entries in Wikidata.

Answering your last question shortly: No. I would not link the redirect pl:Gałka muszkatołowa to en:Nutmeg – especially that it is not a redirect any longer, but rather the one I had originally linked, i.e. pl:Gałka muszkatołowa (przyprawa). But the best would be not to link the redirect page(s) at all, but rather to re-link the pl:Muszkatołowiec korzenny to it – if you can. (And also, maybe especially, the csb:Przëprawòwi mùskatówc). Otherwise I will learn how and do it myself next week – I have consecrated already so much time to it that it needs to have a positive effect.

What do you think of that? noychoH (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, as I noted above, that Wikidata can only have 1:1 links. It seems to me that both the English "Nutmeg" and the English "Myristica fragrans" should be linked to the Polish "Muszkatołowiec korzenny", but as they can't both be, you, as a Polish speaker, have to choose just one of them.

It's not difficult to edit the links in Wikidata – they are at the bottom of the page. Just remember that you have to delete a link from one Wikidata item before adding it to the other, because they can't be on both items. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've understood that and I have already made the choice (hoping it is well justified). I will edit it next week, thank you noychoH (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

species abbreviation

It was easier for me to ask you than find the answer myself, a bit lazy really, I'll make it somebody else's turn next time :–) Is there a dot at 'sp' for species of animals, I have the idea it is for plants, in this case a tentative name used for a recognised concept awaiting publication? I tried to outline the situation in a note at Mormopterus, because anything printed before a few years ago used these placeholder names for newly discovered diversity. cygnis insignis 15:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the "sp." is short for "species", so needs a dot. "Mormopterus sp." means "an as yet unnamed or unidentified species of Mormopterus". Animals, plants, bacteria, whatever, makes no difference. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, I'd seen it a used a couple of times without, so wanted to confirm with someone before changing it. Happy editing, cygnis insignis 16:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I found it without a full stop in another source, perhaps the concern was an implication of publishing a name (without a description) for what was only results of the systematist's (phylogenetic) analysis (workers thought there was cryptic species in the group, and the result the paper spat out was 'at least seven'). I removed the dot again, as I found it, the previous [absent?] editor seemed to have a good grasp of the topic (I'm working on getting their efforts promoted).

Well, it should be there! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I will cede to your wisdom on this matter, and I wouldn't object if you added it, but doubt is making me hesitant to do so myself. Reading that paper might resolve the matter, but authors have cited it this way in formal synonymies: planiceps sp 6 [result] then noted as Mormopterus sp. 6 [awaiting publ., MS name?] then the formal publication as Mormopterus (Setirostris) eleryi. cygnis insignis 10:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's just a slip on their part OR part of a trend to omit stops in abbreviations (as in "eg" versus "e.g."). But the WP style is to include them so we can correct sources in this regard. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A slip made by several authorities, in different journals if that matters, perhaps I didn't convey that point. I hadn't considered that as a reason, trending away from punctuation in abbreviation, but this is a nomenclatural rule isn't it? If it isn't I will probably change it myself to accord with our MOS. cygnis insignis 10:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "nomenclatural rule" either way: there are sources that say that "sp." (with the stop) is an abbreviation for "species", but I haven't found this abbreviation used in the sense we're talking about in either the ICZN or the ICNafp. So I think all I can say is: (1) In the combination "GENUS sp.", "sp." is an abbreviation for "species", whether or not a stop/point is used. (2) There are reliable sources that use the stop and reliable sources that omit it – as there are for other abbreviations. (3) MOS:POINTS sanctions our using the stop (although I think it's wrong to say "Modern style is to use a full point (period) after a shortening" – it means only after a shortening; the most modern style seems to be to omit them altogether). Over to you! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Another moment of your time, the article in question, Bristle-faced free-tailed bat, concerns a species in a monotypic sub-genus, can you demonstrate how that works in the taxobox, showing the subgenus (nigh genus) as bold. Sorry, a lazy way of learning, I'll pick Plantdrew next time. cygnis insignis 09:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The key thing is that the taxonomy template, Template:Taxonomy/Setirostris in this case, must have the piped link and not rely on a redirect. This ensures that the link created in the taxobox is to the article itself, when the wikimedia software automatically replaces it by bold text. If you have a redirect in the taxonomy template, then the taxobox link doesn't get replaced by bold text. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple and intuitive once explained, which is the beauty of the system. Cheers cygnis insignis 10:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Um... Ideally it would be simple and intuitive without explanation! However, part of the issue here is the way that the Wikimedia software works; I think it should detect a redirect to the same page. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I have the idea it did once, embolden redirects in main, but that could be my imagination. cygnis insignis 10:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Southern African indigenous trees and woody lianes: Revision history

Hi Peter, Something went very wrong with your edit of 09:02, 18 November 2018‎ .....could you kindly repair. Cheers Paul venter (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Paul venter: I'd inadvertently duplicated part of the list; not sure how. Sorry for causing the problem – interesting that no-one noticed before. Good catch! It's fixed now.

Two points:

When you add items, please use the standard formatting for authorities, i.e. put them in small font, either by <small>..</small> or {{Small}}. That's what I was fixing.
The source(s) you are using are not using the proper author abbreviations, which are mandated by the IPNI. Spaces matter. If you try an author search with the standard form "R.A. Dyer", for example, as present repeatedly used in the list, you get nothing, because it should be "R.A.Dyer".

Peter coxhead (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged Paul venter (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Embryophyta templates

Do we really need 4 different templates for embryophytes: Template:Taxonomy/Embryophytes, Template:Taxonomy/Embryophyta, Template:Taxonomy/Embryophyta/skip and Template:Taxonomy/Embryophyta/Plantae? It looks like Embryophytes and Embrophyta/skip are both called by angiosperms, which I don't understand. Embryophyta doesn't have a regnum in the hierarcy, but is being called by Spermatophyte and Vascular plant (as well as various extinct things) and should be showing something around kingdom rank. Would it be possible to get the ancestral taxa table to show when a qualified template is being called? It's not very obvious at lower ranks that e.g. Embryophyta/Plantae is being called, when all of the embryophyte templates looks the same in ancestral taxa unless you mouse over the taxonomy/edit links and see the URL.Plantdrew (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a mess, I agree. As I'm sure you understand, part of the mess is caused by the same kind of problem that plagues birds/dinosaurs. Let me rehearse it for clarity. 'Deep phylogeny' researchers and editors who reflect their work use clades like those at Template:Taxonomy/Embryophytes. Because the hierarchy doesn't include Plantae, then if, say, Template:Taxonomy/Asparagales progresses up to Template:Taxonomy/Spermatophyta, then "Kingdom: Plantae" won't appear in the taxobox, which has never been agreed at WP:PLANTS. The problem started to show up when Jmv2009 gave Template:Taxonomy/Embryophytes the parent Phragmoplastophyta instead of Streptophyta (this latter leads to Plantae).

So to ensure that Plantae appeared in angiosperm taxoboxes, I gave Template:Taxonomy/Angiosperms the parent Template:Taxonomy/Spermatophyta/skip, which produces the hierarchy at Template:Taxonomy/Angiosperms, ensuring that angiosperm taxoboxes include "Kingdom: Plantae". The hierarchy runs:

Angiosperms → Spermatophyta/skip → Tracheophyta/skip → Embryophyta/skip → Plantae

Like all skip templates, Template:Taxonomy/Spermatophyta/skip uses a non-skip template of the same name minus the '/skip', i.e. Template:Taxonomy/Spermatophyta, as the main source.

However, when I recently did some work on ferns, I had to create Template:Taxonomy/Polypodiopsida. This couldn't have Template:Taxonomy/Embryophytes as the parent if Plantae is to show up, so I created and used Template:Taxonomy/Embryophyta/Plantae. I should have used Template:Taxonomy/Tracheophyta/skip, which I've done now. (Template:Taxonomy/Embryophyta/Plantae can be deleted when its transclusions disappear.)

So in addition to the "traditional" hierarchy above, there will be:

Tracheophytes → Polysporangiophytes → Embryophytes → Phragmoplastophyta → Charophyta → Viridiplantae

I would prefer the non-traditional hierarchy to have qualified names, but I'm not sure if it's worth the work to change.

Would it be possible to get the ancestral taxa table to show when a qualified template is being called? – I think you mean something like 'alternative ancestral taxon table', because the ancestral taxa are shown. The problem is that when there are multiple 'choice points' in the hierarchy, which there are for birds and mammals, multiple alternative taxon tables exist, e.g. for two skip templates, 4 tables. This could be programmed, but I'm not sure it would be very helpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Why does the taxobox show Embryophytes rather than Embryophyta? Surely the latter is the name of the taxon. Jts1882 | talk 15:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: it depends on the source. If you want to treat embryophytes as a formal taxon, e.g. a subregnum or division, then "Embryophyta" is clearly the right name. But sources that treat embryophytes as a clade vary. The taxobox at Embryophyte seems wrong to me; it combines "unranked" (which means it's not a formal ranked name) with an author (which implies it is a formal name). I prefer the final row at Flowering plant, which treats "angiosperms" as an unranked group with no author. The APG systems use informal names ("monocots", "rosids", etc.), so "embryophytes" seems to fit. But this is part of the whole confusion over classification at the higher levels, where there simply is no consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)