User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 27

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 20

←

Archive 25

Best practice for x symbol with nothotaxa taxoboxes

I haven't been implementing automatic taxoboxes with nothogenera. I'm not really sure what the best way to approach them is. With nothospecies, I've been putting {{hybrid}} before the species in taxoboxes. My understanding is that {{hybrid}} is used to prevent italicization of the × symbol. On my computer, I only notice a difference between × (preceding has italic markup) and x (no markup) in edit mode; both look the same when I'm just viewing a page. So I'm not sure whether {{hybrid}} does improve the display of species/binomial name in the taxobox of a nothospecies. I do know that {{hybrid}} breaks italics in the page title and the title at the top of the taxobox, so DISPLAYTITLE and |name= need to be added. × in species/binomial name doesn't break italics in the page title and taxobox title. In short, as far as I can tell, {{hybrid}} creates more problems than it solves when used in a taxobox for a nothospecies.

So, when it comes to nothogenera, I'm not sure whether a taxonomy template should have |link= with "× Galiasperula" or "× Galiasperula|{{hybrid}} Galiasperula" (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/× Galiasperula). Does the hybrid template actually help anything? Plantdrew (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: as far as I know, it's only those of us that use Macs that have fonts that distinguish between italicized and non-italicized hybrid/times symbols. Thus for me, the first of these is italicized, the second isn't: × ×

Any automatic italicization of nothogenera names will correctly not italicize the hybrid symbol. Thus the way the taxobox is at × Galiasperula right now (without italic title or DISPLAYTITLE: or a name parameter) results in the display being absolutely correct for me. Template:Taxonomy/× Galiasperula is also correct.

I will investigate what the problem is with using {{hybrid}}, which should behave in the same way. (There's always a problem in the interaction between template code and Lua; the template is expanded before being passed to Lua, so it can only 'see' whatever it expands to, not the original template. So if the Lua code is set up to detect the output of a template, and then the template is changed, however slightly, the Lua code may fail.)

I don't see where the hybrid sign is handled in display of the title. I think what is needed is modify local function italicize(s) in Module:Italic_title with something like the following:

			local function italicize(s)
				-- also needs handling for "&#215;" and "&times;"
                s = string.gsub(s, "×", '<span style="font-style:normal;">×</span>') -- NEW CODE
				assert(type(s) == 'string', 's was not a string')
				assert(s ~= '', 's was the empty string')
				return string.format('<i>%s</i>', s)
			end

In edit preview it seems to handle × Galiasperula correctly. Could there be unexpected consequences elsewhere? Maybe adding {{Italic taxon title}} to {{speciesbox}} would be easier. — Jts1882 | talk 13:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I haven't been prepared to edit Module:Italic title at all; it's not part of the taxobox system (manual or automated) and it's used on a vast number of pages.

The automated taxobox system ultimately italicizes page titles via Module:TaxonItalics. As far as I can tell, it handles the hybrid symbol correctly in all cases when this is specified as the symbol or the HTML entities (which are expanded first anyway). There are some oddities when {{hybrid}} is used to specify the target taxon, which I want to look at. The hybrid template is really only of use, in my view, in running text, Peter coxhead (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I was addressing the reason why the title of × Galiasperula italicises the hybrid symbol. The code at line 197 in function p.italicizeTaxonName() in Module:TaxonItalics, which prevents italicization of × in the taxobox uses, is not being applied to the page title.

My understanding is that the italicization of titles for {{speciesbox}} is handled by p.speciesboxName() and l.doSpeciesboxName() in Module:Automated_taxobox. The function l.doSpeciesboxName() calls function _main() in Module:Italic title and this doesn't receive the modified name parameter. The code I posted above reuses the code from line 197 in Module:TaxonItalics and this italicizes the title without doing so to the hybrid symbol.

Whether this is important is another matter. I hadn't even realised that Apple users could see a difference in the italicized and non-italicized hybrid symbol. It's probably not something to justify making changes to Module:Italic title, but it's possibly the same reason why some of the other formatting in Module:TaxonItalics isn't being applied to the page title. The special formating in italicizeTaxonName() is being applied correctly to the taxobox name, but not to the page title. — Jts1882 | talk 15:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: ah, we seem to be talking at cross purposes, because when I look at × Galiasperula, on both an iPad and a MacBook, all the × symbols are correctly not italicised, including the page title. However, when I look at the source code for the page, it has <h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading" >× Galiasperula</h1>, so the × should be in italics. So far as I can tell at present, h1 elements default to a font in which italicized × and non-italicized × are the same on my systems, so I've been under the impression for some years that this was fixed when it wasn't. Sigh...

Ok, I've now discovered that it's because h1 elements default to the font-family list 'Linux Libertine',Georgia,... I don't have 'Linux Libertine', so they default to Georgia. Tests show that, at least on my Apple systems, x is the same in Georgia Italic as in Georgia Regular. Sigh again... Peter coxhead (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Even the page title? I have to use the code inspector to see the difference (as I'm not using a Mac), but the page title has × Galiasperula (i.e. with × in italics), while the taxobox has × Galiasperulafor the name and genus and similar × formatting for the species and binomial (i.e. the formatting from line 197 of Module:TaxonItalics). — Jts1882 | talk 17:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: edit conflict; see above. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

So now we're now on the same page. Have a look at line 387 in Module:Automated_taxobox. This is where the title formatting is set for {{speciesbox}} and it doesn't use the name parameter than has been formatted on line 384 by italicizeTaxonName(). — Jts1882 | talk 17:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: possible actions seem to be:

Fix Module:Italic title as you suggest. This is perhaps the most comprehensive, but depends on whether there are, or would in future be, any page titles in which the times symbol should be italicized. Given that it's only a minority of font families on Apple systems that apparently would show an italicized symbol – and even then users would have to be defining their own CSS to override the default H1 font family – I would have thought the answer would be "no".
Change Module:Automated_taxobox to issue {{DISPLAYTITLE: with the value formatted by italicizeTaxonName() rather than call Module:Italic title. I hadn't realized until I tested it a few moments ago that DISPLAYTITLE can use HTML markup; see User:Peter_coxhead/Test.
Do nothing, on the grounds that those very few users who decide to override the default H1 font family to use a font which on Apple systems shows the effect of italicizing × will have to put up with the result.

Thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't time to look into it now, but Helianthus × laetiflorus is interesting; when {{hybrid}} is used in the taxobox and {{Italic taxon title}} is present, the italicization of the title shown up in the page source is correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that fixing Module:Italic title is a last resort. There are 300 so page titles with ×, a mix of taxon names and vehicles, with many (most?) being redirects. If it was solely about the × then do nothing would be fine, but I suspect that there could be other cases where all your work on the formatting of the name is being lost. The following code simply replaces the call to Module:Italic title with a parser function call to DISPLAYTITLE with the formatted name parameter works for × Galiasperula.

	if italicizeP then
		if italicTitle ~= 'test' then 
			--ItalicTitle._main({})                                                 --CURRENT 
			mw.getCurrentFrame():callParserFunction( 'DISPLAYTITLE'	, name		)   --NEW
		else name = name .. '\\Italic title\\' -- for testing and debugging
		end
	end
::

So the question is whether there are cases where this change would cause problems. DISPLAYTITLE doesn't do anything if there is a mismatch with the actual title, but does display a warning. The Lua documentation doesn't say what callParserFunction() does with errors. If it throws one it could be used to add a tracking category. — Jts1882 | talk 07:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I made your suggested change at Module:Automated taxobox/sandbox and modified {{Speciesbox/sandbox}} to call it via {{Speciesbox/name/sandbox}}. Changing × Galiasperula to use {{Speciesbox/sandbox}} (see this version) and looking at the source HTML shows the correct non-italicization of the ×. I'm still not sure of the answer to your important question of whether there are cases where this change would cause problems, nor how to check for these, so I'm reluctant to go live right now. Any ideas? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The obvious thing would be to add a tracking category such as Category:Automatic taxoboxes with error in page title formatting. Unfortunately, callParserFunction() seems to return an empty string regardless of the success in formatting the title. I suppose this indicates that the parser function successfully called DISPLAYTITLE, not that it successfully formatted the title. A failed attempt to change the page title adds a warning, so I wonder if there is a way of examining those. — Jts1882 | talk 12:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

We could set a category for all pages with × in the title and using DISPLAYTITLE. Searching for hastemplate:speciesbox intitle:/×/ finds 370 results for speciesboxes with × in a title or redirect. Many are redirects so the category would have around 200 pages. Checking for obvious errors in the title would be relatively quick, checking the underlying code slower. I'll add something to the sandbox. — Jts1882 | talk 13:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: the logic of the change is wrong; it fails on cases where the species taxobox has a name that isn't the page title. Try changing to "Speciesbox/sandbox" at Alsophila manniana, for example. I don't have time to see how to correct this right now. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen that playing with Helianthus × laetiflorus. I think the title change should always be based on basePageTitle, which should be processed by italicizeTaxonName() before being passed the DISPLAYTITLE. Perhaps setting the taxobox name and page title should be separated. I'll look at this tomorrow. — Jts1882 | talk 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I'm sure I set up all the possible cases before, but I can't find the table now. I've quickly set up a table at User:Peter coxhead/Autotaxobox italicization cases which I think covers all the possibilities (although just now it occurred to me that specifying a species by a disambiguated genus name and species epithet is perhaps another case). All of these need to be catered for and tested. I probably won't have another uninterrupted spell of time to look at this today (and fixing Lua needs concentration!), so over to you for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Went through the list with basePageTitle being processed by italicizeTaxonName() and the formatted reult passed to DISPLAYTITLE. The only problem was with Tristania (plant), which didn't match DISPLAYTITLE because the disambiguation term was stripped of in basePageTitle. So I got the disambiguation term from the full page title and appended that to the result from italicizeTaxonName() to get the full formatted string. This now works with all examples in your table. This should also work with any disambiguation term stripped off the get basePageTitle. I've left the warning messages in the sandbox code.

The other issue is the potential use of a category. The code adds a category whenever the formatted page name passed to DISPLAY title contains the hybrid symbol. This would give us a list of pages affected by this change. — Jts1882 | talk 12:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: my tests agree that this solution works. However, I thought of what may be a more general approach. I've modified Module:TaxonItalics/sandbox so you can specify that parentheses mark a dab term rather than a subgenus. Thus:

{{Taxon italics/sandbox|Caia (plant)}} → Caia (plant)
{{Taxon italics/sandbox|Caia (plant)|dab=yes}} → Caia (plant)

Then in italicizeTaxonName(), I think it should work just to use callParserFunction() to apply this version to the page title with |dab=yes. No time to test right now; hopefully later today. The advantage is that this version of {{Taxon italics}} may be useful elsewhere. (If the default use from an automated taxobox was |dab=yes, then it may be possible to use the rank of the target taxon to set |dab=no for animal subgenera like "Lyria (Mitraelyria)".) However, in advance of thorough testing, all is speculation! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

General solutions are always better unless they involve a lot more work. Getting the page title, stripping the disambiguation term [checks spelling!], formatting the stripped name, and adding back the disambiguation term is a rather convoluted method. If your modifications works and can be used to detect when to italicise for cases like subgenera then all the better. — Jts1882 | talk 12:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I've run through all the test cases at User:Peter coxhead/Autotaxobox italicization cases with {{Speciesbox/sandbox}} calling the current version of Module:Automated taxobox/sandbox and they all work, with the titles containing "×" correctly having it surrounded by  .. . I didn't implement the tracking category; I don't think this is where any problems will arise – they will be in cases I haven't thought of and so haven't included in the table of test cases. I'll leave it until tomorrow for some more cogitation and then make it live unless you or I find any more tests that fail or realize that this approach has flaws I haven't thought of. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I found a few more kinds of test case and added them to User:Peter coxhead/Autotaxobox italicization cases. All appeared to be ok with {{Speciesbox/sandbox}} – except for the odd case of an animal species at a title including a subgenus which will always need manual formatting, I think, but which didn't have it so was already wrong. I've now updated the live versions to the sandbox versions and re-checked the teat cases; all appear to be ok. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of any other cases that would cause a problem that wasn't there before. Having the subgenus in the title is a strange choice as the species name is already unambiguous and would be the name most commonly used. These should be moved, I suppose. — Jts1882 | talk 09:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: see User talk:Dyanega#Incorrect pair of articles. I guess the senior homonym Mispila (Mispila) coomani could be moved to Mispila coomani, but the junior homonym needs another species name. I think Dyanega (who's an ICZN commissioner, if you didn't know) will sort this. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of Italic taxon title

On a related note (italic edge cases). Chaetonotus (Chaetonotus) has {{Italic taxon title}} which is failing to italicize the parenthetical term. Lyria (Mitraelyria) has the parameter "italic_title = taxon" which italicizes the parenthetical. I think this is all relates to code you've worked on, and I don't know why the template is working differently than the taxobox parameter. Plantdrew (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: the core problem is that it's not possible to automate the distinction between a parenthesized term in a genus name being a disambiguating term or an animal subgenus. This was discussed somewhere at one time; I once thought that capitalization distinguished them (and I think I had some code versions that did this): disambiguating terms starting with a lower-case letter, animal subgenera with an upper-case letter. However, although I can't find a case now, I was pointed to the use of family names as disambiguators, as other wikis do, which means that the capitalization test fails.

To italicize a page title, where there is an automated taxobox, the code ultimately relies on {{Taxon italics}}. (As an aside, the documentation of {{Italic title}} says that you can put |all=yes to force the parenthesized bit to be italicized, but if I put {{Italic title|all=yes}} instead of {{Italic taxon title}} at Chaetonotus (Chaetonotus), it doesn't work.) There do seem to be some problems in the interaction between a manually added template and the attempt by the automated taxobox to force the correct italicization. Thus if you look at Puzosia (Bhimaites), which has a manual taxobox, {{Italic taxon title}} does work.

I still need to investigate this further. For now:

For a subgenus with a name like "Chaetonotus (Chaetonotus)" and {{Automatic taxobox}}, you need to include |italic_title=taxon to force the correct italicization. I've fixed the article in this way.
In a taxonomy template, there's no way to force the correct italicization in the link field (at present) – see e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Sabulina (plant). I don't think it matters in taxonomy templates.

I've now updated the documentation at {{Italic taxon title}}.

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Short answers

@Plantdrew: your initial questions have been productive in terms of identifying some issues, which with Jts1882's help can be resolved, I think. I thought it might be useful to summarize the answers, given the screed of text above:

In taxonomy templates and taxoboxes, use the actual symbol × (or the HTML entity ×), not {{hybrid}}, which should be reserved for the text of articles, if used at all.
Subgenera with names like "Chaetonotus (Chaetonotus)" should use |italic_title=taxon in automated taxoboxes.
{{Italic taxon title}} should only be used directly in a very few remaining manual taxoboxes where {{Italic title}} does not work. As its documentation now explains, it's mainly for use indirectly by the automated taxobox system.

Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I've now updated {{Speciesbox}} so that it handles × in a page title better. I've tested as far as I can, but if you see any odd errors appear that apparently weren't there before, please let me know. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

My notes on remaining plants with manual taxoboxes

I've been keeping notes at User:Plantdrew/Plant automatic taxobox progress on remaining plants with manual taxoboxes. Numbers are from PetScan searches through relevant categories with {{Taxobox}} present.

More than half are in Asteraceae and Fabaceae, which I haven't made any particular effort to work on (I've also not done any systematic work in Rubiaceae and Rutaceae). I've taken a couple stabs at Fabaceae (doing automatic taxoboxes in the 4 new subfamilies and some basal papilionoids), but I'm not very happy with the state of infrafamily classification in Fabaceae. I'm planning on working on Asteraceae; I think the Global Compositae Database is probably the best source for classification down to tribe.

I'd been avoiding implementing speciesboxes in articles that had a manual taxobox with infrageneric ranks. You've been tackling a lot of these.

There are some subfamilies and tribes that have some issues with support and their subdivisions that I've avoided. Cactoideae is one of them, which you've commented on avoiding as well.

Aside from that, there are a lot of manual taxoboxes with taxa that have synonym issues (perhaps the taxa is a synonym itself, but accepted on Wikipedia; perhaps a parent taxon is a synonym on Wikipedia but accepted in POWO). Polbot stub articles account for a pretty good chunk of the synonyms. I've come to the opinion that it is inappropriate to move a Polbot article on a lumped taxon to a new title for a broader accepted taxon. A new article should be created, as there is nothing in the history of any Polbot stubs that is worth preserving (Polbot stub statements about range, threats and conservation status can not be assumed to apply to any broader species concept, and shouldn't be in article history of any different title). Plantdrew (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of your very useful list.

Recently I've been working on species articles one genus at a time (e.g. most recently Lomatium), starting with the genus article and checking that the species list matches PoWO. I have changed my view on infrafamilies shown in taxoboxes for species. At one time I just replicated the manual taxobox by adding |display_parents=, so that it was simply a matter of conversion from manual to automatic taxobox. Now I think this wasn't a good idea. We don't usually need to show most infrafamily ranks in species taxoboxes, other than some major subfamilies, unless they are mentioned in the article, which is unusual. So although I've including these ranks in the taxonomy template, I no longer make any effort to have them displayed. The taxonomy template can be updated if and when better sources appear.

I hadn't thought about not moving a Polbot stub article when the species concept is broader. I think you're right, but I'm not sure that it would be considered so by the broader editor community.

Citrus is a genus I have avoided. There are 60 articles, mostly at vernacular names, but the underlying taxonomy seems to be a total mess. Some are quite popular articles, so they do really need to be sorted – but not by me!

Tillandsia is one of the genera with the largest remaining manual taxoboxes (I make it 272). Tillandsia tectorum is a typical example. The subfamily Tillandsioideae seems well supported by sources (including APweb). The subgenus, Tillandsia subg. Allardtia, is another matter. The list in the article is based on an out-of-date source at a dead link. A quick look at Google Scholar for the subgenus for articles since 2015 suggests substantial movement between subgenera (and indeed genera). Most of the Tillandsia articles are sub-stubs, many with lists of cultivars with a dead out-of-date source. There is a list of cultivars here, but it doesn't explicitly give the species, although some names include a specific epithet (which is forbidden by the ICNCP). So the cultivar substubs, like Tillandsia 'Enano' are effectively unsourced. I have no idea what it's best to do about this mess, although I think the substub cultivar articles are best deleted.

Peter coxhead (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Neoregelia is another Bromeliaceae genus with a lot of manual taxoboxes for species. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I've just updated the numbers of remaining manual taxoboxes, and have added more notes explaining issues with them. You might want to look at the 6 cases where I've noted "extended move" needed. Plantdrew (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Question

@Plantdrew: I note your comment I'd been avoiding implementing speciesboxes in articles that had a manual taxobox with infrageneric ranks. The problem is there are a lot of such articles, and often (as you note in your list) the support for infrafamilial and infrageneric ranks is poor or out-dated. My current thought is that it's worth converting species articles to speciesboxes provided that the infrageneric and infrafamilial ranks aren't shown (i.e. unlike my previous approach, |display_parents= isn't included). If and when there is better support for the 'missing' ranks, the taxonomy templates and articles can be updated – in large families, at least the subfamilies, if not tribes, could be given |always_display=yes in their taxonomy templates.

What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what your question is. It's certainly worth converting species articles to speciesbox no matter if infrageneric/infrafamilial ranks are present. Poorly supported or outdated classifications shouldn't mean that implementing speciesbox should be put off indefinitely.

In my efforts to convert to speciesboxes, I've proceeded from "easier" case to "harder" cases; all that is left now (aside from Asteraceae) is hard for one reason or another.

I started out working through small families that didn't have any infrafamilial classification, verifying accepted genera against The Plant List (I would use POWO now). When I started tackling larger families that had infrafamilial classification, I'd check that GRIN/NCBI/APWeb agreed (or mostly agreed) on that classification; I wasn't adding references to taxonomy templates. More recently, I've been going directly to sources cited by APWeb, and put those source as references in taxonomy templates.

Of course, what makes the hard cases is hard is my own personal standards; I prefer to preserve details (i.e. minor ranks) of classification already present on Wikipedia, but want to verify those details, and I want to add (verified) detail in order to keep level of detail consistent (if some genera in a family have tribal placement, I'd all genera to have it). And it hasn't helped that my standards for sourcing have gone up.

Circling back closer to your query. I have never used |display_parents= to show infrafamilial ranks in speciesboxes (except for the case of monotypic genera). That does conflict with my general desire to preserve details, but I don't think species articles really need to display tribes (even if a tribe was presented in a manual taxobox preconvervsion). I'm not sure that there are any cases where I'd really want to see subfamilies set to display in speciesbox via |always_display=. I would've said that the traditional division of Fabaceae into 3 subtaxa is worth showing at the species level (and indeed, many Fabaceae manual taxoboxes have subfamily); maybe the 6 current Fabaceae subfamilies should still display (along with the mimoid clade?). Asteraceae and Poaceae next come to my mind as cases where always displaying subfamilies might have some value (I'm probably influenced by the flora I use most, which has the genera in these two families broken down by subfamily (alphabetic subfamilies with alphabetic genera), with the family keys going to subfamily keys spread through the text). In short, I'm not sure |always-display= needs to be used for plant infrafamalial classification.

I think the question you wanted to ask is something like: "Do I (Plantdrew) approve of implementing speciesboxes, and omitting some details of classification given in current manual taxoboxes, when the details are poorly supported or outdated (with the possibility of restoring detail pending better support)?" My answer to that is YES. At this point, it's best to implement speciesboxes in Cactoideae without worrying about poorly supported tribes.Plantdrew (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

PS. For awhile now I've been thinking about going back and adding references to infrafamily taxonomy templates I had created under my earlier standard of GRIN/NCBI/ApWeb agreement. On top of that, Estopedist1 created articles (and taxonomy templates) this spring for just about every plant genus that didn't previously have an article. That was something that really needed to happen, even if I'm not entirely happy with his output. Estopedist1's taxonomy templates for genera all(?) skipped any infrafamily classification (even in families where I had meticulously referenced infrafamily taxonomy templates), so I've known I'm going to want to revisit basically every plant family to improve Estopedist1's taxonomy templates. I'm not real concerned about the prospect of new taxonomy templates that might eventually need some further work. Plantdrew (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: thanks for your answer to my not totally clear question! Your re-formulation above is right, and we agree on the answer. I now think I was wrong to reproduce the classification in the manual taxobox for species, and I'll re-visit at least some of them.

Looking at the plant articles for non-monotypic genera with Speciesbox and |display_parents=, I see that a high proportion of those I found (25-30%) were Australian plants (e.g. Banksia, Verticordia). There does seem to be support in Australian sources for these infrafamilial ranks.

As for |always_display=, I think that a few large families do warrant this for subfamilies, where these are well established. For example, the distinction between Opuntioideae and Cactoideae is clear both in morphology and in phylogenetic studies (to date, anyway), so I think these should be shown in taxoboxes, even for species. But it should not be the norm.

Any thoughts on Tillandsia? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Bromeliads has subgenera for many bromeliad species. However, the source(s) of their subgeneric classifications aren't clear. And it doesn't seem to be possible to get a list of species in a subgenus (perhaps this is possible with a subscription). The person (Leo Dijkgraaf) who produced the (now dead) sources cited in Wikipedia subgenus articles is one of the collaborators behind Encyclopedia of Bromeliads. If you want to work on Tillandsia speciesbox, do whatever you want; I'm OK with scrapping subgenus classification. Are you finding more than (now) 268 Tillandsia with manual taxoboxes? I'd guess any additional one lack Category:Tillandsia. Plantdrew (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: depending on exactly how I search, I get around 270 Tillandsia species articles with manual taxoboxes – a somewhat daunting number. The question is whether anything is really gained by working on these articles, when many are such sub-stubs, and have only old sources. I've looked briefly at some papers Google Scholar finds for "Tillandsia phylogeny". One of the more comprehensive recent sources that covers the phylogeny of the genus, doi:10.1111/cla.12200 (actually targetted at Vriesea but including many Tillandsia spp.) concludes "Supporting these studies [1997 to 2016], our data showed that Tillandsia is polyphyletic", and their cladogram shows Tillandsia spp. in multiple positions. I doubt there are any up-to-date sources for subgeneric taxa. Nothing attracts me to working on Tillandsia! Peter coxhead (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: in spite of my last comment, I did spend some time this morning looking at updating the species list at List of Tillandsia species, but decided against it for now. I left an explanation on the talk page, if you are interested. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category by decade

Template:Category by decade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Do botanical sources override dictionary sources like these?

"angiosperm". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d.
"angiosperm". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.). HarperCollins.

Thank you. serioushat 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Twinsday: of course not. But these are just two American sources. By all means add their pronunciation, with an explicit reference, but WP:NPOV means that you should look at other kinds of source, especially other English dialects. The OED online (subscription required) has "Brit. /ˈan(d)ʒɪə(ʊ)spəːm/, U.S. /ˈændʒiəˌspərm/". (Their use of IPA differs from WP's.) I normally use /ˈandʒɪʊspəːm/ (in their IPA), but in some contexts might use the more classically correct /ˈangɪʊ-/. By all means add extra pronunciations, with a ref, and mark others as needing a source, but don't remove them unless there is no doubt that they are wrong worldwide. Scientific words derived from Latin or Greek have a wide variety of pronunciations. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Plantae Barnstar
		Here’s a barn star for fixing up Ophioglossum petiolatum a few minutes after it was published.CycoMa (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: um... If you didn't create articles with taxobox errors (missing |taxon= in this case), I wouldn't notice them! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: sorry, I didn’t realize there were errors in the taxobox. No need to add exclamation marks.CycoMa (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: different interpretations of exclamation marks, I think. Substitute :-). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey I’m a little confused, which errors are you talking about? Because I looked at the articles and past reversions, I’m not seeing these errors you are talking about. Can you maybe show me a diff?

I edit on my phone a lot maybe there’s a glitch of some kind.CycoMa (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually wait I think I see what you mean.CycoMa (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Look at [1]. Without |taxon=, the page title and taxobox heading aren't italicized. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: there's an error-tracking category that I monitor that picks up missing taxon paras. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Do forgive me I have ADHD and GAD, they make me overreact.

But, anyway I think I see what you were talking about. Sorry I didn’t realize Taxon had a purpose. I didn’t realize not adding taxon would cause an error.CycoMa (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

But, anyway thank you very much for fixing up my article and thank you for the info.CycoMa (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: just keep on creating articles, that's the most important activity. Fixing taxoboxes is secondary. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bold taxon list

Template:Bold taxon list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Commented. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Peter coxhead:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
—usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Lua editing - lines

Hello, Peter! :)

We've talked a few times about Lua in the past. I had a question in mind, mostly out of curiosity, and not wanting to make it a public conversation at WP:VPT, I thought maybe I can ask it here:

Would it be interesting to have the possibility of editing certain lines from modules without opening the full module for edit just like we can link to certain lines from modules?

The reason I ask that is because, dealing mostly with localization, given that my general work consists of translating string after string, that would be considered helpful. But I'm not sure if that would have any negative impacts on the other ways modules are used/edited. I thought that a discussion about it would be beneficial before asking for anything new on Phabricator. - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi: the problem would be that a complete Lua module needs to be checked to be sure the syntax is correct, particularly that the blocks are correctly nested. For example, if the line to be edited contained just the opening if clause of an if..end block, the syntax can't be checked until the closing end is found. The line by itself wouldn't be syntactically correct. Similarly if the line contained a variable, its scope couldn't be determined without more of the function, so a mis-spelling would cause problems. The same is true for templates, of course: you need the whole template to check the nesting of the curly brackets. So neither modules nor templates have sections that can be edited separately. I guess it might be possible to construct a special editor which would allow changes to a single line in a Lua module while also not allowing a save if the entire module is not error-free, but it wouldn't be a trivial task, and I doubt it would be a good idea. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. What about giving "edit links" specifically to lines but instead of opening only the specific line for edit, it opens the whole module as a normal edit but also highlights for some time what line you wanted to edit? This would be helpful in really big modules with hundreds of lines. In this case it would be just an enhancement of the current editor, no?

Or maybe "line" can be exchanged for "block", if that is deemed better. (Less syntax error possibilities?) - Klein Muçi (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Speciesbox instead of automatic taxobox?

I know only a little about taxoboxen, but when I got to this article, there was a taxobox that prompted me to create a template. If {{speciesbox}} should be used instead, should there be guidance to that effect, to prevent wasted effort in creating and then deleting a less-than-optimal template? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: see WP:Automated taxobox system and in particular the link at "Which should be used?" It's a complex system to learn; copying from a comparable article is easiest, I think. But there are good tracking categories for problem taxoboxes, and quite a few of us that monitor them, so it's not really a problem if a taxobox is initially not quite right. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What is subvariety used for?

Hello, is subvariety used to classify plants geographically like variety? if so or not, please show me a well-explained example! thank you! BloxyColaSweet (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@BloxyColaSweet: the rank subvariety/subvarietas is provided for in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants – see Art. 4, so it certainly can be used. The rank seems to be used in the case of cannabis (Cannabis sativa) for example: see this paper which mentions the rank. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for updating Cosmophasis! Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 03:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

your revert on Echeandia

Gosh, Reverting is easy. But editing is so much better ! It would have been productive and collegial to MOVE the reference I found, instead of deleting . --Wuerzele (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a synonym to one of the many redlinks on a page about a genus, so maybe create Echeandia reflexa and move it there? ~ cygnis insignis 20:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: the existence of a species should be supported by a secondary source, such as a respected taxonomic database, not a primary one, so what would be gained by moving the reference, which doesn't show its now accepted name? I'm puzzled. It's important to check with something like Plants of the World Online to see whether a name has been synonymized before adding it to a list. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Do it instead of writing here or deleting the ref. What you did is totally non productive.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: sorry, I remain puzzled. Do what? You added to the list of species in the genus a name that isn't another species in the genus, but a synonym of a species that is already in the list. So what could be done other than delete it? I genuinely do not understand. Please explain to me what you think I should have done. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a reference for your claim (in the editsummary of your Revert) that Echeandia macrocarpa is a synonym for Echeandia reflexa.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: see "Echeandia macrocarpa Greenm.", Plants of the World Online, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, retrieved 2021-11-19. The synonym belongs at Echeandia reflexa when this article is created as Cygnis insignis noted above. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Echeandia macrocarpa will be a redirect to Echeandia reflexa when the article is created. A trivial edit was correctly reverted, the reaction to that here is the only evidence I see of contributions that are unproductive. ~ cygnis insignis 01:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Echeandia reflexa and the redirect at Echeandia macrocarpa now created. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition

The Wiki Science Competition is a month-long international science photography competition spanning which commenced on 16 November and will run through to 16 December 2021. Wikimedia South Africa is organizing the South African arm of the competition. The competition was first organized in Estonia, expanded to all of Europe in 2015, and to the rest of the world in 2017. A very special category for Wiki Science in South Africa is the Fynbos category.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Science_Competition_2021_in_South_Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnabel Mchuchu (WMZA) (talk • contribs) 08:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Plesiopharos

Hi. I can't fing in cited paper Puértolas-Pascual et al., 2021 [2] data regarding animal's size that You have added citation after [3]. Is this information from that paper for sure? Best regards, Mpn (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mpn: this was my mistake. I was primarily cleaning up the taxobox classification, and then tidied the references, but I put one in the wrong place, as you noticed. Now fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For improving Acantholimon ulicinum and Schizosthetus lyriformis I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Curious re. mitos

Just noticed and am curious about the fact that the bacteria article uses an automatic taxobox while the article about mitochondria does not. Is there a means to create a mito taxobox that might be of help to readers? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 04:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: taxoboxes are designed to show the classification hierarchy of groups of organisms. Mitochondria are not organisms, although thought to be derived from once free-living bacteria, so personally I would say that a taxobox wouldn't be right. A more general infobox is another matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the taxobox on the bacteria page seems to act as more of an infobox, anyway. Guess I'm too fascinated with these little mitos, billions of which make a home in my body's cells and which have a different DNA than mine; they are curious little beings I could not live without. Am I letting this great fascination get in the way of objective editing? Yeah, probably. Still, if these little ones are moreso Archaea than bacteria, then that's a way to blow someone's mind! I think it means they are more like us than like bacteria. I guess science hasn't really developed a taxonomy for them yet, but give 'em time.

P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: actually it's the other way round: the most generally accepted theory, endosymbiosis, suggests that the first eukaryotic cells with mitochondria were either archaeans or closely related to archaeans, and that mitochondria are derived from ingested but not digested bacteria. So they're not like us, but effectively enslaved members of a different branch of life on which we are now totally dependent. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Mitochondrial were endosymbiosed a billion or so years ago and have since evolved within eukaryote cells, with exchange of DNA between the plastid and nucleus. As a result, their phylogenetic history follows that of the whole eukaryote (with some inconsistencies), and their taxonomy would follow the eukaryote tree. The position of proto-mitochondria within the proteobacteria has also been studied phylogenetically (see the cladogram in Mitochondrion (a bizarre case of Wikipedias insistence on using the singular for page titles). If you are fascinated about billions of mitochondria hitching a lift, check out Microbiome. — Jts1882 | talk 09:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

To editor Jts1882: so it's probable that there are many different species of mitochondria, perhaps a different species for each species of host? I remember some years ago a fairly big editing fight over changing the title of Mitochondria to its singular. Even the presence of the plural Bacteria article title had little effect and the mito title was changed. Biology may very well find a complicated taxonomy for mitos. They probably evolved right along with their evolving hosts. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 02:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

To editor Jts1882: the Microbiome article is really something! Here again, it seems mitos are excluded from forming such a thing, which means exclusion from being an organism separate from anything human/other hostish. It can have its own DNA, but it can't have its own taxonomy? Helpful bacteria in my intestines can form a microbiome, but helpful bacteria-like mitos cannot? Hopefully that can either change, or another way of looking at mitos heretofore not thought of will emerge in microbiology. I think the little ones deserve it! Not just for all the good they do us, but also for the fact that we probably need them much more than they need us. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 11:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth:, mitochondrial DNA sequences are routinely examined in molecular systematics (and for plants, chloroplast DNA is also studied). mtDNA changes faster than nuclear DNA which makes it well suited for fine-scale (species level) phylogeny. So, mitochondria "species" are pretty well studied, although they aren't really characterized as species. Plantdrew (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hehehe, many species are today taxonomically characterised by their mitochondria. Basically modern taxonomy already describes mitochondrial species, traditionally by proxy of describing the weird animal and plant husks which they use and require for sustenance and reproduction. Homo sapiens are a species of colonial mitochondria known for creating an odd bipedal outgrowth to live and breed in. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:A41F:5237:61C0:C92E (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

To editor Plantdrew: thank you for that! So different mitos in various animal and plant species have been studied extensively on a "sort of" species level, which show that they do vary. It would seem that their variations are not different enough to warrant separate species nomenclatures, but how about genus and higher levels? It's a tiny little animal that dwells in the cells of other animals and even plants. If it's an animal in its own right, then applying organizational taxonomy to it might actually help us better understand both mito, human and other origins. Is it just too big a job to tackle for small perceived benefit? It seems that one possible benefit would be to better understand the aging process. I've read that as we get older, our bodies manufacture less and less of the enzyme (Co-Q-10?) that mitochondria need to survive. So there are fewer and fewer mitos to help with ATP generation within our cells. Could be why we die of "natural causes" and explain other maladies. Anyway, thanks again so much for your help, and happy holidays to you and yours, and to all editors here as well! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 19:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)