User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

BSBI names?

It looks like you're maybe working on creating/categorizing redirects from BSBI common names now? I'd support some way of marking those (e.g., with Category:BSBI common names for plants or something similar). Or maybe that's not worth bothering with here on Wikipedia; I suspect Wikidata might be able to do something more useful with a set of vernacular name that are tagged as being the official ones for a particular region. Plantdrew (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, my original idea was to just have a page called something like "List of BSBI common names for plants" or "List of plants of the British Isles by BSBI common name". So I downloaded the Excel file and put some bits of it in my user space, initially in the form of a list of entries "(Wikilink to common name) – (Wikilink to scientific name)" to see what it looked like. Although I've dealt with quite a few redirects, it was largely experimentation, to get a "feel" for the issues. (As I worked on them I changed the format of the list, omitting entries with no link to the scientific name.) What I found was:

• roughly half of the plants don't seem to have articles
• probably 80% or more of the BSBI common names that do exist as redirects aren't marked with "R to scientific name" and don't even have talk pages, let alone ones marking them as WP:PLANTS redirects – this did surprise me (although capitalization is part of it)
• more BSBI common names than I expected don't "work" as redirects in Wikipedia because they are insufficiently precise in a world context – they need to point to lists of plants or even to genera.

What it's worth continuing with isn't clear to me at present. I hadn't thought of Wikidata, but it may be a useful approach. On the other hand, linking BSBI common names to scientific names clearly requires much more human decision-making than I had initially hoped would be the case because of point 3 above. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"List of BSBI common names for plants" would certainly be most useful to human readers of Wikipedia. Further tagging is getting into metadata that's probably more useful in helping machines to help humans arrive at the article they want, hence Wikidata (which I'm not really interested in working on). I don't really see how we could indicate on a Wikipedia SIA which usage of a globally ambiguous common name is the BSBI usage (but Wikidata might be able to handle that somehow). Anyway, it was just a thought, maybe not worth pursuing. I tried to go through List of wort plants at one point thinking I could churn out a bunch of useful redirects, and ran into the same issue you found with BSBI names. Too many cases where multiple plants share the same common name (creating SIAs for these is worthwhile, but takes more time). Plantdrew (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put "List of BSBI common names for plants" on my to-do list.

I hadn't seen the List of wort plants article; quite interesting (to me anyway!). I was able to add a few from the BSBI spreadsheet.

By the way I see my "disambiguation category" edit has been reverted, as you predicted. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What is "cladistics"

Just wanted to say that I have added a comment (vehemently agreeing with you) to your year-old comment in the Talk page for Cladistics. That article is a mess, but this reflects the wild confusion on the part of systematists (and the students taught by them) as to what the term "cladistics" means. I am not going to edit any page on this, as I am a well-known outlier on these issues. Felsenst (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Felsenst: I'm exceedingly flattered to have you agreeing with me! I'm afraid that some time ago I gave up trying to make sense out of Cladistics and related articles (the trio Monophyly, Paraphyly and Polyphyly are also muddled – apart from anything else, how can you properly discuss one without the other?). Perhaps it's worth another look; I'll think about it. The problem with Chiswick Chap's comment that the solution is to "say clearly and verifiably who said what" is that saying clearly what someone said requires them to have said it clearly in the first place, but (in my reading anyway) many of those involved didn't. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Plant common names

Hi Peter. Take a look at this Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_23#Category:M.C4.81ori_plant_common_names. Based on that outcome of that discussion, I worry that Category:Plant common names might get deleted if the criteria for inclusion is a property of the title. What I've been categorizing there is mostly stuff where the content of the article is about a common name. There's certainly some fuzziness there and I haven't been totally consistent in how I've placed some things (not sure why I left live oak as a SIA rather than an article on the common name). At one end there's turnip (terminology), sword grass and Rose of Sharon which seem to be very much about the common name itself. At the other end are Bluebonnet (plant) and Kōwhai, which could theoretically be titled Lupinus in Texas and Sophora in New Zealand (having them in the category is more based on a property of the title). And then in the middle there's a bunch of things like blackberry or chaguar covering related plants that form a folk taxon (but not a scientific taxon). I'm thinking articles that have a taxobox probably shouldn't be in "Plant common names" ("Redirects from scientific names of plants" can hold these). Banyan does have a taxobox, but I'm not sure that "banyan" necessarily corresponds to Ficus subg. Urostigma. Plantdrew (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems to me that the deletion rationale particularly applies to categories like Category:Banksia taxa by common name. The "by common name" signals clearly that this a category based on the form of the title and I see that such categories have consistently been rejected in CfD discussions (see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 17#Category:Plant articles with English titles). Some of these categories (such as the Banksia one) can easily be made into list articles, I suppose.

If Category:Plant common names is used for articles about common names, then none of the present subcategories seem to belong there, and rather few of the articles. Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Um...indeed. It is fuzzy. I think the subcategories should be fine; SIAs are about the application of a common name, and redirect categorization is inherently about the form of the redirecting title. I don't have a firm idea about what to do with the articles in the category; some could probably be tagged as SIAs (although they are generally more developed than a list of species). Some maybe don't belong anywhere. At present, the category is kind of a dumping ground for oddball articles with common name titles that don't fit very well into any other category. Plantdrew (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Narcissus

Once again we are both doing the same edits simultaneously! I was actually disappointed and surprised at the complete absence of taxonomic and phylogenetic information on Narcissus, I think some purists threw the baby out with the bathwater since the last time I had a major go at this page. Planting my daffodil bulbs made me revisit it! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I wander around bulb articles from time to time. I didn't initially realize you were actively working on the article; hope I didn't cause any edit conflicts. The articles (genus and species list) present the common problem with a widely hybridized popular garden plant: the botanical and horticultural aspects can easily get muddled up, to the detriment of both. Hippeastrum and many cacti articles are other examples. I regularly wonder whether it would be better to have separate "botanical genus" and "gardening" articles in these cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be, but my preference is always hierarchical, with an overarching page hiving off daughters. There are many examples of the situation you describe though. I don't know if you have visited Narcissus recently but I accepted your challenge of whether it was 'important' or not, and have completed a first draft towards GA status, that is essentially complete but needing major clean up and style work. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mgoodyear: I have been watching all the great work you've been doing on this article. It should certainly be put forward for GA status when you've finished "cleaning up". Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it usually takes some months after nomination for a review to begin, so I have nominated it now. The 'A' class is rather confusing, which explains why it is so rarely used - it may appear on the table 'above' GA, but the criteria don't really make it 'better' than GA, and there is no formal route to its assessment. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the 'A' class is confusing. You're right that it's not really "above" GA in any real sense although it appears so in assessment tables. All that is clear about it is that it's supposed to be the result of an external assessment and that it's below FA. I can't see the point of it, myself. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well your assessment of the page as being better than GA, would actually make it an A Class! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely! If you look at Category:A-Class_articles, most of the subcategories are empty. I suspect that no-one ever does the outside reviews required to assess as A Class. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

'Scape': the redundancy referred to the the fact it was repeating what I had just written in the new preceding summary paragraph! I will leave it in :) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't feel any obligation to do so! What I really think is now spelt out at WT:PLANTS#Stems, stalks and such like, where I see you've commented. If you had used "stalk" rather than "stem" as the 'plain English' for "scape" then I wouldn't want to add something about its being leafless. But calling a scape a "stem" does seem to me to require emphasis of its leaflessness to distinguish it from a 'true' stem. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The Botanic Garden

Peter, I wonder if I could ask for your assistance. There are a few of us who are working on some of User:Wadewitz's articles, to bring them up to featured status and to continue her legacy. Currently, we're working on this article. Would you mind doing a copyedit? I ask you because you're active on the Botany Wikiproject, and this book is about botany, which is definitely not my area of expertise here. (Modern American Literature and children's TV are.) I'm not even sure in what botanical category this article belongs, other than its current categories. I'm really looking for whether or not it's comprehensive enough, or if it needs more botany content. I don't think its prose needs much, so I'd appreciate your assistance in assessing its comprehensiveness and scientific accuracy. Thanks, and keep up your good work here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Chenopodium bonus-henricus

Hello Peter coxhead, Blitum bonus-henricus is the accepted name since 2012, thats why I moved it there in 2013. But you moved it back to Chenopodium bonus-henricus, referencing just one database (The Plant List), that is not yet actualized. I added the taxonomic data to the page. Do you agree, that it can be moved back to Blitum now? --Thiotrix (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS requires us to use reliable secondary sources to establish information in Wikipedia. You say that it's the "accepted name" since 2012, but accepted by whom? Any botanist can publish a paper giving new generic placements, but the test is whether these are accepted by other botanists. I couldn't find any evidence that this was the case for Chenopodium bonus-henricus. If I'm wrong and there are reliable secondary sources for the move to Blitum, then it can, of course, be moved back. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Blitum bonus-henricus is accepted by GRIN and by NCBI (Blitum bonus-henricus at GRIN, Blitum bonus-henricus at National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). These were cited also at the foot of the article before your latest reverts. The Plant List is usually very late in updating, so it is not a good reference. Please revert your reverts, because I was just asking for technical help for moving back to Blitum, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. --Thiotrix (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, fine. When the article is moved back to Blitum bonus-henricus, then of course the article's taxobox and contents should reflect the article title, but not before – it doesn't make sense to the reader otherwise. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much Peter. I'm trying to do my best with these illustrations but it's hard to find information about fossil plants. I just uploaded File:Horneophyton lignieri reconstrucción.jpg! and an actualization of my old and poor image File:Nothia.png!, now I'm fighting with Cooksonia :P. Thanks again. Falconaumanni (Carlos for friends) 11:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Falconaumanni: I think your reconstruction at File:Horneophyton lignieri reconstrucción.jpg is slightly wrong (like others in the literature). The "bulbs" are only about 2× as wide as the stems, at most 3×, but in your drawing they appear bigger. See File:Horneophyton.svg and the links in the text there. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Humm, I didn't see that link about the size of the bulbs but only the other one about the sporangia. You are right about that, they looked bigger in the drawing than they apparently were. I made a change in the illustration, I think now it is more faithful. Falconaumanni (Carlos for friends) 17:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's much better. It certainly matches the size of the individual "bulb" in the central ring at File:Rhynie chert with Horneophyton 1.png. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was looking at that picture while drawing. It's the only one I found with a longitudinal view of a corm. I have seen that you have uploaded that image, It's really a fantastic fossil. Falconaumanni (Carlos for friends) 21:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Requesting review of articles

Hello Peter, what's the protocol for getting Wikipedia articles re-graded please? I've substantially edited quite a few articles now, most of which were stub class before. Does this happen automatically in time or do I have to flag it somehow?

Thanks, Tristan Tristan He (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Basically you do it yourself! If you wait long enough some active editor will change the assessment, but it may be a long wait. For plant articles, look at WP:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Quality scale, and pick a class up to B. If you've not sure, I'll be happy to give an opinion. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the sound of that! ;) I'll try to be objective.... Will update the ones I've worked on (Potamogeton polygonifolius, Potamogeton gramineus, Potamogeton coloratus, Potamogeton praelongus, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Potamogeton lucens, Potamogeton trichoides, Potamogeton berchtoldii, Potamogeton pusillus, Potamogeton, Potamogeton x griffithii, Potamogeton alpinus, Potamogeton compressus) but second opinion is always useful.Tristan He (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked at Potamogeton polygonifolius. It's a clear, well-written article, generally well-referenced; certainly a C. For a B (the highest that can be given without a review), I'd like to see:

• All sections referenced – the Cultivation section isn't.
• The lead being a genuine summary of the article – the lead section there is too short.

So personally, I'd rate it C. But maybe I'm a bit conservative. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy!

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

@Paine Ellsworth: thanks, I was in need of some "wiki encouragement", as it happens, so your message is much appreciated! Have a good holiday yourself and best wishes for the New Year! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine 

Pyroloideae and Monotropoideae

Thanks for your move of Pyrolaceae to Pyroloideae, as well as your additional work on that article. I think treating it as a subfamily separate from the Monotropoideae makes description of the differing features of these two groups easier, and reflects emerging taxonomic consensus. Also, I've nominated the Monotropoideae article for a "Did you know...?" entry since I've expanded it so much in the last week. A link to the nomination and also discussion of expansion of that article can be found at Talk:Monotropoideae. Cheers! Peter G Werner (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources do seem to agree – at least for the present! – on the subfamilies of Ericaceae. I think that the articles, including Ericaceae and List of Ericaceae genera, are now consistent. We do need an article on Styphelioideae, though.

I'm not clear where former family names such as Epacridaceae should redirect – to the family (as it does at present), to the subfamily, or to the tribe if that is what it now is? Peter coxhead (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Epacridaceae - probably to Styphelioideae once that article is created. Based on my reading, most of those genera, including Styphelia itself, were part of the Epacridaceae. There is a tribe Epacrideae within that subfamily, but that only contains part of what used to be treated in the Epacridaceae as a whole. Do you have a copy of Stevens, et al 2004? (The link I just gave is from Google Books, hence has page gaps - email me at User:Peter_G_Werner#Contact if you want a PDF of the whole thing.) That and the and the Missouri Botanical Garden's Angiosperm Phylogeny site are probably the most up-to-date pages on Linnean taxa within Ericaceae. Some other useful sources - Kron, et al, 2002, Johnson, et al, 2012, and Kathleen Kron's Ericaceae pages (Note that not all the links in these pages are well-highlighted, but lead to some excellent descriptions). Peter G Werner (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita at FAC

It is finally there! Your input and review would be greatly appreciated. I can never thank you enough for helping me all you have. The main reason I got serious about editing was to improve this article. HalfGig talk 00:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Narcissus

Narcissus (and Taxonomy of Narcissus) are now GA. Thank you for your help and encouragement. List of Narcissus horticultural divisions in the hopper for FL, and List of Narcissus species being prepared for FL. I may get around to upgrading the three GAs to FA eventually, meanwhile having a stab at Amaryllidaceae.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Amazing work! Both articles should certainly be easy to promote to FA.

Amaryllidaceae certainly needs expanding. I assume you are aware that a huge proportion of Amaryllidoideae had to be removed because it was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, whose article turned out to have a lot of material translated from English sources. So be wary of the advice at the top of the Amaryllidaceae article. Indeed, I think it should be removed as soon as you've done any significant expansion. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Very aware - see some earlier correspondence between us on this. When one uses multiple sources any resemblance to a particular source disappears. Narcissus followed the German version fairly closely to start with and has progressively departed from it. For the time being it seems reasonable to direct those wanting more and comfortable with Spanish, to that page.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Monotypic taxa

Believe me - I have struggled with this one for over a week - it comes up quite a bit in Amaryllidaceae. In the end I found revising the entire family structure was a lot easier if all the parts were in place. You recall we discussed it some years ago, specifically on Agapanthus. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

See my comment at Talk:Agapanthoideae. Sorry, but you can't unilaterally go against an agreed policy. At the least you need to raise this at WT:PLANTS and convince others as to why this is an exception to that policy. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but last time we discussed this there was not a policy - I must have missed that discussion when it arose. I responded specifically on the subfamily talk page and will investigate further. I don't think it is a question of exceptions, but of policy.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about pinging etc

Peter, I replied to your remark on William Grove in my talk page, uncertain whether to do it here as well or instead etc. JonRichfield (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

William Bywater Grove

Peter. I have had a go and his article now is back in the main body, together with several links. Over to you for now. I have incidentally found a portrait, with what I hope is acceptable copyright. Over! JonRichfield (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Great work! Not sure I will be able to add much, but I can do some tidying, copy-editing, etc. I had the impression he was a clergyman, but it seems not. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ipheion

Your comment about Ipheion not being in the World Checklist is a propos, because it raises the question of the reliability of that process. For instance Ben Zonneveld, a prominent authority on Narcissus has criticised them for making arbitrary decisions that seem to be out of touch with the scientific literature. And that has been my general impression too. In this particular case, there exists a similar problem. The recognised authorities on the Gilliesieae do recognise this genus and a number of others not recognised by Kew. Thanks for adding the comment though - that was one of my tasks in terms of a thorough revision of Gilliesieae, to indicate where the literature and Kew depart. Hopefully since the World Checklist and The Plant List are supposed to be international collaborations, these problems will diminish. Kew never publishes the reasons for their decisions, whereas the scientific literature does, in great detail. As a scientist therefore I have to prioritise the literature while acknowledging the efforts of Kew and TPL. But I am coming to rely on them less and less without researching the literature myself first. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your logic very well. However, I've been taken to task before – and rightly in terms of Wikipedia's policies – for using the primary literature when WP:RS, and particularly WP:PSTS, is very clear that we should not rely on primary sources. Suppose a single paper in a journal proposes moving a species to a new genus or establishing a new species. We don't know whether such proposals will be accepted by the botanical community: often they aren't. We have no authority to decide who is an "expert" on a group and so whose view should be taken into account and whose disregarded. So we should rely mainly on reliable secondary sources: WCSP, Tropicos, GRIN, TPL, etc., plus monographs and similar non-primary sources, while of course mentioning alternative views. Hence my position is that you should not "rely on them less and less" in Wikipedia articles, although you should "research the literature yourself". These aren't mutually exclusive! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As much a principle as logic. I think 'single primary source' would be a better description of reliability. In this case I am relying on the entire canon of literature on Ipheion, which I have mentioned has been problematic from the start, although I have discussed that in more detail in the higher taxon. Of course that raises the question of which is the more 'reliable' source. Secondary sources can be wrong too, which is why there is a literature on gauging the validity of research. One has to weigh up a primary source, as to whether it is an outlier, or controversial, or a logical development of a theory. I think the key principle for WP's purposes is that where sources differ, both should be mentioned. again, something we could mull over on the project talk page! I'm sorry that you have been 'taken to task', but often such occasions give rise to opportunity for constructive dialogue. I am encouraged that WP:PSTS, at least, directs editors to sound judgement and common sense! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The content of articles, where different views can be explained, is less of a problem than but taxoboxes and categories, where one alternative has to be picked. Here I believe we must keep to usage in reliable secondary sources, and not chop and change with each new paper by individual specialists. The same applies to new species. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The machinations of international taxonomic convention are frequently much more complex than any of us realise. As you may be aware I am keeping a watching brief on Gilliesieae as part of my overhaul of Amaryllidaceae. At the end of December I became aware of an the online advance posting of a publication in a obscure South American journal regarding Beauverdia. Within days, the Kew database had been amended. I imply prior consultation. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mgoodyear: actually if you look the citations in WCSP under the "Accepted by" tab are to: Sassone, A.B., Giussani, L.M. & Guaglianone, E.R. (2014). "Beauverdia, a resurrected genus of Amaryllidaceae (Allioideae, Gilliesieae)." Systematic Botany 39: 767-775 – a pretty mainstream source. My instinct is to keep the Ipheion article, but for the present say that it's no longer a recognized genus, and give a full list of all the species and their now accepted names according to WCSP. I've started work on listing these. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

True - I was looking at -

Sassone, Agostina B.; Arroyo-Leuenberger, Silvia C.; Giussani, Liliana M. (2014). "Nueva Circunscripción de la tribu Leucocoryneae (Amaryllidaceae, Allioideae)". Darwinia nueva serie 2 (2): 197–206.

However the timelines still apply! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mgoodyear: Going back to Ipheion, I've now been reading the original papers. I don't think that they do quite support what the article says. For example: Research published in 2010 suggests that although related to genera such as Tristagma and Nothoscordum, it is a distinct genus of 3 species, cited to Souza et al. (2010). The main conclusion of Souza et al. is that the species of Nothoscordum transferred to Ipheion s.s. don't belong there rather than that Ipheion is a distinct genus. Similarly: This leaves Ipheion section Ipheion representing the genus, but further work is required, citing Sassone et al. (2013). This implies that Sassone et al. say that further work is required to decide whether Ipheion should remain a genus, but I can't see that they do say this. What they actually say is "Results from these studies are just the beginning of a series of works to resolve the taxonomic position of Ipheion s.l.; a deeper study on the taxonomy of Tristagma and Nothoscordum will help elucidating this issue. If Ipheion is recognized as a genus, it would be restricted to I. sect. Ipheion, and closely related to Tristagma, or if recognized under Tristagma, it would be a section of it." The further work of the Wikipedia article is actually on Ipheion s.l., not on Ipheion s.s. Sassone et al. (2013) are clear that I. sect. Ipheion can either be recognized as a small genus closely related to Tristagma or as a section of Tristagma. They don't say that further work is needed to decide this. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I will take a another look at this. I am going through the entire tribe genus by genus, reviewing the taxonomic history. The other sign of the coin is do these genera deserve their own page when they have a long history. Ipheion is perhaps a particular case, since I can buy Ipheion bulbs at the local nursery in the autumn, as you probably can too.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I grow at least three cultivars of Ipheion uniflorum a.k.a. Tristagma uniflorum, bought under both names (won't be sure about the fourth until it reappears after the winter; it doesn't seem as hardy). I certainly support a page, but the question is whether this should be for a historically recognized genus or for a current genus. When in doubt, I tend to favour going with WCSP. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'd forgotten that the photograph of the cultivar 'Alberto Castillo' at Ipheion uniflorum is actually from my garden. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have three varieties in my garden, but they were never labelled as anything other than Ipheion when I bought them, and (not unusually) the catalogues I consulted only use the term Ipheion, which is well established in horticultural usage. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

URLs and DOIs

I very deliberately included both. If you remove the url, the accessdate also disappears. The latter is useful, I think, because if it is current, it is likely to be correct, while older ones I usually check because they often are not, or no longer exist. It also helps in finding archived versions for dead links. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The logic of a DOI is that it's permanent, so you don't need an accessdate. The same applies to a JSTOR, PMID, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically yes, but have you noticed how often cited DOIs are wrong? I have had to deal with many of these recently, and I am referring to those printed on the article's front page. The other thing is the issue of accessdates, too many are in numerical form which is often ambiguous. Thankfully the template dialogue, while lacking many fields, is alphanumeric. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Aloe pillansi

Hi Peter, I don't think it was correct to move Aloe pillansii into subspecies status. It doesn't interbreed with Aloe dichotoma at all, and it even flowers at a different time of year. There are no known hybrids. That's why they're considered separate species by SANBI etc. as well as in the new revisions which put them into the Aloidendron genus. I'd advise moving it back to species status where the article originally was. Abu Shawka (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

When I looked at WCSP in 2011, for Aloe it appears to have followed Govaerts, R. (2003), World Checklist of Seed Plants Database, which didn't recognize Aloe pillansii. However, it has since been updated to follow Carter, S., Lavranos, J.J., Newton, L.E. & Walker, C.C. (2011), Aloes, The definitive guide (see e.g. [1]). So all the references to WCSP in relation to Aloe species need to be checked and updated and articles adjusted accordingly. I'm happy to leave that to you. The only point I would make is that it's important to try to find secondary sources and not rely too much on primary ones, as per WP:PSTS.

Glad to see you back around again! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Gareth Davies

Thanks Peter; I replied directly on Wgolf's talk page, leaving a comment on the rationality of such deletions. I'll be interested to see whether anything constructive emerges. JonRichfield (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

Peter, meet User:Luannasaurus, a new editor, local to you, and with similar interests. I'd be equally happy to introduce you to each other in real life. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Eflora

This morning I had a bit of a stunner. Flora of China and Flora of North America were both demanding passwords, not letting me onto the system without one. Eeeee, gads. I need them for information, and besides that, I have in the past year created hundreds, perhaps a few thousand links to one site or the other. Imagine all of those links suddenly going dead. Fortunately, after a few hours things went back to normal.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph Laferriere: let's hope it wasn't a test of a system to be implemented later... I'm concerned about the long-term future of Kew's WCSP database – over here there are reports of the likely effects of severe cuts to Kew's budget. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The spectre of funding rears its ugly head. Here, there are bills before Congress that if passed would restrict access to many parts of the Internet, meaning that people would have to pay for many sites that are now free. Many people are fighting this, but with the Republicans now in control of both houses of Congress, there are no longer any guarantees.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"exit to sea" v. "exit to the sea"

Hello Peter. I know that you have an interest in language and the MOS, and I wonder if you could comment on a small grammatical matter that I feel is perhaps too minor to take to the general MOS talkpage. My question is this: do you have a view on which of the versions shown in this diff is more correct? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, there may be dialect variation, but for me "exit to sea" is quite wrong; it must be "exit to the sea". Peter coxhead (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting. I wrote the "exit to the sea" original, without even thinking about possible alternatives, and when it was first changed to "exit to sea", like yourself, I thought 'no, that's not right', but I have increasingly found myself wondering if "exit to sea" is somehow more technically correct w.r.t. the terminology used to describe rivers. I've said the phrases to myself so many times they now both sound equally right and wrong. Maybe I'll just revert back and see if the IP comes back with an explanation. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S Thanks! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

For supporting evidence, see the Google ngram. Not a common phrase, but still, "exit to the sea" is found, "exit to sea" is not.

When "sea" just means "water", then I can be use it without "the", e.g. "They moved from sea to land" = "They moved from water to land" because "water", "sea" and "land" here are general substances, not specific entities, and so are mass nouns not count nouns. So if "exit to sea" meant something like "exit to seawater" I think it would be ok. But it doesn't in this example: it's an exit to a specific sea – the sea outside the mouth of the river – not to "sea" as a general substance. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, thanks. It seems I should have trusted my initial reaction - though sometimes I refrain from doing that because of my own non-RP dialect, which can mislead me. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This sounds to me very much like a dialectical problem, similar to the color/colour thing. Good luck figuring it out.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Red oak

Regarding your edit to Red oak, first please note that it is a violation of WP:MALPLACED, as a "Foo" title can not redirect to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title. Normally, if the title was proposed to be ambiguous, this would require a formal move request. In this case, however, the current redirect is already the result of consensus in favor of a move request, at Talk:Red oak (disambiguation)#Requested move. Community decisions reached by consensus should never be upended unilaterally. bd2412 T 18:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I found Red Oak redirecting to Red oak (disambiguation) and didn't (and still don't) understand the logic behind a different redirection for Red oak. By all means make a different fix. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a WP:DIFFCAPS situation. Capitalized "Red Oak" can refer to a variety of place names; lowercase "Red oak" almost always refers to a kind of tree, and most frequently to the kind at the current redirect target. bd2412 T 23:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that I can't see any evidence for this. The second Google result for me for "red oak" is the capitalized entry here. (The first is the Wikipedia article on Quercus rubra.) In the UK, almost all floras and similar works capitalize species names, so that "Red Oak" is the name used in books for Quercus rubra much more often than "red oak". Peter coxhead (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The question is not whether "Red Oak" is ambiguous, but whether "Red oak" (or "red oak") is ambiguous. Can you find any instances at all of any of the cities on the disambiguation page being referred to as "Red oak" rather than "Red Oak"? Aside from the brewery, those are the only proper names. This is also a distinction apparent in this Google Ngram, showing that "red oak" occurs more than twice as often as "Red Oak". bd2412 T 14:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy that "Red Oak" should redirect to a disambiguation page. I disagree that "Red oak" should redirect somewhere else. Frequency of occurrence of the two stylizations is irrelevant to this issue. Suppose there were no places called "Red Oak". Then Red oak would be a plant set index article, like Red columbine, since when used to refer to plants, "red oak" is used as part of the name of species in Quercus section Lobatae, in the plural for the whole section, but mostly as the common name of the species Quercus rubra. Red Oak would then redirect to the Red oak SIA. However, there are places called "Red Oak". So make Red oak a dab rather than a SIA, and redirect Red Oak to it. Or make Red Oak the dab and redirect Red oak to it.

Anyway, it seems we're not likely to agree, and this discussion isn't really for my talk page now. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your help much appreciated

Hello Peter,

Thanks for your work - especially for fixing my mistakes. I was wondering about assessing quality - thanks for your advice there too. I'm trying to decide the quality of one of my favourites - Waratah. I'm sure it's better that Start Class. All the best to you. Gderrin (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gderrin: well, it would be a B in my view, certainly a C, as it's a great article, except for one thing: there are no inline references. (I'm a bit surprised that Cas Liber seems to have worked on it without adding any.) It's quite a serious fault, in my view, so if I assessed it, I would leave it as "Start". According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Quality scale, even a C article "should have some references to reliable sources", not just a list of sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

References should be easy to add....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Cultivar infobox revisioon

Dear Peter, In agreement, though perhaps exclude the option to vary the image size. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Colour me blushing

Yes ErikHaugen, my edit which you reverted (thanks) was unintentional. Big thumb problem when scrolling down Watchlist on ipad. Sorry about that. Moriori (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox help

I'm preparing to go through all of the Primates articles and convert them to {{Automatic taxobox}}. Per the consensus, I have set Haplorhini and Strepsirrhini to always display. I have already done some test runs with Lemur, Lemuriformes, Strepsirrhini, Fork-marked lemur, and Giant mouse lemur. I do have a couple questions, though. First, why is "Euprimates" showing up in some of the aforementioned articles? Second, since we've settled on a particular taxonomy for strepsirrhine primates, some of the ranks are not needed—such as Lorisiformes, Cheirogaleoidea, and Chiromyiformes. What should I do about them? Are they harmless, or does something need to be done. In short, we'll be using the 2-infraorder taxonomy listed on Taxonomy of lemurs.

By the way, the "update" link (under Subgroups) on the template pages is reporting that the toolserver has moved. You might want to update the links. – Maky ^« talk » 09:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Euprimates" shows up because Template:Taxonomy/Strepsirrhini has this as its parent. Remember that the automatic taxobox system simply follows the "Template:Taxonomy/X" hierarchy. So if you get something unexpected above taxon "X" you need to look at "Template:Taxonomy/X" and see what the parent is set to. I won't fix the Strepsirrhini issue myself, because it's better if you check all the primate taxa and make sure they are consistent. Although inconsistencies are reduced in the automatic taxobox system, they aren't eliminated altogether. Suppose that taxon W has the subtaxon X and X has the subtaxa Y and Z. Then one editor can set Y to have X as its parent and another can set Z to have W as its parent. This will produce W → X → Y and W → Z in the taxoboxes for Y and Z, even though Y and Z are at the same level in the hierarchy.

Yes, I know the subgroups system doesn't work. I think the documentation says this somewhere. I don't think that the code that was on the toolserver was migrated by its creator, so it can't be fixed, at least at present. I guess that this part of the system should simply be removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Euprimates, the system displays all taxa in between the current one and the next higher major rank. So for Lemur, it is going to display everything up the chain until the order is going to show up. (Aside: should Lemuroidea be always display?) We can squelch this behavior to remove Euprimates, but I think it will require a skip template. If we want to do this let me know and I'll do it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Erik, it also depends on how editors set the parent taxon in a taxonomy template. Suppose genus X is in subfamily Y which is in family Z. It's not necessary for "Template:Taxonomy/X" to have Y as the parent; both it and "Template:Taxonomy/Y" can be set to have Z as the parent, if Y should not be displayed in taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm fine with Euprimates showing up in the Strepsirrhini article (and therefore also the Haplorhini article), but not so much in the Lemuriformes or Lemoroidea (Lemur) articles. I guess I will point their parents Strepsirrhini, or something similar. So it sounds like I just ignore the other unused superfamilies and infraorders...

Well, hold on. The system deliberately shows all minor taxa between the current and the next highest major rank because that is what the designers of it thought was best. Do we really care enough to override that? Should we override it on all taxoboxes? Why are these ones special? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Are these special? I doubt it. I'm just worried that any higher-level taxa articles I create and take to FAC might get criticized for having too much taxonomic information in the infobox. But we can cross that bridge when and if it comes up. – Maky ^« talk » 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Erik's question about Lemuroidea, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm not planning on showing those infraorders and superfamilies in all the lemur articles. It's only meaningful at the higher levels. All systematics at that level are highly disputed, but this system was selected for use on Wikipedia because it allows the clearest and most consistent language to be used when talking about both living and extinct primate taxa, as well as their unique anatomy.

I mean on all the various lemur species/genera articles, e.g. Brown mouse lemur, should the taxoboxes include Lemuroidea? (This seems a lot more compelling to me than including Strepsirrhini on the taxobox at Brown mouse lemur.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals#Taxonomic ranks in taxoboxes (exception for Primates), I made the case that it's important to distinguish between the two major divisions of primates. At the species level, that's all that matters—they are either strepsirrhine or haplorhine primates, not which superfamily they belong to. I think superfamily matters at the family level, but that's all. – Maky ^« talk » 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that discussion. Your note here is in reply to me, but I'm not sure if you are trying to explain to me why having Strepsirrhini in the taxobox is more useful than having Lemuroidea, or if you have a different point? Or what your thoughts are on including Lemuroidea in all the lemur taxoboxes? In any case, I think what you outline here is what you have caused to happen with your changes from a few hours ago. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, please keep an eye on what I'm doing over the next few days. If I'm doing anything wrong, just let me know. I'll be monitoring the conversation here and return here if I have any other questions. – Maky ^« talk » 19:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, I see what Erik was saying. It would be ideal for Lemuriformes to show up in Lemuroidea (Lemur), which means it must be the parent. And likewise, Lemuriformes must have Strepsirrhini as the parent. How complex would a skip template be, and how would it work? I've noticed that at the family and genus level, this problem goes away, as Erik predicted. In other words, it's only a problem at these higher levels.

Well, currently it does show up on Lemur, because it is the parent. This isn't what I'm saying. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"How complex would a skip template be" – one possibility here, if Euprimates is really objectionable, would be to have an extra Strepsirrhini template that is used as the parent for Lemuriformes/etc. This template's parent would be Primates. The regular Strepsirrhini, used only at Strepsirrhini and perhaps as a parent for extinct Strepsirrhini subtaxa, would still have Euprimates as its parent. This way, Strepsirrhini would still list Euprimates, but Lemuriformes would not have Euprimates in its taxobox. Similarly for Haplorhini. We do this in various other places to keep e.g. Dinosauria off of Bald eagle, and to deal with limitations in WP's template system when the chain of template substitutions is too big. Here's an example, there are several: Template:Taxonomy/Eumaniraptora/skip. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to think on this... – Maky ^« talk » 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm beginning to rethink the Lemuroidea question now. It might be beneficial to let the lemur and lorisoid families point to their superfamily, especially since it won't affect articles for genera and species... but that might require discussion and consensus... (See Cheirogaleidae as an example, and then see their two developed children: Fork-marked lemur and Giant mouse lemur.) Your thoughts? – Maky ^« talk » 19:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure exactly what you're proposing. Would you spell it out please? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple: Lemur families show the superfamily (Lemuroidea). Below that level, superfamily is not shown. The only extra taxon rank shown would be Strepsirrhini (as mentioned above). – Maky ^« talk » 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

OK; I see what you mean. I don't understand why, but I think I see what you are suggesting here. (In any case it appears to be the status quo at this point.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I have gotten so confused by your questions. I'm sorry this has been so confusing. I guess I just don't understand what you're suggesting. Do you want to see superfamily Lemuroidea listed in the taxobox all lemur articles? If so, why?

Sorry if I've been confusing! I'm mostly just trying to figure out what everyone wants the taxoboxes to look like so I can help set up the templates to make it happen. (Also I want to keep track of how the templates are used for various reasons.) I don't have strong feelings either way about either of these questions. I just asked since we were talking about putting more things in taxoboxes and Lemuroidea seemed more compelling than Haplorhini/etc. "why?" – so that it will be easy to see from the taxobox that the species/etc is a lemur. Why did you want Strepsirrhini/Haplorhini in the taxobox? Same reason, I guess? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would love that. However, I'm hesitant because I'm worried it would be seen as an attempt to bloat the taxobox. Distinguishing lemurs and lorisoids within Strepsirrhini would be good, as long as it wouldn't force the infraorder Lemuriformes to be visible also. (That taxonomy is highly controversial, as I note in each article that mentions it.) Everyone agrees on the superfamilies, though. So if I correctly understand how this template works, then we may need a skip template to make sure Lemuriformes only shows at the superfamily level... If so, can you please help? – Maky ^« talk » 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Either way, the handling of Euprimates seems more convoluted now that I've had time to look at it. There appears to be two competing taxonomies: Primatomorpha (including Primates, Dermoptera, †Plesiadapiformes) or Primatomorpha (including Dermoptera and Primates) with Primates containing †Plesiadapiformes and Euprimates. In Google Scholar, the use of Euprimates (the latter) seems to win out, but the Wiki articles seems to favor putting everything in Primatomorpha (the former). If we were to switch to using Euprimates, the featured article Primate might have to be restructured, partly rewritten, or moved. (The complication is that the popular term "primates" typically refers to Euprimates under that classification.) Your thoughts on how to proceed? To be honest, I have neither the time nor the desire to make such a fix to the Primate article right now. – Maky ^« talk » 14:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That is interesting; thanks! I have no opinion at this point about which to use; if there's consensus among primate workers for one or the other then why not use it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, since Euprimates is currently a redirect to Primate, I'm just going to point the parent of Strepsirrhini and Haplorhini to Primates. If someone wants to challenge this taxonomy (and is therefore willing to make the necessary changes), then that will be their problem and we can address the issue at that time (if necessary). – Maky ^« talk » 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter, yes, by "between the current one and the next higher major rank" I meant of course the taxonomy templates currently linking those two. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infraspeciesbox

Template:Infraspeciesbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Species by common name cats

Why this edit? Was there consensus to depopulate these cats? Guettarda (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

These others are still populated. Guettarda (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but those categories all have a reasonable number of articles in them. There has been a consensus that "small categories" should be avoided; I've generally been quite conservative compared to some editors in interpreting this as 10 or more entries. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nutmeg

Hello, Peter - I see you have occasionally edited at Nutmeg, but I wasn't sure whether you had the article on your watchlist. I wanted to ask you about two edits:

1) This one [2]. I remembered a similar edit being undone back in November: [3]. Someone has added it back in again.

2) This one [4] (fiddled with in one or two subsequent edits). I don't think it's an improvement in the prose. CorinneSD (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist, but I don't get round to checking all of the changes (I really should prune the list!). I entirely agree that these edits should be undone. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you about this again. (I was away from editing for a week.) I looked at these edits again. I was thinking I could just revert back to your last edit, but there is one other intervening edit (changing "marijuana" to "cannabis"), and I wasn't sure whether that was a good edit or not. CorinneSD (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your judgement re the last "good" version and I did decide to revert to the one I last edited – the added material is not appropriate for the English Wikipedia in my view and/or not sufficiently reliably sourced. The use of "marijuana" occurs in an unsourced bit; I'd use that word rather than "cannabis" if the source did, but there wasn't one that I could see. So I changed the wikilink to avoid the redirect, and left a "citation needed" tag. Unfortunately articles on plants commonly used as food seem to attract well-meaning but unhelpful and unsourced edits. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That's why WP is fortunate to have knowledgeable people such as yourself as editors. Thanks for making the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)