User talk:Hyperik/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

from Tapir Terrific 02:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk to me!

Editing Category:Wikipedian high school senior
Hi, this was misnamed, and I can't move it to Category space. I'm going to delete it, please recreate it without the "Editing" on the front. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, the horrors of copy and paste. Whoops.  Thanks for that. ;) --Chickenflicker---♣ 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User NHS
I was wondering why you reverted my edit of Template:User NHS. I have userfied the box at User:WillMak050389/User NHS, and thanks to User:MetsBot, all user pages and links have been converted. Please reply why you have done this, or am going to revert this back. Thanks. -- Will Mak  050389
 * I was under the impression that the proposal to userfy userboxes that don't relate strictly to Wikipedia was rejected. Then again, I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia, so feel free to revert anything I do if it's against standard protocol. Thanks.=) Chickenflicker---♣ 16:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, any controversial or uncyclopedic boxes, which I think this box isn't too encyclopedic, userboxes are to be migrated to userspace. You can read about it at Userbox migration. I'm going to revert your edit to the template page and make sure all links to this page point to my userfied box. -- Will Mak  050389  23:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Balthamos
Hi! I wanted to know why you removed my reference to Balthamos eating and its connection to Paradise Lost.

Happy pi day!
$$\pi=\frac{\ln(-1)}{i}$$

Cheers! Thanks for your contributions to the AP Calculus article! -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion
 A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page. VegaDark 03:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Carniverous Tadpoles
Hi there,

Sorry for the late response, I have been struggling trying to comprehend the messaging system on Wikipedia. In response to your question about the carniverous tadpoles bit I added to the frog section: I know this to be true as I have a pond in my back garden and every year when the tadpoles arrive I have observed this. The first to develop into froglets seem to be targeted by the larger of the tadpoles and devoured. I can't say why this is, maybe because the froglets look different and no longer are recognised by their peers. But never the less it happens. The frogs leaving a baby sitter (which I also stated on the frogs page) I have also observed and this has been confirm'd.

Thanks for asking!

Max Warren

P.S. I like your user profile page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghidorah221 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Speedy deletion of Vince Dibattista
A tag has been placed on Vince Dibattista requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Jay Pegg (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Duluth Area Speedskating Club
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Duluth Area Speedskating Club, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not establish notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Zodon (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Meetup
 2009 Proposed date: Saturday, October 10. Details under discussion. Please share this with anyone who may be interested.  Delivered by Jonathunder (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your pictures
Hi, you have taken some good pictures. Would you mind uploading them to Wikimedia? Your clap skate hinge photo is very illustrating. Thanks, --Teodor605 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Evanston S.P.A.C.E.


A tag has been placed on Evanston S.P.A.C.E. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. &mdash;C45207 &#124; Talk 10:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Scott Anderson (pilot)


The article Scott Anderson (pilot) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * I'm not seeing notability here. His death and book received some local coverage but I don't see why an encyclopedia article might be justified. No non-local coverage found.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Michig (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Scott Anderson (pilot) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Anderson (pilot) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Scott Anderson (pilot) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Michig (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Chickenflicker; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Clapskate2.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Clapskate1.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Talking Farm


The article The Talking Farm has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication that this very local project is of encyclopedic value or that it is recognized as having a broader importance than that which is picked up just by the local paper."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Bupleuroides (Section)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Bupleuroides (Section), Chickenflicker!

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

"I was half minded to change this redirect to Hypericum bupleuroides as it's a mononotypic section. But I guess it puts that section into its broader context, from where just one more click would take you to the species, it required."

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

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Hypericum sect. Myriandra) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Hypericum sect. Myriandra, Chickenflicker!

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

"So why a different naming style from the previous Hypericum section?"

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

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Plant sections on Wikipedia (and other ranks between genus and species) are consistently titled with the genus, an abbreviation of the rank and the name of the taxon; e.g. "Foo sect. Bar". Animal subgenera aren't consistently titled; "Foo (Bar)" is how the ICZN would style them, but that might be confusing with Wikipedia's use of parenthetical terms for disambiguation, there are animal subgenera that are titled just "Bar" or "Bar (subgenus)". Plantdrew (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Reference ecosystem) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Reference ecosystem, Hyperik!

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

"Please try and add more than one reference in future - it avoids accusations of a term being a neologism. I've added a couple more for you."

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

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Ampelamus laevis) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Ampelamus laevis, Hyperik!

Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Would be helpful if you tag it as a stub. See Template:Plant-stub on how to do this."

To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bennv3771 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Thalictrum dasycarpum) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Thalictrum dasycarpum, Hyperik!

Wikipedia editor SkyGazer 512 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thank you for creating all these good-quality articles."

To reply, leave a comment on SkyGazer 512's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Hyperik, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AHyperik added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Taxonbars for monotypic genera
Just to express my appreciation for the work you've been doing completing taxonbars for monotypic genera. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Redlinked authorlinks on Tree
Hi, I was disappointed to see you reverting as if vandalism rather than undoing politely, indeed rather than discussing, ... indeed rather than leaving the matter alone, as it's hard to see what justification there can be for your addition of those links in the first place. There is no value in adding red authorlinks; if you think those authors deserve articles, by all means write them, and then do a search for places to link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi--sorry, I'm still relatively new at editing Wikipedia despite being a long-time user. I'm not familiar with the social norms here as far as undoing referring only to reverting vandalism. Those scientist articles do exist now, and the authorlinks were in preparation for creating the articles: Tristram Seidler and Joshua B. Plotkin. If you can point me to a policy on authorlinks I would appreciate it (I searched briefly but couldn't find one), as I thought redlinking was an encouraged activity for article generation. Thank you! –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Redlinks for species are generally thought good, as all species are basically notable and a redlink in that case is pretty much an invitation to create the article. Scientists are in my view more problematic as people can have written a good paper or two but not be considered to have reached a sufficiently high citation index to be notable. But if you've written them already then of course that's great. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Synonyms and taxonbars
Hi, the Taxonbar template does pick up multiple Wikidata items when the taxon synonym property is properly specified in Wikidata. However, we've generally taken the view that it's better not to rely on properties remaining in place at Wikidata, which has many fewer editors to take care of vandalism than there are here. So when there are Wikidata items for synonyms, as at Tetraena giessii, it's best to add all of them to the taxonbar, using from1, from2, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I figured I was previously fixing desynced taxonbars the "clumsy" way by cobbling together multiple froms, and ought to figure out the "right" way and get synonyms entered into Wikidata instead. But I'll do both in the future when I'm able. Good to know the background regarding fewer eyes on Wikidata vandalism. Thanks Peter! –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 12:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Quick Thanks
Hey, just wanted to give you a quick thanks for your edits on Hypericum densiflorum and other species in the genus. Those little edits with format and taxonbars and the like really add up and make a difference. If you're looking for other species similar to those to edit and improve, check out WikiProject Hypericaceae, a project recently started to try to elevate the St. John's Wort family (which Hypericum is a part of) to a higher overall article quality. Feel free to add yourself to the participants list as well if you feel so inclined.

If you have any issues or need any help- or want to collaborate on a project- please don't hesitate to shoot me a response here or visit my talk page at any time. Editing is always more enjoyable when you aren't going at it solo!

Best Regards, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 00:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks I'll add myself to the participate list there. I'm just about to hit save on another new Hyp sp. article. I think I will work my way through subsection Centrosperma. :) –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 01:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Parthenocissus inserta
If you could add a source for the first two paragraphs in the description of Parthenocissus inserta (is it from the Jepson Manual?), then the "additional sources" notice could be removed, which would look better. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where it came from originally, but I modified it to fit a source at hand. –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 12:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting duplicate/incorrect taxonomy templates deleted.
I saw you're trying to get a duplicate taxonomy template for Peoria deleted. When I create a bad taxonomy template (usually from a typo), I go with author requests deletion (WP:G7). That gets it deleted in a matter of hours rather than days.

Also, it's not necessary to add a disambiguator to the taxonomy template name unless there is another taxon with the same name. I suppose an argument could be made for keeping the template name consistent with the article title, but I've also heard the argument made that when two taxa share a name, we can just pick one of them to be the "primary topic" of an undisambiguated taxonomy template (the reasoning being that the title of the taxonomy template is entirely invisible to readers and it can save editors from having to type a disambiguator). Personally, I only create disambiguated taxonomy templates when there is another taxon with the same name on Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it stemmed from me acting too quickly and assuming it was disambiguated due to a plant or fungus named Peoria. Thanks for the tip about WP:G7! The template documentation there says There is a separate template for each criterion – see the table to the right which I thought they were "sub-templates" of G7 specifically. I see now that it's just a table of all the speedy deletion templates. Duh. :) –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rhampholeon bruessoworum has been accepted
 Rhampholeon bruessoworum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  Programming Geek talk to me 03:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Rhampholeon_bruessoworum help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Taxobox italics sensing
If there is value present in name for a Taxobox or Automatic taxobox, it stops the title from being displayed in italics, and Italic title needs to be used (you'd removed the italic title template in Tropidia, but there was a value for the name parameter). The italicization sensing for Speciesbox is more robust, and still works when there is a name value. Plantdrew (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Not specific to this per se, but is there are there categories or other places to watch for taxobox/automated taxobox/speciesbox/etc. issues like when I forget to remove "binomial" from binomial_authority or change "genus" to "taxon"? You find and fix them so quickly. :) –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There's Category:Taxobox cleanup, but it covers only a handful of issues. Probably most importantly, automatic taxoboxes missing taxonomy templates get caught in a couple of the subcategories there.


 * A lot of it I find by regex searches such as this one for Speciesboxes with binomial authority. I have a mental list of non-standard parameter values that show up in Speciesboxes/Automatic taxoboxes, and I search for them every couple of weeks. However, my grasp of regex syntax isn't great. Take this search for Speciesboxes with a image_width value); I've specified "image_width=", and it searches for exactly one space before and after the=. I'm sure there must be a way to search for variable amounts of white space characters, but I don't know how to do it. So if there's a taxobox with all the=s justified into the same column, it's not going to turn up in my search. And I'm not sure how to do a good regex search for "genus" instead of "taxon" in an Automatic taxobox (I get too many false hits from (type_genus).


 * So for "genus" instead of "taxon", variable spacing, and various typos in parameter names, I turn to this monthly report on template parameter values and names. There are reports for all of the templates in the taxobox family, but there are many infobox templates that don't have reports enabled yet. The reports usually come out on the 3rd of the month and it takes me a couple of hours the next day to work through them.


 * Honestly, the monthly Template Parameter reports are what originally got me interested in using the automatic taxobox system. When they first came out, I spent at least two and a half months clearing out hundreds of different bad parameters across thousands of manual taxoboxes. Typos in parameter names, English instead of Latin names for rank parameters, vandalism, and editors wishfully adding parameters that would never be supported by a taxobox (e.g. diet, habitat). It was a mess. And then there were various higher level taxa that were being presented at different ranks in lower level articles, and half dozen different ways of linking to a single higher level article. Manual taxoboxes provide tons of opportunities for inconsistency. There's still a bit of a mess with some manual taxobox parameters, but these days it seems better to just switch over to automatic taxoboxes rather than spending time fixing individual bad parameters in the manual taxoboxes. Plantdrew (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, another tool, not sure if you know about it, is PetScan. You might be interested in search (monotypic plant genera with taxonbars that only have one from parameter). Plantdrew (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(re italic titles) around January 2017 I made some fixes to Speciesbox which mean that it does handle automatically including Italic title better, as Plantdrew notes above, although not perfectly. Something similar needs to be done for other taxoboxes. The problem is the sheer complexity and number of cases that have to be handled, when articles can be at English names, species names, genus names, disambiguated genus names, ranks not requiring italics, ranks requiring mixed italicization (like sections or subgenera), etc. and taxoboxes have names (titles) which may or may not be the same as the article title or the target taxon. Much of the taxobox system, manual and automated, ideally needs re-implementing cleanly, as its incremental growth since 2004 has resulted in layers of fixes obscuring the underlying logic. But this would be a huge task! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month
Hey Hyperik, just saw your new article Hypericum assamicum and wanted to give you a heads up that you can submit it as an article at Asian Month as a part of that competition because it is flora of Asia. You can also add the template to the talk page to mark it as a contribution to the 2018 Wikipedia Asian Month. Thanks for your contributions, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 17:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep I submitted that and its cousin Hypericum sampsonii. :) My first edit-a-thon contributions. Wasn't sure if I should wait til they were "accepted" in order to put that WAM template on the talkpage... –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Stillingia
Apologies, I neglected to leave an edit comment when upmerging Category:Stillingia. Categories should be of a "reasonable size". There's no rigid rule, but it's often best to think about it the other way round: if all the articles were put into the parent category, would this need to be diffused? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How big is big enough for diffusion for taxon categorization? The potential category article number for Category:Stillingia is ~27, which is big enough for its own. And on the flip side, the potential category article number for Category:Hippomaneae is, at a quick glance, over 200. Is that not large enough for diffusion? The WikiProject Plants/Categorization guideline suggests 10–100 articles for sensible taxon category sizes. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, opinions seem to have shifted on what should be a minimum category size or the maximum when diffusion is possible. When I started editing plant articles, the view seemed to be that too big was over a page full (i.e. over 200 in the standard three-column layout), and this view is still sometimes put forward. A recent perhaps relevant decision has been to get rid of the "described in decade" categories (e.g. Category:Plants described in the 19th century used to be split up by decades), so on this basis, 10 is too small and 100 is not too large.
 * At the moment, Category:Hippomaneae has 72 articles, which is quite acceptable, I think. When there are 100 or more, then think about diffusing, is my advice.
 * Not directly relevant in this particular case, but it is important to think "top down". To take an extreme case, suppose a category contained 120 plant articles, of which 114 belonged to one immediate subtaxon and only 6 belonged to all the other immediate subtaxa. It would be wrong to create a category for the 114, even though considered alone it would be justified, because this would result in a category with only 7 members. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that all species are notable, my intention was to plan for the future. Seems an unnecessary amount of back and forth with these category reassignments.
 * As an aside I really don't understand the purpose of minimums and maximums for taxonomic category sizes (for some other topics, sure), and I rather wish taxonomic categories were just automatically assigned based on taxobox information... —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy with this view, provided it could be limited to the principal ranks. The key issue is the depth to which a reader has to search from a plausible starting point in order to get to an article. A real problem has been when some editors (particularly some now banned) started to create categories for many of the intermediate ranks and clades – imagine a category hierarchy with a level for all those visible at Template:Taxonomy/Mus, for example. For some ranks there's also the issue of reliable sources. For example, there are good secondary sources for the genera in families of plants, and for the species in genera. There are few such sources for subfamilies and ranks below genus. However, if you only categorized by the principal ranks, the category tree would be very unbalanced, given the differences between say Orchidaceae and Amborellaceae, and tidy minded enthusiasts for categorization don't like highly unbalanced trees, I've found. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Taxoboxes
Thank you Hyperik, for all the taxoboxes. -- Gpkp ( u • t • c ) 15:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect information in Taxobox
Hi there, you replaced a manual taxobox with an automatic one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrophorini&oldid=871229270 The automatic taxobox is wrong though. Agrypninae is the current subfamily, not Pyrophorinae. How do I update this so the automatic taxobox is correct? - Photocyte (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification to Pyrophorini! I had added the taxobox and the parent based on the 1975 citation in the original version of your new article. I see you figured out where to edit the taxonomy in the automatic taxobox system. I just updated it to the new reference that cites it as in Agrypinae and not Pyrophorinae.
 * Would it be better to redirect Heligmini to a page at Cleidecostina or possibly Euplinthini? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to self, discussion moved here. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Orthoptera pages
Hello - thank you for your edits, many of which I agree with. However, I would take issue on a couple of points where you have: Brgds Roy Bateman (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Downgraded articles from 'start' to 'stub'. There are far too many stubs in WikiProject Arthropods.  In my opinion these pages should not be stubs and I have suggested some clarifications to the criteria here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods/Article Classification - Perhaps you would like to comment there.
 * You are creating links where reference is made to tribes: that is all very well, but do you intend to actually write those pages?
 * Hi Roy—I commented on that thread you started. To respond to your points here: the number of stubs vs. starts within a particular taxonomic group isn't a factor to me in making project assessments. I've been trying to do stub vs. start assessments (across the tree of life) based on the presence of the following information: taxobox with correct formatting, parent, and author; taxonbar; basic taxonomic text description and sub-taxa if applicable; basic distribution; basic physical description; correct article style/formatting; no obvious glaring issues. If a taxon article lacks one or more of those things, I would generally consider that a stub. A genus article with a list of species but no other information is, to me, a stub. Some projects require even more information to be a start, e.g. see WikiProject Hypericaceae/Assessment. On the flip, for some very poorly known taxa, having all of that information may make it a C. Depends on the group. For example, I saw you reassessed Hypericum assamicum from C to start. What went into that assessment?
 * As far as redlinks to taxa, I, you, or someone else should/will create those pages eventually. :) Or in the case of many obscure tribes, redirect to an appropriate section, like Nereniini. No, I did not have any immediate plans to create those articles, i.e. nothing squirreled away in a sandbox, if that's what you were curious about? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 13:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again Hyperik - I find myself in agreement with >95% what you have written on the other thread as well … but I keep wanting to say "yes, but there is always another improvement". For me, whichever project applies, 'stub' and 'start' should have a clear(er) meaning and relate to further action.  Both have only a short text, but I suggest that 'stub' means the page should be improved or deleted ASAP (risk of "being dropped from being an article altogether" is actually from project plants), whereas 'start' and C contain useful information and the pressure is off.  All three, to differing degrees, are still a long way from the 'ideal' A class of course. For H. assamicum: a picture is worth a thousand words and is a non-specialist going to benefit much from: "shortly connate-perfoliate at the base (vs. broadly perfoliate bases), spatulate-oblong unequal sepals … ovaries with 3-parietal placentas (vs. 3-celled with an axile placenta), and subglobose to oblong capsules with rounded or obtuce [sic] apices …"?  … However, let's resolve to upgrade rather than downgrade articles in the future – and most importantly, improve to start class some the enormous backlog of 'stubs' (a category that I suggest is in danger becoming meaningless).  On tribes: again, I suspect we think similarly and I have also been writing redirects.  I actually designed the subfamily page here with tribes as sub-sections, so this is easy to do.  The redirects can easily be turned into articles of course.  I think this should be discouraged though, unless the family/subfamily is enormous.  Too many separate pages for taxonomic levels become difficult to navigate: especially for readers unfamiliar with the taxonomic group (or taxonomy in general ;-)).  In summary, with so much still to be done to describe the World's biodiversity, let's have a better mechanism for 'sorting sheep from goats' at the start stage.  Does that make sense?  Brgds Roy Bateman (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On the start/C boundary, I think your Thalictrum dasycarpum and its genus pages would most appropriately be 'Cs' and just upgraded them. Roy Bateman (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The boilerplate "being dropped..." text comes from Content_assessment—see the "More detailed criteria" area under the stub section. Taxon stubs with references (of valid, accepted taxa) don't, or shouldn't, get deleted, so this aspect of the stub criteria appears inapplicable. For non-taxon topics pertaining to the tree of life, that clause would usually kick in again. Stubs: The stub example for plants is in line with how I have been rating Orthoptera articles. For me, no physical description usually means it won't yet be a "start".
 * There are no photos, that I could find, of Hypericum assamicum available. There are two line illustrations, but they are copyrighted. Does that mean that it and any taxon page without existing or available photos, would never be C or above? I would disagree with that. I definitely agree that more detailed assessment criteria for taxon pages specifically would be helpful. Most of my re-assessments of existing articles are "upgrades", but I'll continue to follow the guidelines and examples in re-assessing as downgrades if I don't have the time or expertise to improve an article myself.
 * And yes, I definitely I agree, "there is always another improvement" :) but I'm just one person, and WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. I won't always have the capacity to create a tribe article, but I can quickly create a redlink to it in the article and taxobox, which signals to others that the article or redirect is missing. I believe WP:REDYES would be applicable to all extant taxa at species or above. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Phyllophora crispa
Thanks for adding the image of this species. However I think it is by no means a typical image of this species. Sorry. Try : http://www.algaebase.org/. I do not know how to add an image and whether there is any copyright requirements! User:Osborne 17:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the only image available on Commons for that species, but definitely feel free to remove it from the article if you think it is misleading (or incorrect). Looks like the photos of that species on Algaebase are all listed as copyrighted. There is this one on iNaturalist https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/9705141 that is available for use. Does that look like a good alternative? I'm not familiar with the species myself. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I would not be so bold as to remove a photograph you had lodged! The one you suggest is better - I'll take a look around and see what I can find. Thanks. Osborne 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. I've updated the main image. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That's much better - I think anyhow! I'll have to learn how to download an image.Osborne 21:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Siren (genus)
Hi. I saw the change of authorship you made on the Siren page, but I think you've been misled by an erroneous online resource; the AMNH page has got the wrong author name, and it's fairly obvious as to the source of the confusion. There is a link near the top to a 1926 ruling (Opinion 92) with the claim that Osterdam was the author. If you read the ruling itself, you will note that it says no such thing; in Opinion 92, Linnaeus was explicitly given authorship, no mention of Osterdam at all. The ICZN also explicitly attributed the name to Linnaeus 1766 in a 1956 ruling (Direction 57, p. 373), and this is cited in the "Comment" section near the bottom of the page. No one has petitioned the ICZN to reverse either the 1926 or 1956 attributions to Linnaeus. The recent citations by Dubois and Rafaelli are the source of the confusion (trying to claim that Osterdam wrote the description, rather than Linnaeus) and also not relevant; an author cannot unilaterally overrule the ICZN if they disagree with a formal Opinion. Had this been a genus which had not been placed on the ICZN's Official List, then it would be subject to change of authorship, but that ship sailed back in 1926. If Dubois felt that Osterdam should be the author, then he needed to present a convincing petition to the ICZN to do so - until and unless that happens, and the ICZN votes to reverse its decision, Linnaeus is the author of record, and not Osterdam, regardless of any claims to the contrary. I'm not sure why the AMNH entry followed Dubois' lead, but I've sent a message to a contact at the AMNH to see about getting that ironed out properly so the webpage doesn't continue to give misinformation. Dyanega (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information; I was just in the middle of adding the ref in your edit summary to the article. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Astragalus crassicarpus
Just letting you know that I added a DYK credit for you at Template:Did you know nominations/Astragalus crassicarpus. SL93 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome additions. I have it rated as start class, but I'm not sure if that is correct. I just know it isn't a stub. SL93 (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ordering of synonyms in box
Hi Hyperik, Thank you for your edits. Concerning the ordering of the synonyms in the taxobox, so far I have consistently clustered all names based on the same type under one bullit. I did so consciously because I think this provides clarity. Also, for brevity, I abbreviate the genus name, unless more genera with the same starting letter are involved. Is there some guidance that you base these edits on? Otherwise, I think I would be wise to discuss the merits of either method and perhaps draft some guidance. What do you think? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't found anything on the suggested ordering. I've variously listed synonyms by concept, chronologically, alphabetically (and so I definitely don't mind if you prefer to change it back at Mimetes argenteus). Sometimes I but the basionym first, for example, and the rest in whatever order I found them in the source, which is usually alphabetical. As far as abbreviations, I personally find them confusing in the taxobox. Especially confusing if there is more than one genus, or some are full length but others are abbreviated. I usually spare abbreviations for prose. If you do find some guidelines please let me know. I've been winging it. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never seen any advice on ordering either. I do agree that for species it's generally best to avoid abbreviating the genus name, because the synonyms may have different genera with the same first letter. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Same here. Never seen any advice on ordering. Ordering alphabetically or chronologically, possibly grouping by shared type, all seem to be reasonable ways to do it, as long as it's fairly clear what the logic behind the order is (i.e., I wouldn't order plant synonyms chronologically unless dates are appended to the authority). I prefer to write out genera, but that can sometimes lead to ugly wrapping across lines. Plantdrew (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Family first vs. family last?
Hi Hyperik, I saw your recent edit at Catasticta sibyllae where among other things which seemed to be a good idea, you changed "family Pieridae" to "Pieridae family". I've seen other editors making the reverse change and I've followed their lead. When I asked why they were doing it that way, they pointed me to Google Ngrams like this one and similar (bears, squirrels and us) where going "family" first is far more common. Does that make sense to you? Thanks, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   00:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither really sounds right to me, but "family Pieridae" sounded less right in the moment. I've written it both ways. But if Asteraceae="aster family", I'd rather say something like "the aster family, Asteraceae" or just "the Asteraceae" rather than "the aster family family" or "the family aster family". (I didn't know of a good common name for Pieridae to pop in there. "White and sulphur butterflies" is a bit of a mouthful.) The Ngram for Asteraceae leads me to believe either way might be common usage, at least sometimes. Also Google Scholar seems to flip the metrics for a few families I tried. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 01:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I found my last discussion on this topic at User talk:William Avery. That might be illuminating. The current MoS doesn't say anything about it and I see that at the draft guideline, Manual of Style/Organisms, nothing is said about word order and while examples are usually rank then taxon, a few are not. Thanks, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   03:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Either order is found in reliable sources, so should be acceptable, but the reality is that if you write "Pieridae family", sooner or later will change it to "family Pieridae" – look at their contributions – so you may as well not. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of my effort has been to reverse the "[taxon] family" syntax that Polbot used in creating stub species articles, and which others have then imitated. That "backwards" syntax has been largely eliminated from high profile articles, and my role in that process has been minor. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * well, based on my watchlist, your role is not at all "minor"; I haven't seen anyone else making just these changes. I agree with ; both are clear and both are found in reliable sources, so there's no reason to make changes. You've made it clear that you don't agree, and it's not worth edit-warring over. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say both are clear enough, so it becomes a bit of a personal style issue. I'd never change it either way unless the whole sentence was rewritten. I try to avoid using the scientific name of families if a vernacular alternative is available and put a piped link over it, for instance Bellis perennis is assigned to the "Asteraceae|daisy family". Regrettably, this does not work for Catasticta sibyllae because the popular name "whites" applies to the subfamily Pierinae. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I've incorporated putting family first into my workflow when converting Polbot articles with manual taxoboxes to speciesboxes, following the practice of WolfmanSF and William Avery. But I don't have a strong preference either way, and I sometimes forget to flip the order. Plantdrew (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources for facts aren't necessarily reliable sources for syntax. If you go looking, you can find many syntactical errors of various types in such sources. Scientific journal articles, for example, are typically not carefully edited for grammar and syntax. The authors, who may or may not be highly literate, and may or may not be native English speakers, for the most part just do the best they can. As I've tried to point out before, there is no special rule of syntax pertaining to the combination of "family" and taxon relative to the analogous combinations for other ranks. Yet usage is different to some degree, especially in botany. This is obviously due to elements of confusion arising from the common use of "family" in nontaxonomic settings, which somehow has led to conflating the use of "family" with a formal taxon name (a combination which is not a compound noun) with use of "family" with a common name for a taxon (a combination which is a compound noun), combinations for which the normative word orders are opposite. Botanical confusion is probably greater simply because of the large number of nonspecialists who use botanical Linnaean terms due to involvement in horticulture. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an essay contest or an exam in English grammar. As said, the important thing is that the content is correct and correctly understood. Better English would be preferable and from now on, I will personally use "the family Abceae" and avoid the order "Abceae family". Making the order of these two words an issue however, may convey the message that syntax is more important than content on Wikipedia. I think that would be regrettable. By the way, I'm not a native speaker. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * there's no academy prescribing rules of grammar for English; correct formal syntax is based on usage in reliable sources written in formal English, and not what either you or I might argue for.
 * We all agree (I assume) that "the daisy family" is correct, meaning "the family of the daisies", in just the same way that "the Brown family" is correct, meaning "the family of the Browns". In stacked noun phrases, the non-head noun(s) have to be singular (hence "mouse mats", "cylinder heads", etc. and not "mice mats", "cylinders heads", etc.).
 * As agreed at WP:PLANTS/TAXONNUMBER, although in Latin, family names are plural, in English they are treated as either singular or plural in reliable sources, and can be treated in this way in Wikipedia.
 * Hence substituting "Asteraceae" for "daisy" to give "the Asteraceae family" is entirely correct syntax and perfectly acceptable in the English Wikipedia.
 * you may have a view on this as you have been working on Manual of Style/Organisms, which could contain guidance on this issue.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm generally in agreement with both Peter and WolfmanSF at once, to the extent that's possible. Both styles are in use in RS (both specialist and non-specialist), readers don't care, most editors don't care, and I really don't think any page of MoS would try to "ban" one or the other.  I would think that context matters.  In a paragraph about taxonomy, I would be fairly likely to use TaxonTerm TaxonName order (family Asteraceae), since the style has a precision and concision and "tie the identifier to the identified" nature that works well in a long string of taxonomic detail.  But I do the opposite (and with a leading "the") in plainer-English material ("The foobar, though a member of the Bazzquux family, is often confused with a doodah yahoo because ...").  To me, using TaxonTerm TaxonName order outside of a taxonomic context comes across as self-consciously "academical" just for the sake of sounding professorial.  It's an archaic word order that isn't not used much in normal writing and speech – no one under about 80 years old would say something like "I'm ran into the sisters Johnson on Tuesday. They both work for corporation Microsoft." (Well, some of that survives a little in Irish English, where they have County Mayo rather than Mayo County, but I'm skeptical this Victorian word order is used much outside of stock phrases and name; I don't recall it behind habitual when I was there in the '90s). PS: I don't buy the argument that because -aceae signifies 'family' that adding the word family after it is redundant; if that were really true in English, we would always simply say "the Asteraceae", since putting the word first would be 100% as redundant. But of course the average reader has no idea what "the Asteraceae" means.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Microsoft Corporation" is the official name of the company, so "Microsoft" is just shorthand for that. As far as usage in books goes, look at the statistics below (follow the links). The differing word orders I have indicated for Linnaean and common taxonomic terms are mostly followed pretty faithfully. RankTerm TaxonName is definitely not archaic; in a number of cases, the reverse is not even found.


 * No-one, to my knowledge, has ever denied that "taxon-rank scientific-taxon-name" is generally more common (and personally I prefer this style). The point is different: as your Google ngrams show, both styles are found in reliable sources with reasonable frequency, so an editor is entitled to revert changes from one to the other, just as they are changes from "Asteraceae is" to "The Asteraceae are" or vice versa. (Last word from me here). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A point I'd like to make is that the syntactical rule we're discussing is a fairly general one, not one restricted to combinations of formal terms for taxonomic rank and taxon name. I'm not a grammarian, so I can't describe this in the most technical manner possible. However, our subject is the combination of two nouns, one more general and one more specific, neither of which can be treated as an adjective. If the meaning of the combination is the same as the meaning of the more specific noun, i.e. the more general noun simply states the category of the more specific noun, the more specific noun usually comes last. If the combination has a completely altered meaning (although probably still a related one), the more specific noun usually comes first. Consider these examples:

Given the generality of the rule, I think we should be able to use inductive reasoning to infer that when combinations of "family" and Linnaean plant family names are treated less consistently than analogous combinations for animal terms or for other ranks, the outlier case represents a higher frequency of sloppy or mistaken usage due to confusion resulting from the use of "family" in both formal and informal ways. In my view, Wikipedia does not need to reflect, and thus help perpetuate, the confusion that exists in usage of this type of noun combination. WolfmanSF (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * well, I said "last word from me" above, but... (I have taught linguistics, by the way.) No, it's not a confusion; it's you that are confused. Firstly, in your table above, you are not comparing like with like. You can only compare cases where "X is (a) Y" is the meaning, X is a name, and X does not have a common adjectival form. In these cases, both "X Y" and "Y X" are found, as your Google ngrams show, and neither is wrong, although one is often more common than the other.
 * It's quite usual to name genes for what they code for, so "the gene telomerase" is not necessarily a changed meaning, and then demonstrates the opposite of what you claim. (See e.g. which has "encoded by the gene telomerase reverse transcriptase", which names the gene; it could equally be "encoded by the telomerase reverse transcriptase gene").
 * Mars is a planet → "planet Mars" OR less often "Mars planet", because of "Martian planet"
 * Europe is a continent → the "continent Europe" (very rarely "Europe continent", because of "European continent")
 * "family hominid" is just wrong because "hominid is a family" is wrong; "hominids are a family" → "hominid family" – nouns used in this way are singular or treated as singular – exactly as "Hominidae is a family" → "Hominidae family"
 * "opioids are a family [of drugs]" → "the opioid family [of drugs]", not "the family opioids", even though "X is addicted to opioids" is ok, so it looks as though "opioids" is the name of a group of drugs
 * You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK (but then so do I!). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am quite happy to refrain from pointing out the problems with the statements you just made and not discuss this topic further. However, I do intend to continuing making edits that change nonnormative to normative syntax, and if I get sniped at for doing so, I will be forced to respond. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey
Hi Hyperik

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Reticulated siren
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Astragalus crassicarpus
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Species box for Felicia echinata
Hi, thanks for all the help. I tried to change taxobox to speciesbox for Felicia echinata, but it gave a warning about the section Anhebecarpaea. Btw, Felicia has six sections: Anhebecarpaea, Dracontium, Felicia, Lignofelicia, Longistylus and Neodetris. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I created the taxonomy templates for the other sections too, so they should be good to go for future speciesboxes. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Hyperik. I just noticed that you forgot to create Felicia sect. Felicia. I´m not working on any of them yet so no rush but I would appreciate it if you could also add a taxonomy template for that. Thank you again, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be good to go now! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Facebook plant groups
Thanks for stepping up on the "updating Wikipedia based on stuff brought to the attention of plant groups on Facebook" front. I was going to take care of it myself, but I had to step away from the computer for a bit right after I found the GRIN link. Good catch on the duplicated IPNI ID on Wikidata. Plantdrew (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, making the world slightly less botanically mystified one edit at a time. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Category changes
Hi, can you explain what you are doing in edits such as this? You appear to be emptying categories (which would then be deleted) without going through the WP:CFD process. DexDor(talk) 06:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've been following the lead set by others in cleaning up the overcategorization around plants, animals, and other taxa, mostly put into place by a now blocked user (Caftaric and their several sock accounts). I think I first dipped my toes in with Category:Orchid taxonomy, which other users handled without going through CFD, see its talk page. Category:Orchid species was emptied following that discussion with the same tool I've been using, then CSDed and deleted. If that's an inappropriate use of the tool/system I'm happy to modify my activities. Some of the blocked user's category systems make sense and others don't, and I've been trying to get a handle generally on some of the more important aspects of taxon categorization that need standardizing here. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. In a case like Category:Marine edible bivalves (where it's not obvious why the category was bad) it probably would be best to use CFD (which is quite easy if you use Twinkle) so that the reason for the deletion is documented. Alternatively, if you do empty a category based on a discussion elsewhere it'd be helpful to link to that discussion (in edit summary or in a CSD rationale). DexDor(talk) 06:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * as one of the editors who has been cleaning up and emptying categories created by the banned user/sockpuppets Caftaric/NotWith/etc., I would just say that it's well established that this editor's categories were created without discussion or consensus, and there has been a strong consensus in multiple discussions to get rid of most of them. "Created by Caftaric/NotWith" has been widely accepted as a sufficient reason. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Parent parameter in speciesbox template
Yes, your edit to Acer rousei is the way forward. Although parent has been available since I added it in February 2017, and it's in the documentation for the template, it's not been "advertised" and hence is only rarely used.

My ultimate idea is that there would be a single 'autotaxobox' template, combining at least Speciesbox, Subspeciesbox, Infraspeciesbox and Automatic taxobox. You would specify (a) an entry point into the taxonomic hierarchy encoded in the taxonomy templates (b) some lower-level taxa that would be added by the taxobox template itself. One issue is what to call the 'entry point' parameter, since "parent" isn't right; it's consistently used in taxoboxes to mean the rank above the target of the taxobox, e.g. for a subspecies, the parent is the species.

Any ideas? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge the taxonomic backbone into Wikidata, use QIDs, call them all Taxobox, and rename current taxobox to Manual taxobox. Easy? :)
 * Sorry, I don't fully have a handle on what's possible or how complex it is...make  and   work equally? Hypericum ascyron subsp. pyramidatum -->   ? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Re Wikidata, no, this absolutely would not work, for many reasons. One is that we have different classifications coded in the taxonomy templates via "variant" versions (e.g. the birds and dinosaur editors have different views on what has the rank of class). Another is that there are many more editors here than at Wikidata, so our taxonomy is much better curated. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Catalan Wikipedia is using taxoboxes that pull from Wikidata. ca:Tyrannosaurus is in class Reptilia, and there's no way to get to dinosaur via the taxobox. ca:Butomus umbellatus has Wikidata items linked for the monotypic genus and family. I'm not entirely sure how their system works, but I think they're at the mercy of Wikidata editors in terms of having all the sitelinks on one Wikidata item, which might not be the right one for the taxobox they want (actually, maybe Catalan taxoboxes are a good argument to stop putting all the sitelinks on a single item). Plantdrew (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I refuse to put all the sitelinks on a single item. It's a thoroughly bad practice. A minor, but significant point, is that it messes up taxonbars. More importantly, if the genus X is split up, and some wikis accept that the former species X y is now Z y and some do not, the articles about X y and Z y are not about exactly the same topic, since they should discuss the move differently. The right way to connect articles on synonymous taxa is to put the sitelinks on the Wikidata item at the name used in the article, and then pick up connections between articles via the "taxonomic synonym" and "basionym" properties. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew one also, iirc. I think the original code for this resides in Module:Taxobox. It makes a lot of sense for smaller language Wikipedias, and in an ideal world for all, but the number of editors here is a compelling argument. Wikidata also allows multiple paths so has to take one. A while back, someone posted a link to a site creating networks based on Wikidata taxonomy (possibly Andy Mabbett suggesting it for use on taxonbar?).  Jts1882 &#124; talk 20:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * in an ideal world for all – well, the world of Wikidata would have to be very different in relation to taxonomy to persuade me. Firstly, the very long discussion at wikidata:Property talk:P1420 led to the conclusion that no-one knows how to model variant views of taxa in Wikidata. (The key example there is Araceae/Lemnaceae/Lemnoideae. "Lemnaceae" and "Lemnoideae" are two different names at different ranks for the same taxon, if "taxon" is defined as a group of organisms with a particular circumscription. But "Araceae" is the name at the same rank for two different taxa, only one of which is the parent of Lemnoideae. No-one has been able to explain how this can be represented in Wikidata, or indeed in any kind of regular relational database.) Secondly, Wikidata's taxonomic entries are overwhelmingly created by scraping databases – and have to be because there isn't enough editor time to work any other way. We saw very vividly what problems this causes with the almost defunct The Plant List database – its automated scraping of entries from Tropicos, for example, was frequently completely wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the Catalan taxobox gets the taxonomy by following the parent taxon parameter (P171), but only shows when the rank (P105) is standard linnean (family, order, class, etc). It does seem a major limitation that this means the dinosaur taxa don't show Dinosaur. But you can understand why they use Wikidata as we must have orders of magnitude more editors.
 * One use of Wikidata that I thought might be useful here is when there is no taxonomy template. When the create taxonomy page is created, Wikidata could be used to suggest a parent.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * it's interesting that if you go to Saurisquis (saurischian), the taxobox shows Class Reptilia. But if you click on the Reptilia link, the Catalan article has no taxobox, and the taxonomy section has a quite different classification. We all face the problem that there's no taxonomic consensus among biologists who work on different groups. Wikidata tends to create the illusion that there is.
 * In an ideal world, editors would always fill in refs in taxonomy templates, and the parent would be taken from the reference. I have been thinking about issuing a warning when a taxonomy template is created without any reference. I worry that editors would treat Wikidata as a source, if it were used to make suggestions. But it's an idea. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two opposing goals. One is using reliable sources as the basis for change, the other is facilitating use of automatic taxoboxes. A category for taxonomy templates without references would be one approach, but I suspect the numbers might be daunting. As for people accepting wikidata as the parent source, is that worse than people giving up on the automatic taxobox? Maybe only use wikidata parents when they have a reference (unfortunately rare). It's just an idea. Wikidata has information that could be useful in the absence of alternatives. The questions is can it be policed in a useful way.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 20:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about your edits in an existing page stored in Wikipedia: Shipworms
Hi Hyperik, Please can you explain why you made the edits which seemed to remove several valid entries from the taxobox in the Wikipedia page for Shipworms?

In particular I'm puzzled as to why you edited the taxobox in Shipworms leaving two of its entries in red, a colour which indicates they do not exist as pages on Wikipedia?

I mean:

a) Order: Myida (shown in red) does not exist as a page on Wikipedia. So should it be Myoida, which does exist as a page on Wikipedia?

b) Superfamily: Pholadoidea (shown in red) does not exist as a page on Wikipedia. So should it be Pholadidae, which does exist as a page on Wikipedia?

I notice that others on your Talk page have asked you questions about why you have edited taxoboxes on various pages, removing entries.

Explanations are needed from you soon.

Anameisbutaname. 13:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "I notice that others on your Talk page have asked you questions about why you have edited taxoboxes on various pages, removing entries. Explanations are needed from you soon." Is there something I missed explaining or a mistake I missed repairing above? Otherwise this feels like a threat.
 * The taxonomy in the taxobox for shipworms comes from the World Register of Marine Organisms, cited here, which in turn comes from MolluscaBase. This information can be modified through the automatic taxobox system.
 * On WoRMS:
 * Phloadoidea
 * Myidea
 * If you are questioning the accuracy of the taxonomy on WoRMS or MolluscaBase you might want to bring it up at WikiProject Bivalves/Gastropods/Marine life/Tree of Life, or the article's talk page, instead. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely no threat was intended. All I mean is that if any links are shown in red - especially when other pages are available that would not be shown in red if the links to them contained the correct spelling - why just leave them shown in red? There were no links shown in red before you made your edits. As you made the edits which brought up the links shown in red, why don't you complete the job yourself by bringing it up at WikiProject Bivalves/Gastropods/Marine life/Tree of Life, or the article's talk page? Anameisbutaname. 11:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've edited the taxonomy template to redirect Myida to the Wikipedia page Myoida. Myoida seems the more logical name for the order, but WoRMS uses Order Myida and Superfamily Myoidea and doesn't give anything that helps on synonyms. If WoRMS is the standard reference for Gastropods, should the wikipedia page be renamed?   Jts1882 &#124; talk 13:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jts! Please see Talk:Myoida to continue the taxonomic conversation if at all interested. I have no expertise and little interest at this time in the higher ordering of this group and will leave it to others. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reposted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bivalves, as this spelling issue applies to all bivalve orders. Please continue discussion there. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories fail to show properly
Hi Hyperik, perhaps you or one of your followers could have a look at Felicia amelloides. The categories at the bottom of the page do not show properly. The code look alright to me.

Perhaps I could also ask to have a look at the quality rating, as I have extended this article quite substantially. Thanks in advance! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a little thing—the categories still had the colons at the beginning of the links, maybe from it, or a template article, being in draft space. It looks like a solid "C" so far to me, possibly B but I couldn't say without knowing more about the plant beyond what you have in the article. Such a cheery little flower. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks again!, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Invasive species de-categorization
Hi. Can you offer an explanation/justification for the removal of over a hundred different invasive animal species from the various categories of invasive animals? Just for example, there are dozens of insects that are invasive, yet the category now contains only 2 species. Are you planning to create a new category (or categories) for all of the invasive taxa you've de-categorized? Dyanega (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Did I miss adding an edit summary somewhere? Sorry about that, I thought included them on each change. I was following the guidelines in the various category descriptions (e.g. see Category:Invasive species, Category:Invasive animal species, Category:Invasive mammal species, Category:Invasive animal species in Australia), which each say something to the effect that these types of categories are "for articles and lists dealing specifically with the introduction of species by man. Please do not add to this category [to] general articles about single organisms, unless they are concerned specifically with the species' introductions." —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This particular definition is completely at odds with every other definition appearing in Wikipedia, because whoever edited that category definition at Category:Invasive_species has confused it with the term "Introduced Species" (they even link to a discussion of this entirely different category!), and in effect swapped the terms around so instead of talking about introduced species, they refer to species introductions - and the resulting re-categorization is pretty disastrous if it can't be undone. All the articles and categories that deal with invasive species, e.g. Invasive species, which states "An invasive species is a species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and that has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health." and Lists of invasive species, which states "A species is regarded as invasive if it has been introduced by human action to a location, area, or region where it did not previously occur naturally (i.e., is not a native species), becomes capable of establishing a breeding population in the new location without further intervention by humans, and becomes a pest in the new location, threatening agriculture and/or the local biodiversity." ALL of the articles you've re-categorized refer to invasive species by these standard definitions. I'm going to go ahead and change the definition so it refers to invasive species and not species introductions; if there's a way to revert your edits, that would be extremely helpful. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * After examining a lot of the category hierarchy, only a few category pages seemed to NOT have the baffling boilerplate with the prohibition against listing articles about invasive taxa unless the article was about the introduction of the species. However, some were fine - see Category:Invasive_species_in_New_Zealand for an example of a properly-phrased prohibition that allows the category to still be useful. Dyanega (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitions of "invasive" vs. "introduced by humans" vs. "non-native" vs. "naturalized" aside, the intention in the category descriptions was to not include articles about a species generally, only articles specifically focusing on a species's invasiveness. Looks like you removed that from the category descriptions though.
 * For example, we definitely would not call Sarracenia purpurea invasive here in the lower Midwestern United States (where it's rare and highly conservative), but one might in Ireland, so an article about Sarracenia purpurea in Ireland or one called List of invasive flora of Ireland might be classified under some sort of invasive species category, but Sarracenia purpurea itself shouldn't be.
 * See also:
 * June 2009 CFD Category:Invasive species by country; renamed to Category:Lists of invasive species
 * January 2014 CFD Category:Introduced saltwater fish of...XYZ; deleted
 * January 2014 CFD Category:Introduced Species; comments proposing listifying, limiting categorization to articles specifically about invasiveness
 * February 2014 CFD Category:Introduced freshwater fish of...XYZ; deleted
 * March 2014 CFD Category:Invasive plant species in...XYZ; listified and deleted
 * I'm sure others following this talk page have thoughts to add. They often seem to so far... :) —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 02:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The boiler plate seems to have been copied down from Category:Introduced species, which has been a parent of Category:Invasive species longer than the boiler plate has been around. The boiler plate was, from what I observe, poorly addressing a real issue with the Invasive/Introduced categories. Invasive is meaningless without a geographic context. Category:Invasive species has one immediate subcategory that goes into geography, and three subcategories based on taxonomy (plant/animal/fungus), which are further subdivided taxonomically. Prior to Hyperik's work today there were a lot of articles in the "invasive by taxonomy" categories that weren't in any "invasive by geography" category (and after Hyperik's work today, these aren't in any invasive category at all). There are some articles that are "invasive by taxonomy/geography" intersections (e.g. Category:Invasive animal species in western North America); there's probably a place for doing some basic taxonomy subcategories intersections (plant/animal/fungus at least) in a well developed tree of "invasive by geography" categories. But Wikipedia is a long way from a well developed "invasive by geography" system.


 * Some invasive by geography information was lost today. A glance at Hyperik's edits shows Sphinx ligustri being removed from Category:Invasive animal species in Australia. Nothing in the article supports that categorization (although I don't necessarily doubt it). Maybe it should have gone into Category:Invasive species in Australia instead, but really, "invasive" is something that should be sourced anyway. Waif/accidental/persisting/escape/introduced/naturalized/weedy/invasive isn't an objective continuum anyway. Designation as "invasive" particularly should be possible to ascribe to a source prior to being categorized as "invasive". Plantdrew (talk)
 * Minor semantic note—nothing has been "lost". Any of the various changes listed in my contributions from today can be reversed if need be.
 * But I would personally prefer referenced lists in article space than the more difficult-to-maintain category system for "invasives by geography". Invasiveness can definitely be a touchy subject and it's really commonly confused with just anything non-native. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 04:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion shows one of the many problems with categorization, namely that there's no requirement for (or indeed possibility of) explicit sourcing, which is mandated for information in articles. So the best that can be done is to insist that a category is not added unless there is explicit sourced support in the article. However, this isn't the norm.
 * Another major problem with categorization is maintaining the consistency of the category. We have enough problems with "described in YEAR" categories for organisms, where the ICZN and ICNafp at least offer a body of rules. Something like "invasive" is too subjective. Only something like "Category:Classified as invasive by X" would work in my view.
 * So I support Hyperik's actions. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Only something like 'Category:Classified as invasive by X' would work" Maybe something global in scope, like the Global Invasive Species Database or GRIIS, though I'm not really familiar with those or if they're well-maintained. Category:Invasive species with evidence of impacts in the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species is a bit of a mouthful. :)
 * Regional government designations like Category:Noxious weeds of Illinois, Category:Invasive plant species regulated by the Illinois Exotic Weed Act, Category:Potentially invasive, banned plants of Connecticut, etc... I don't think those would be defining enough and would be really cluttery. Some species would have dozens of categories. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this to the point: I see no reason that species which are widely known to be invasives, commonly categorized as invasives, and with citable sources stating them to be invasives, can appear in Wikipedia in Lists of Invasive Species but CANNOT be placed in any category that indicates they are invasive. That seems to be an incredibly counterintuitive and counterproductive policy. Consider just one example: at List_of_invasive_species_in_North_America there are roughly 100 insects listed as invasives. Most of them that were not redlinks USED to be in an "invasive" category, now, after Hyperik's edits, NONE of them are categorized as invasive. If these species are invasives, then there needs to be a category that they can all be placed in. Requiring that the article has to be strictly ABOUT their introduction, and not about the species itself, is not constructive at all, and removes an important tool - the use of categories - that would help people navigate Wikipedia content. Again, if we can have lists of invasive species, how is it sensible to prohibit people from using categories that reflect those lists? Dyanega (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think "there needs to be a category that they can all be placed in"? (as well as the list) I fully support H's edits. DexDor(talk) 19:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Listify" is a common argument when discussing deletion of categories. The existence of a list of articles with a shared characteristic doesn't mandate a category for that characteristic. Now I'm not saying that invasive species CANNOT be so categorized, or that we should prohibit people from using said categories. But most the current tree of invasive categories is a poorly thought out mess, and geographic categorization of non-plant organisms on Wikipedia still lacks clear standards. Category:Invasive animal species in North America‎ is a parent of Category:Invasive animal species in the United States‎ which is a parent of Category:Invasive animal species of Guam‎. Guam is in North America now? Russia spans two continents; France includes portions of five continents. I'm not sure it makes much sense to categorize invasive species on a continental level; none really occupy the entirety of any content, and there are at least a few species that are native and invasive in the same continent. Building an invasive category system from the bottom up (stating with much smaller political units) would be a lot of work, and fauna by country categories routinely come up for deletion. Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How about this, then: for articles about invasive species introductions AS EVENTS, we have a category called "Category: Species Introductions". For articles about invasive species AS SPECIES, we use the "Category: Invasive Species" categories? While I definitely see your point about a confusing hierarchy, I would argue that removing all the species articles under these categories only accomplishes the proverbial throwing out of numerous babies with the bathwater. "Introduced Species" and "Species Introductions" are NOT synonymous concepts or terms, and I still don't see why the categorization of the former has to be conflated with the categorization of the latter. Dyanega (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still real leery of categorizing species as invasive without specifying where they are invasive; and appropriate categories for the "where" will take some thought (it may be worth looking at Category:Endemism and it's subcategories for guidance). For articles that discuss species introductions as events, the "where" is usually part of the article title, so I don't feel it's imperative that the category itself specify where. (if we had a Category: Species Introductions that wasn't explicitly limited to events, I'd be inclined to include American Acclimatization Society there). Plantdrew (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI: Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 17, started this for one of the bigger categories (currently 622 articles). A better venue for this discussion than my talk page probably. :) —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Mairia coriacea
The new article Mairia coriacea has two issues I find difficult to resolve. First issue is the hight. The review says it is 180 cm. This is very likely a typo and 18 cm was intended (flower stems are up to 17 cm, leaves up to 23 cm long, but at an angle). An other source says 12 cm, which is too low, but I took this hight for the moment. The other is the flowering time. Three sources give different periods. I suspect that the species will flower any time of the year as long as this is 1$1/2$ to 2 months after a fire, but wildfires mostly occur during the summer. I now noted that sources differ and give the full span. How do you think these two issues could be solved? Thanks in advance, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Spaces in taxobox parameters
Hi, welcome back Hyperik. While the formatting of taxobox parameters isn't especially consistent across Wikipedia, the most common format has spaces; e.g. "| taxon=Foo"; somewhat less frequently, the space between the pipe and the parameter name is omitted ("|taxon=Foo"). Full justification (extra spaces after parameter name to make all parameter values start in the same column) and omission of all spaces are pretty rare. I don't know what your motivation for removing spaces is, but I don't think it's worth the effort. Visual Editor is currently configured to produce the most common format, although that could be changed, and not many people use Visual Editor anyway. Plantdrew (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have much to say beyond that I prefer it that way visually, so it's generally part of my ingrained workflow. I guess it also reduces character count inflation? At the same time, I prefer citation templates with parameters not on separate lines like taxoboxes are, so they're not particularly consistent preferences. I don't make edits that only affect taxobox spacing or citation parameter condensing though. I agree that'd def be a waste of time. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No big deal either way. Character count is the one advantage I could think of, but it's a pretty minor one (the HTML document has many more bytes than the raw Wiki-markup anyway). I also prefer citation templates on a single line, and usually omit spaces around parameters in citations. I just thought there is a not insignificant amount of work involved in moving the cursor around in order to eliminate spaces in taxobox parameters. Plantdrew (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ooh, nooo, not much for mouse/cursorwork. I just use find "=", then replace all with "=". —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of spaces in template calls
When you change all the occurrences of " |" to "|" in template calls, as you have been doing recently, this causes problems when anyone tries to edit pages you've changed on a device with a small screen (e.g. an iPad or worse still an iPhone), because the software may not then be able to break up the line with the template call in it. The initial behaviour is often to make all the editable text smaller to fit in the window width, or if the text size is increased, make it necessary scroll horizontally as well as vertically. Please don't make these changes. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever (or at least intend to) change " |" to "|". I do sometimes change "|" to " |" or "| " to "|" for sure. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 13:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a long series of edits by you in my watchlist like this one. They all have "remove links already in references and/or taxonbar" as the edit summary if you look back over your contributions. Maybe you didn't intend to remove the spaces, but you did. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Pigeon Mountain Salamander
Can you explain why you removed the category "Amphibians of North America" from Pigeon Mountain salamander? 50.68.172.46 (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been removed from Category:Amphibians of North America. It's already in that category by way of being in the subcategory Category:Amphibians of the United States. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Bogus vernacular name on iNaturalist
iNaturalist is calling Praslina cooperi "Praslin's Caecilian". I'm pretty sure that name was first coined in these edits to Wikipedia. But I can't 100% rule out that Wikipedia got the name from iNaturalist. Would you be able to see when iNaturalist added this vernacular name and where it came from? And if it did originate with Wikipedia, could you replace it on iNaturalist with "Cooper's Black Caecilian" (which is the vernacular name given by IUCN)? The possessive form "Praslin's Caecilian" is wrong; it's named after a place, not a person (although if I had to guess what Praslin was, I'd probably guess that it was a surname). 15:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The name was added to iNaturalist in December 2015 by (volunteer curator) @jakob, so after those edits (2013). I replaced it with Cooper's Black Caecilian. Thanks! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Sad stubs
Sad stubs are better than redirects (but red-links are better still). Category:Taxon redirects with possibilities holds redirects that should be articles (although there are also several thousand such redirects that aren't in the category).

You might find this tool useful: User:Anomie/linkclassifier. It colors links to redirects differently, which helps to detect redirects that should be article titles (I use a simpler version myself: User:Plantdrew/common.css). Plantdrew (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yeah, funny enough I just yesterday added a different color for redirect links to my account. I had downloaded a list of most-observed plant species from iNat and have been working my way through to create a list of species without articles. For example Calyptocarpus vialis (straggler daisy), which has almost 5000 observations by 2700 different people.


 * The Calycanthus spp. were the first I noticed among this batch of oft-observed species that were redirects from species->genus (excluding monotypic genera).


 * There's probably some faster way to do this/more dynamically, though it's also a bit of a manual slog given all the synonymy issues. But fun. :)—Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * A faster way to find to high priority gaps in Wikipedia's coverage (via iNat)? Plantdrew (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, something like querying the iNat database's top observed species and returning only the species without Wikipedia articles. Out of my wheelhouse though. Also interesting to me for these frequently-observed-species would be sorting a list of species that do have articles by article length to help prioritize de-stubbing. Looks like I might be able to do that with the "manual list" option on PetScan but I haven't fiddled with it yet. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Old question
I just stumbled across Talk:Oligoneuron, where you'd pinged me back in August 2018, and I never responded. You asked "How do WP editors decide where this content should be placed? Where can I read more about such taxonomic policies on WP?" I assume by now you've figured out some basic answers to these questions. Did you have any further questions about which taxonomic sources are used and where to find the decisions to use them? Plantdrew (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ehhh, yes, for the most part. Fully sinking Oligoneuron into Solidago on WP is still not fully satisfying given how many regional floras split it. Maybe making a page at Solidago sect. Ptarmicoidei would make me feel better. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If FNA recognized Oligoneuron I'd be more inclined to keep it. If all the local authorities disagree with a global database, there may be good reason to go against the global (I once succesffuly argued for splitting out some ex-Zigadenus from a related species based on Weakley, FNA and others, contrary to The Plant List). Since POWO is a Kew project and not a consortium, I could see POWO potentially going against consensus of North American botanist for North American species. Plantdrew (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Overcategorization
Just to say that I applaud your efforts to reduce overcategorization. Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Honestly I wish I could just ignore them, but they bother me too much! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly my reaction, except that I think I have got better at not seeing them – most of the time. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Zygaena
Many thanks for tidying the quote but why remove the external links? Regards Notafly (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC) PS The whole Seitz plates are much more useful than the abstracted images since they allow comparison. I would like to change back. What do you think?
 * Oops, I thought those links were in the taxonbar. I put some of them back; thanks for catching that. Usually if a link is already in the references and/or taxonbar, I remove it from being double or triple posted in the external links section. Same with Commons which is already displayed automatically on the left sidebar (and in many cases doesn't have any additional media than what's already in the article anyway).
 * The full illustration plates on the individual Zygaena species might make sense to include in the article to compare with similar looking species, but preferably just not as the main image in the speciesbox. It shouldn't require labels and zooming to determine which is the species in question depicted in a primary image.
 * A photo would be even better of course. For some of the more common species, you might find some additional images on sites like iNaturalist. Looks like there are around 40 species on there currently. There's a tool to help highlight images with wiki-compatible licenses, though users may also be persuaded to update their more restrictive license if asked. :) —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. You make a good argument. I will see if I can meaningfully incorporate full illustration plates into the Zygaena pages.Especial thanks for the iNaturalist info.Best regards Notafly (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Rozella Cat Question
I'm curious why you moved Rozella from the category Opistokont genera to the less specific Eukaryote genera? TelosCricket (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's not really a need to break down taxonomic rank categories into very small groups like Category:Opisthokont genera, Category:Prehistoric deuterostome genera, or Category:Monotypic bilaterian genera. Most of those categories were made by a user who was blocked for making multiple sockpuppet accounts and categorizing against consensus. Years later the clean-up continues. :\ —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 05:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * categorization is often best done downwards: start at a high taxonomic level; then if the category grows "too large" (opinions differ as to what this means, with thresholds set upwards of 20) and it's possible to create sensible sized subcategories, then diffuse the category. As Hyperik says, we're still cleaning up some gross over-categorization created in the past by a now blocked user. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thank you Hyperik & Peter Coxhead for explaining. Now the move makes sense. :) TelosCricket (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hylodesmum glutinosum
Hi Hyperik, thanks for adding to the stub that I created yesterday. I also noticed that Hylodesmum glutinosum is included at the genus Desmodium article (as Desmodium glutinosum). As such, the genus article needs to be updated too. Unfortunately, the synonym lists in the various sources are not all in agreement and this in turn affects the inclusion of additional common names to the article. Perhaps as a plant specialist, you could look into this further to help sort out which synonyms are indeed valid. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I made some edits but the Taxonomy section and "Formerly placed here" section still needs some expansion with missing genera. And cleaning up (it definitely doesn't need all those synonyms or infraspecific taxa listed haha). —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

SL-class lists
I'd call List of Desmodium species "list" class, not "SL" class. I'm not aware of projects beside WikiProject Plants that have this assessment class. A sourced, comprehensive list of species in a genus isn't in dire need of any improvement (assuming the source actually is comprehensive). In my opinion, SL class is for lists that are: a) woefully incomplete (pretty much any of the "List of plants of [political unit]", with List of Connecticut tree species as a particularly dreadful example) b) have no clear criteria for inclusion/completeness (List of garden plants), or c) with an unrealistically broad scope (List of plants by common name).

I suppose SL class would be appropriate for a species in genus list that was taken from a noncomprehensive source (such as ITIS), or a source with poor data quality (e.g. any genus on The Plant List taht is only sourced from Tropicos/"WCSP in review"). Plantdrew (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder! (note to self: WP:WikiProject Plants/Assessment) —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Flowering species on Antarctica
Hi Hyperik. Thanks for the sources. [rest of query moved to Deschampsia talk. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Good one, well spotted!
Well spotted! Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had even made the same edit as you (Antarctic flora->Antarctica#Flora) and got an edit conflict when trying to save it. :) —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Size of nepenthes
You reverted the revision as "unsorted change". That's nonsense,but the nepenthes upper pitchers are larger. Please change it back,read a few articles about Nepenthes jamban and nepenthes inermis. The uppers are larger than the lowers,I am a nepenthes grower. User3749 (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I will give you a few more articles to proof that uppers are larger than the lowers : Nepenthes dubia,Nepenthes lowli,Nepenthes hamata. User3749 (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I might spelled that wrong. Nepenthes lowii is the correct spelling. User3749 (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! You changed the content of the article but didn't provide a reliable source for that change (my note was "unsourced change", not "unsorted"). Feel free to edit the article and provide a reliable source(s) for the change as it relates to the genus as a whole. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes,@Hyperik but just changing one single edit, I just marked it as minor and I didn't think that very small change needs any citation. User3749 (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Oncosiphon pilulifer
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"K-" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect K-. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Mrigal carp
Regarding my edit to Mrigal carp, I was trying to figure out why is shows up as an error in this template report. Do you any ideas on why the report singled out Mrigal carp for "Valid Name=No"? Abductive (reasoning) 00:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see now that the report was run on June 1, so some of the errors have been corrected already. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 👍👍 yep, I hadn't realized there was a caption attached after the image parameter. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 01:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Taxon assessments
I've recently been creating some (mostly stubby) Polygalaceae articles. The average length of them has been increasing and I would like to get an opinion on how far this article is from start-class. Also, will the Taxon-specific assessment guidelines at WP:PLANTS become standard anytime soon? (It's been over a year)  Username 6892 23:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'd definitely call that a start. As far as the assessment guidelines, I'm still not really sure how things become "standard" within WikiProjects, but feel free to edit/add to that page! ⁠—Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Molpad(i)ida
I'm not sure what WoRMS means by "Preferred alternate representation" at. However, the double i is what you would expect from the genus name Molpadia plus the ending -ida. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wondering why it was showing up in the taxonomy template errors category. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of IPA from Boops
I was wondering why you removed the IPA from the boops boops wikipedium. I didn't add it but it seemed useful as a naïve pronunciation would yield which is quite different from the pronunciation used. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah it's pretty standard that scientific names have numerous pronunciations, even among people who speak the same native language. I've found it's usually more divisive than helpful. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you (Hyperik) ever removed pronunciation from Boops boops. Generally, pronunciation of scientific names is a mess and best omitted. However, the botanical code (Art. 60.7) does permit diareses as a guide to pronunciation. I suppose pronouncing adjacent vowels separately isn't necessarily intuitive, and might merit clarification in some cases (on the other hand, most English speakers eventually figure out that cooperation isn't pronounced coop-uh-ration without needing to read the New Yorker). Plantdrew (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Blackear wrasse
Can I ask why you are so determined to have this listed under its binomial when this species has an unambiguous and generally accepted English common name? Why not change the article House sparrow to Passer domesticus?22:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already expressed my view on the move request. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And I am expressing that I still don't understand the reason and have given the above example. I am as big a fan of binomials as the next person, I am comfortable with them as I have a BSc in Biological Science and have been a lifelong birder and amateur naturalist. However, as I stated in my comments on the discussion Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia and is to used by all types of readers and where you have an unambiguous English common name which is supported by the reliable sources, then that should be used as the article title. Blackear wrasse fits that bill. It is also informative, it tells the reader that the subject is a wrasse whereas Halichoeres poeyi does not, unless they are already au fait with detailed fish taxonomy. I see that you are quite determined to have the title changed, I am trying to understand why. It seems unnecessarily dogmatic to me.Quetzal1964 (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Grammistops
Dear Hyperik,

We seem to be crossing paths quite frequently recently. You changed my edit to this page and I thought I would try to explain myself more fully.

The taxonomic authority followed by WikiProject Fishes for Fish taxa at the level of species and genus is Fishbase. My interpretation of the refs box in the taxonomy template for a genus is that the Fishbase reference confirms that the genus is treated as valid by that source. For taxonomic levels above genus (tribe, subfamily etc.) then the Fishes project follows the 5th Edition of Fishes of the World and this is used as the parent's reference. It is possible that a genus is included in 5th Ed Fishes of the World but is not in Fishbase. Unless it is a new taxa then that would mean it is not treated as a valid genus for the purposes of WikiProject:Fishes. I therefore disagree with your edit and I hope I have explained why.

I would like us to agree a way forward with this rather than just changing each other's edits.

Yours sincerely

Quetzal1964 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The reference(s) should ideally note both that the genus is valid and the specified parent in the template. When FishBase and Fishes of the World are in agreement on both of those, no need to have two references, but two doesn't really hurt either! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Why
How is it possible that RHS AGM species such as Tulipa fosteriana and Tulipa kaufmanniana didn't have articles on en.wiki until I made the stubs? Abductive (reasoning) 23:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly I'm not super familiar with ornamentals and their accolades. Do you happen to know if there a list of red link AGM recipients anywhere, aside from browsing through the genus-specific articles listed at Category:Lists of Award of Garden Merit plants? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The RHS has this AGM Plants March 2020 © RHS – ORNAMENTAL pdf which is a mix of species and cultivars. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Earlier I put together this list of redlinks from the 2018 AGM pdf. Even if these are no longer AGM awardees, they certainly are garden plants of some note, or are at the very least synonyms of plants that people will be trying to look up:

• Abutilon × milleri

• Adiantum × mairisii

• Agave leopoldii

• Aglaomorpha coronans

• Aglaonema costatum

• Aglaonema modestum

• Allium suworowii

• Alocasia × amazonica

• Aloinopsis schooneesii

• Anagallis monellii = Lysimachia monelli

• Androsace carnea

• Androsace lanuginosa

• Androsace studiosorum

• Anisodontea capensis

• Anthemis punctata

• Anthurium scherzerianum

• Argyranthemum maderense

• Artemisia caucasica

• Aruncus aethusifolius

• Asplenium × lucrosum

• Astilbe glaberrima

• Astilbe simplicifolia

• Begonia annulata

• Begonia carolineifolia

• Begonia dregei

• Begonia imperialis

• Begonia luxurians

• Begonia radicans

• Begonia serratipetala

• Begonia solananthera

• Begonia soli-mutata

• Berberis × stenophylla

• Berberis temolaica

• Bergenia purpurascens

• Billbergia × windii

• Bomarea salsilla

• Borinda albocerea

• Campanula tommasiniana

• Caputia tomentosa

• Cardamine pentaphylla

• Carpanthea pomeridiana

• Celmisia angustifolia

• Chamaedorea microspadix

• Chirita lavandulacea

• Chirita sinensis

• Chusquea gigantea

• Cissus rhombifolia

• Cistus × cyprius

• Cleistocactus colademononis

• Clerodendrum chinense

• Codonopsis grey-wilsonii

• Columnea × banksii

• Conophytum gratum

• Conophytum longum

• Conophytum minutum

• Conophytum pellucidum

• Conophytum wettsteinii

• Copiapoa hypogaea

• Cortaderia fulvida

• Corydalis omeiana

• Cotoneaster sternianus

• Crassula rupestris

• Crocosmia masoniorum

• Crotalaria laburnifolia

• Ctenanthe amabilis

• Ctenanthe lubbersiana

• Cyananthus microphyllus

• Cyanotis beddomei

• Cymbidium lowianum

• Cyrtomium fortunei

• Cytisus × beanii

• Cytisus × kewensis

• Cytisus demissus

• Daphne × napolitana

• Delosperma aberdeenense

• Delosperma lavisiae

• Deutzia monbeigii

• Deutzia setchuenensis

• Diascia integerrima

• Diascia rigescens

• Diascia vigilis

• Dieffenbachia × bausei

• Digitalis × mertonensis

• Dionysia aretioides

• Dryas × suendermannii

• Dryopteris sieboldii

• Echeveria × bombycina

• Echeveria × gilva

• Echeveria cante

• Echeveria chihuahuaensis

• Echeveria leucotricha

• Echeveria minima

• Echeveria pulvinata

• Echeveria rosea

• Echeveria shaviana

• Echinocereus scheeri

• Echinopsis arachnacantha

• Enkianthus cernuus

• Eriosyce senilis

• Erodium glandulosum

• Erodium manescavii

• Eryngium × oliverianum

• Eryngium × tripartitum

• Eryngium pandanifolium

• Euonymus cornutus

• Euonymus oxyphyllus

• Euphorbia meloformis

• Euphorbia nereidum

• Euphorbia sikkimensis

• Fargesia robusta

• Fargesia scabrida

• Faucaria candida

• Faucaria tuberculosa

• Fritillaria pontica

• Fuchsia glazioviana

• Fuchsia hatschbachii

• Genista × spachiana

• Genista lydia

• Genista sagittalis

• Goeppertia crocata

• Goeppertia libbyana

• Goeppertia majestica

• Goeppertia mediopicta

• Goeppertia rufibarba

• Gymnocalycium saglione

• Gymnocarpium oyamense

• Habranthus martinezii

• × Halimiocistus sahucii

• × Halimiocistus wintonensis

• Hebe macrantha

• Hebe rakaiensis

• Hebe topiaria

• Hebe vernicosa

• Heliamphora heterodoxa × nutans

• Heliocereus speciosus

• Hepatica transsilvanica

• × Heucherella tiarelloides

• Hippeastrum × acramannii

• Hippeastrum × johnsonii

• Hosta plantaginea

• Hosta sieboldiana

• Hosta tokudama

• Hosta ventricosa

• Hosta venusta

• Hoya lanceolata

• Huernia guttata

• Huernia hystrix

• Huernia pillansii

• Huernia thurettii

• Huernia zebrina

• Humata tyermannii

• Hylotelephium cauticola

• Hypericum × moserianum

• Impatiens pseudoviola

• Iochroma australe

• Iris × fulvala

• Ismene × deflexa

• Jasminum laurifolium

• Jovellana violacea

• Kalanchoe luciae

• Kedrostis africana

• Kniphofia galpinii

• Kohleria eriantha

• Kohleria warszewiczii

• Lachenalia corymbosa

• Lachenalia ensifolia

• Lachenalia flava

• Lachenalia longituba

• Lachenalia orchioides

• Lachenalia pustulata

• Lachenalia quadricolor

• Lachenalia vanzyliae

• Lachenalia viridiflora

• Lavatera maritima

• Leucanthemella serotina

• Leucocoryne purpurea

• Libertia chilensis

• Linum arboreum

• Lobelia richardsonii

• Lonicera × italica

• Lonicera × tellmanniana

• Lysimachia barystachys

• Lysimachia ephemerum

• Mackaya bella

• Malus × floribunda

• Mammillaria lauii

• Mammillaria petterssonii

• Mammillaria pringlei

• Matucana intertexta

• Meconopsis quintuplinervia

• Mimulus naiandinus

• Moltkia × intermedia

• Nematanthus gregarius

• Nemesia denticulata

• Neohenricia sibbettii

• Neopanax laetus

• Neoporteria paucicostata

• Nierembergia linariifolia

• Nopalxochia phyllanthoides

• Olearia × scilloniensis

• Onopordum nervosum

• Orbea ciliata

• Osteospermum jucundum

• Oxalis massoniana

• Paradisea liliastrum

• Parodia chrysacanthion

• Parodia concinna

• Parodia crassigibba

• Passiflora antioquiensi

• Penstemon isophyllus

• Penstemon pinifolius

• Peperomia griseoargentea

• Peperomia scandens

• Peperomia velutina

• Persicaria vacciniifolia

• Petrocosmea iodioides

• Philodendron angustisectum

• Phlebodium pseudoaureum

• Phlomis longifolia

• Pilosocereus leucocephalus

• Pinguicula lauana

• Pinguicula rotundiflora

• Platycerium veitchii

• Plectranthus purpuratus

• Pleioblastus variegatus

• Pleioblastus viridistriatus

• Pleiospilos compactus

• Podophyllum pleianthum

• Podranea ricasoliana

• Polemonium archibaldiae

• Polystichum × dycei

• Polystichum tsussimense

• Potentilla × tonguei

• Potentilla cuneata

• Primula × kewensis

• Primula × pubescens

• Primula capitata

• Primula chionantha

• Primula cockburniana

• Primula malacoides

• Pterocactus tuberosus

• Quercus × kewensis

• Ranunculus gramineus

• Rebutia arenacea

• Rebutia canigueralii

• Rebutia mentosa

• Rebutia neocumingii

• Rebutia pulvinosa

• Rebutia pygmaea

• Rebutia senilis

• Rebutia steinbachii

• Rhipsalis monacantha

• Rhombophyllum rhomboideum

• Salix irrorata

• Sanguisorba menziesii

• Santolina pinnata

• Saponaria × olivana

• Satureja coerulea

• Saxifraga federici-augusti

• Saxifraga marginata

• Schisandra grandiflora

• Schizanthus pinnatus

• Schizophragma integrifolium

• Scilla bithynica

• Sedum × rubrotinctum

• Sedum kamtschaticum

• Semiaquilegia ecalcarata

• Sempervivum giuseppii

• Sempervivum pittonii

• Sinningia canescens

• Soldanella villosa

• Sonerila margaritacea

• Sorbaria tomentosa

• Sorbus frutescens

• Sorbus poteriifolia

• Sorbus pseudohupehensis

• Sparaxis grandiflora

• Stenoglottis longifolia

• Stipa charruana

• Stipa lessingiana

• Stipa papposa

• Stipa pseudoichu

• Stomatium ermininum

• Stomatium niveum

• Streptocarpus glandulosissimus

• Streptocarpus saxorum

• Symphyotrichum turbinellum

• Tetrastigma voinierianum

• Teucrium ackermannii

• Thalictrum rochebruneanum

• Thelocactus macdowellii

• Tillandsia argentea

• Titanopsis calcarea

• Titanopsis hugo-schlechteri

• Trichodiadema barbatum

• Tulbaghia leucantha

• Tulbaghia natalensis

• Tulbaghia simmleri

• Vaccinium cylindraceum

• Vaccinium glaucoalbum

• Verbascum epixanthinum

• Veronica cinerea

• Weigela coraeensis

• Woodwardia prolifera Abductive (reasoning) 05:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * it's a question of the number of active plant editors. (If you look at the archives of WP:PLANTS, say 5 or more years ago, you'll see how many more editors used to join in discussions then than do so now.) I've a long list of plants that were featured in one or more incarnations of The Plant Review that I would like to create articles for, but there's always something else to do! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * People need to stop busting their butts creating stubs like "Foohecela obscura is species in the genus Foohecela. It is native to Gufistan." in alphabetical order and concentrate on species that have a claim to fame. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I will take part in your quest to get all these plants onto Wikipedia :D NinjaWeeb (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation style
Hello, it's me, again. Why do you unnecessarily change the citation style of articles? The citation style of an article should be consistent, when I create an article I use a certain format. I prefer to use and you use a different format. There is no need to change one to the other unless the original format is unhelpful or is used inconsistently. I don't find the format you use is in any way intuitive or easy to follow but that may be my age! Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I also do use the reflist format. For me it's easier to read and edit content when the full references are listed at the bottom of the article vs. the full references codes being placed within the paragraph of text. Is that what you mean? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. My answer is kind of. I see what you mean, but my preference is to have the first citation to be The the rest to be . I have changed articles’ citation style but only where it is not a full citation or where it is inconsistent. I also prefer a style where the ref is easily identifiable, so “Fishbase” rather then “:0” or “fb”. Quetzal1964 (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

List of descriptive plant epithets (I–Z)
I don't have any preference what cats these pages are in, but I need to understand for future reference ... the 4th (Species) column isn't a taxonomic list, but if it's not a list of species, then what is it a list of? - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Selected examples of epithet use? I probably wouldn't include such a column myself in a list like this. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm fine with removing the cat. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that iNaturalist is in your list of recommended sites ... they have some really great images that I'd love to use, but none of them (so far) have had compatible licenses. Do you know if there's any way to search for images by licence on iNaturalist? - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not perfect, but this tool is super helpful: https://wikilovesinat.netlify.app/ You can plug in the taxon ID, e.g. for Symphyotrichum pilosum (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/142279-Symphyotrichum-pilosum) it'd be 142279: https://wikilovesinat.netlify.app/#142279 The images that aren't greyed out have compatible licenses and there's a link to upload to Commons. You can also click "View More" on that taxon page on iNat, and then change the Photo Licensing filter (unfortunately it's not a checkbox system, you have to check each license type separately): https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/142279-Symphyotrichum-pilosum/browse_photos?photo_license=cc-by Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 04:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know about that, thanks. Probably the next list will be about families and tribes ... I've got a couple of great sources, Plants of the World and the relevant volumes of Families and Genera of Vascular Plants. Feel free to jump in and edit any time (with one warning: they're much stricter about sourcing at WP:FAC and to some extent at WP:FLC than elsewhere). - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me on the Cyrtandra heinrichii page :)
It's greatly appreciated. Hopefully, we can get more plant species on Wikipedia. NinjaWeeb (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Always great to see new plant editors! Welcome. :) Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I'm working on an article for Aglaonema simplex. It should be ready soon. NinjaWeeb (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Campanula tommasiniana
Hello. I have made a stub-class article on Campanula tommasiniana. See if you can expand onto it. Thanks in advance :)

NinjaWeeb (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice! I haven't looked into it, but I wonder if Karen's Garden Tips, Shoot Gardening, or Dave's Garden are considered reliable sources? I don't do much article writing with regard to cultivation of garden plants, so I'm not sure. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Karen's Garden Tips is at least written by someone who appears competent (see the About webpage), but is not a secondary source in the usual sense. Shoot Gardening (see What is Shoot) seems to be a commercial site without any obviously authoritative input. Dave's Garden is effectively a blog; many entries ask users for input (see, e.g., this one). I personally would only accept the last two for things like the English name in common use. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Re. Automatic taxobox and Cladogram
Hello Hyperik, Thank you for your help with the above - much appreciated. I'd used auto-taxobox once before, but couldn't find template on this occasion. The Cladogram already featured the Mostuea spp. in (unenlightening) alphabetical order, but I thought that it might be of interest because it at least shows Mostuea in relation to the other two genera - sorry. Flobbadob (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A cladogram of the genera could go well on the family page! I'm not sure what the order would be though / which genera are more closely related to each other. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving articles
Please use the WP:Requested move process to rename articles. It looks as if you have instead made a copy-and-paste move of some of the former article Whitish truffle to Tuber borchii. This method fails to give attribution to the work. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For info, I have now merged the page history of that article. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Baklava (בקלווה), both my favourite cat and my favourite food.

 * YUM. Thank you! And welcome! :) —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum leaf miner and common visitor Polistes fuscatus
Hi, Hyperik! Thanks for your recent additions to the Symphyotrichum lateriflorum page. I noticed that you use the new Flora of the Chicago Region. Does it have anything in it about a common leaf miner for that species or for the genus in general? Many of my observations in person and the ones I review on iNat have leaf miner feeding. I wondered if you have a source for that and, if so, if it could be added to the Wikipedia page?

Also, a common visitor to the same plant seems to be Polistes fuscatus. Not just my observations but others on iNat. Do you have a reference for that in the same book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eewilson (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sent you a message on iNat. :) —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :)--Eewilson (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

cn
It is customary to apply a tag to passages for which one thinks need a citation, not delete the information. Abductive (reasoning) 07:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Either way is common practice. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have informed you of the sources. If you want to verify them, do so, but do not remove cited information from the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think that I should explain what I am doing. The stubs that I am creating are for species that have hundreds or thousands of hits in Google Scholar. Example: uniflora'' has 3,470. This is how one can have so many common names that it seems shocking at first glance. Where am I getting these species? From Pengo's list of missing plants. Pengo's list has been available since January 2015. Why haven't these stubs been created already? The only possible answer is that my fellow editors have fallen down on the job. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate from1/from2 QIDs in Taxonbar
FYI I noticed some cases recently where an identical from2 was added to a pre-existing from/from1. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weird, not sure how I managed that, but thanks for the heads up! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Some things to update in species articles
Hi Starzoner! There are a few common things that would be helpful to update in your process when creating articles about species:
 * stubs should be placed at the bottom of the article with two blank lines between it and the rest of the content
 * remember to remove the colon from the category links when you move them out of draft space - it should be  rather than
 * italicize the species/genus names in references
 * no need to link to major country names (see Manual of Style/Linking)
 * you mention that a lot of plants are "perennial plants", but the references you listed in most cases haven't included that information. Some of them weren't actually perennial plants, so it might be better to default to "flowering plant" (when applicable)
 * WikiProjects Plants recommends avoiding use of "a herbaceous" or "an herbaceous" due to back-and-forth conflicts; there are some recommendations here: WikiProject_Plants
 * in the speciesbox, use either  OR   and , not both
 * no need to ref bomb, like linking to herbarium specimens as references for the family the species is in, or to sources that mention the species only in passing. Additional references should add something meaningful to the article. For these plant species stubs you're making, it's probably fine to just use Plants of the World Online as your only source, since from the ones I've looked through, it looks like that's where you're getting the article content from
 * on the Talk page, it's super helpful if you can add the full WikiProject Plants assessment, which for these stubs would, in almost all cases, be:

thanks! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you look into implementing some of these updates before publishing so many more articles? I agree with Abductive that it'd be great to just edit in main article space rather than draft space, to avoid issues like this one and this one. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Starzoner, some of these same issues are popping up over and over in your new species articles. Please take a look at the information above and thanks for some of the changes you've already implemented. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you remove the existing note about them being perennial plants in the Vernonia articles you published? That info isn't supported by the reference you provided. Thank you! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

, anything else I should work on? Starzoner (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Super! Thanks for those updates. There are still some of the Vernonia articles mentioning perennial. Sometimes POWO has that info but often it doesn't. List to check at List of Vernonia species. I also noticed some of the articles about Trigonopterus species have the same ref posted twice (the Riedel et al. 2019 one), e.g. at Trigonopterus artemis, though that was due to another editor. I started fixing a few of them, but there are a bunch remaining. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The life cycles of Vernonia species in the articles you created are still largely unsourced. Could you take a look at the ones you added? Are there other taxa where you noted "perennial"? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll go check. Starzoner (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I haven't seen any fixes yet, so let me know if you have any questions. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Pleurothallis cactantha moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Pleurothallis cactantha, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a synonym of another species anyways. Starzoner, please check the status of each name against a database like Plants of the World Online before moving additional species articles out of draft space or creating new species articles. IPNI is not a database of accepted names, it just lists all published names, whether or not they are currently accepted; IPNI is not an acceptable reference for a single-reference article. It would also be more helpful to expand existing articles than to create thousands of one-sentence stubs. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * /someone, can you help with some more? These are all unaccepted synonyms/not active in Plants of the World Online. This is a huge amount of clean-up needed and not sure if there may be some sort of option for rolling edits back on a larger scale?

• Pleurothallis ancora

• Pleurothallis anfracta

• Pleurothallis angustisepala

• Pleurothallis avenacea

• Pleurothallis bahiensis

• Pleurothallis bicristata

• Pleurothallis bipapularis

• Pleurothallis blepharoglossa

• Pleurothallis boliviana

• Pleurothallis canae

• Pleurothallis capanemae

• Pleurothallis cardiophylla

• Pleurothallis caudatipetala

• Pleurothallis cerberus

• Pleurothallis cestrochila

• Pleurothallis chachatoynsis

• Pleurothallis chamelopoda

• Pleurothallis chionopa

• Pleurothallis chlorina

• Pleurothallis choerorhyncha

• Pleurothallis chontalensis

• Pleurothallis chrysantha

• Pleurothallis ciliifera

• Pleurothallis ciliolata (I moved this but I imagine the actual page should be deleted)

• Pleurothallis circumplexa

• Pleurothallis citrina

• Pleurothallis clandestina

• Pleurothallis claviculata

• Pleurothallis cundinamarcae

• Pleurothallis cuneifolia

• Pleurothallis curti-bradei

• Pleurothallis curtii

• Pleurothallis curtisii

• Pleurothallis cuspidata

• Pleurothallis cyathiflora

• Pleurothallis deltoglossa

• Pleurothallis denticulata

• Pleurothallis fastigiata

• Pleurothallis fulgens

• Pleurothallis fumioi

• Pleurothallis furcatipetala

• Pleurothallis guanacastensis

• Pleurothallis guarujaensis

• Pleurothallis guttata

• Pleurothallis guttulata

• Pleurothallis haberi

• Pleurothallis jalapensis

• Pleurothallis jamaicensis

• Pleurothallis jamiesonii

• Pleurothallis janetiae

• Pleurothallis jesupii

• Pleurothallis jesupiorum

• Pleurothallis jimii

• Pleurothallis jocolensis

• Pleurothallis johnsonii

• Pleurothallis jordanensis

• Pleurothallis jurisdixii

• Pleurothallis juxtaposita

• Pleurothallis kareniae

• Pleurothallis mantiguyrana

• Pleurothallis octophrys

• Pleurothallis odontotepala

• Pleurothallis pennelliana

• Pleurothallis peperomioides

• Pleurothallis per-dusenii

• Pleurothallis perangusta

• Pleurothallis perennis

• Pleurothallis podoglossa

• Pleurothallis polygonoides

• Pleurothallis pompalis

• Pleurothallis quadricristata

• Pleurothallis quadrifida

• Pleurothallis quadriserrata

• Pleurothallis quinqueseta

• Pleurothallis quisqueyana

• Pleurothallis resupinata

• Pleurothallis samacensis

• Pleurothallis sanchezii

• Pleurothallis scabripes

• Pleurothallis scalpricaulis

• Pleurothallis scansor

• Pleurothallis scitula

• Pleurothallis scolopax

• Pleurothallis sculptilis

• Pleurothallis segoviensis

• Pleurothallis segregatifolia

• Pleurothallis stenophylla

• Pleurothallis stenosepala

• Pleurothallis stergiosii

• Pleurothallis stictophylla

• Pleurothallis stillsonii

• Pleurothallis stonei

• Pleurothallis subnulla

• Pleurothallis sugdenii

• Pleurothallis sulcata

• Pleurothallis sulphurea

• Pleurothallis susanensis

• Pleurothallis syringodes

• Pleurothallis toachica

• Pleurothallis tokachii

• Pleurothallis tomentosa

• Pleurothallis tortilis

• Pleurothallis trichostoma

• Pleurothallis trichyphis

• Pleurothallis tricolor

• Pleurothallis trifida

• Pleurothallis trimeropetala

• Pleurothallis tripterantha

• Pleurothallis tristis

• Pleurothallis trulla

• Pleurothallis trullifera

• Pleurothallis trullilabia

• Pleurothallis tsubotae

• Pleurothallis tubata

• Pleurothallis tuerckheimii

• Pleurothallis tunguraguae

• Pleurothallis turrialbae

• Pleurothallis umbrosa

• Pleurothallis unduavica

• Pleurothallis unguicallosa

• Pleurothallis unguiculata

• Pleurothallis uniflora

• Pleurothallis ursula

• Pleurothallis vaginata

• Pleurothallis vargasii

• Pleurothallis variegata

• Pleurothallis velaticaulis

• Pleurothallis vellozoana

• Pleurothallis venulosa

• Pleurothallis verbiformis

• Pleurothallis verboonenii

• Pleurothallis verecunda

• Pleurothallis versicolor

• Pleurothallis vestigipetala

• Pleurothallis vestita

• Pleurothallis vilipensa

• Pleurothallis villosa

• Pleurothallis villosilabia

• Pleurothallis violacea

• Pleurothallis virgata

• Pleurothallis viridiflora

• Pleurothallis viridis


 * The past guidance provided here is extensive, largely unheeded, continually problematic, and I'm not sure how best to proceed. Thanks, —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 02:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , would be happy to help, but IPNI looks like a reliable source. Can't find any issues with it being discussed on WP:RSN. Is there a discussion about this source?  Regarding these now existing articles, not sure how to contribute in fixing them.  Take Pleurothallis viridiflora - would I move that to Specklinia viridiflora, and then change the genus in the infobox to Specklinia?  As well as changing the source to this?  Onel 5969  TT me 03:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * IPNI is a reliable source, it just can't be used as a reliable source that a particular name is the currently accepted name. Your steps laid out are correct as a start. Aside from the text and speciesbox, the taxon category and taxonbar also get updated to the new name and Wikidata item. The distribution/range listed in the text and categories also needs to be compared to POWO, because IPNI typically only lists where the holotype was collected rather than listing its entire distribution. The stub template needs two blank lines after the last category, and should be updated to "Epidendreae-stub" rather than the coarser "orchid-stub". Also "species of orchid plant" is a bit awkward, so I've also been changing that to "species of orchid". (Which is essentially the whole article being rewritten.) Thanks! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 03:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the info, but while willing, I think it best if I leave the changes to those who know far more about taxonomy than I. After looking at several, I'm afraid I'd just muck it up.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking! Yes, complex. It's problems like this that there's good reason to have a bot review process. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * just stop right here. I'll manually fix them all. Starzoner (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

query
so ugh, what do you think of Pinalia amplectens and User:Starzoner/Eria andamanica? Starzoner (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pholidota


A tag has been placed on Category:Pholidota requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)