User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 16

Help with getting MOS:TENSE established in an article
Hi, Peter,

I see that you're a somewhat frequent, good contributor to the discussion of the Manual of Style. I was wondering if maybe you'd be so kind as to offer your opinions and other help elsewhere as well. Have you been familiarized with MOS:TENSE? If so, what's your opinion about making sure it's applied? The MOS is a set of rules that applies to every article, correct? Would you please be so kind as to lend me your hand then?

Thanks if so,

174.23.179.177 (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not really familiar with MOS:TENSE: almost all the work I do on Wikipedia is concerned with organisms (particularly plants and spider), and the tense used is rarely an issue (except when I forget to use past tense after "as of" constructions). So I don't think I can be of much help. Sorry. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, well, that part of the MOS basically instructs us to use present tense in articles about products regardless of how current or long-discontinued they are, except in the rare cases where the likelihood of one copy of that product still existing anywhere is notably low (what most readers would probably reasonably see as unlikely). So there's a disruptive editor at Commodore CDTV who refuses to acknowledge and follow this part of the MOS. Will you please help me with him? 75.162.198.179 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As long as I'm asking you for MOS help...
Also, as long as I have you here reading my request for MOS-establishment help, let me ask you for your opinion on some other things, okay?

Which to you is more accurate: calling abbreviations in which letters are pronounced individually, like a lot of initial abbreviations such as "CD," "ATM," and "LCD" are, as "acronyms," even though they are not (since they aren't pronounced as if they were just single words like "LASER," "SCUBA," "PIN," and "VIN," etc. are, and so those abbreviation examples are acronyms [even as "laser" and "scuba," and probably several others, have long been commonly lowercased]), or just calling them "initialisms" or "initial abbreviations" when they are indeed NOT acronyms?


 * Personally I think it's worth maintaining the distinction between initialisms and acronyms. Well-used acronyms will eventually be lower-cased and treated as normal words (as laser and scuba are); this is less likely to happen to initialisms. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * (Oops, "RaDAR" isn't an acronym; it's a hybrid. But anyway...) Exactly, which is why it's incorrect to call "CD" or "TV," etc. an "acronym," which point here would work in a setting that might come up, that I'm asking about. Thanks. 75.162.198.179 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Which to you is clearer: saying that a given model of computer or game system looks like just a "stereo" (which could be anything from a non-portable, traditional home stereo system, to a vehicle stereo system, to a tiny little MP3 player), or saying that it looks like a traditional home stereo system component?


 * Clarity is all in encyclopedic writing, so we shouldn't be afraid of more complex phrasing if it's clearer. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, good, you agree with me on that point too. Thanks. 75.162.198.179 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

And then, as a follow-up regarding systems that look like home-stereo equipment, if they are still computers, then which makes more sense: to compare them with other devices that look like just "computers" (even though these still are computers, so they look like their own unique type of computer), or to compare them against computers that look more like traditional computers?


 * I'd need more context to comment on this one. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, see my last insertion of follow-up reply below. Thanks. 75.162.198.179 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Which do you believe is clearer: that when a specific computer-derived entertainment system can be converted into that computer by adding back specific peripherals such as a floppy disk drive like the derived-from computer model the system came with has, to simply say "disk drive" (which is ambiguous because it can refer to the CD drive that the machine already has, or to a hard disk drive which is only secondary to the floppy drive on those computers), or to be more specific by saying "floppy disk drive"?


 * Again, I favour clarity above conciseness. "Disk drive" covers a range of devices, as is clear if you wikilink the term: see Disk drive. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay good, it looks like we're on the same page (besides your talk page here, hahaha)! So now here's the context: Will you please go enter your good point echoes on the talk page of Commodore CDTV, as well as monitor the article's own editions for rogue reversions?

Thanks for your opinions,

174.23.179.177 (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Pete, I've done my best to do the right thing and get my discussion going at talk:Commodore CDTV, but some trolls keep on deleting my discussion and all replies with it! Will you please help me out over there by restoring it and standing up for me, and then adding your own discussion? 75.162.224.243 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

See duplicate threads at my talk page, and those of Corrinne, EEng, Iridescent, et al. This is a sockpuppet of a banned user. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

They're just drinking the Cool Aid of the troll who started deleting my discussion. When I have more time I'll address all those concerns on the other talk page. But for now, he started that process just because... I don't know, really! But it looks like he thinks that just because I have a dynamic IP address. So it changes a lot. Just because you have dynamic IP doesn't mean you're a sock. Don't most people's IP addresses change on their own? 75.162.245.250 (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Macquaria
Thanks for fixing that, I couldn't work out what was wrong. I think the template documentation leaves a bit too be desired. - Nick Thorne  talk  06:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * the difficulty is that the automated taxobox system as a whole is complex, and the documentation reflects this. The navigation template at the right of the Speciesbox documentation provides links and explanations, but to know that the problem is caused by a taxonomy template, you really do need to understand at least Automated taxobox system/intro. Ideas on how to improve the documentation are always helpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, well now I've got some homework to do! LOL -  Nick Thorne  talk  07:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Source
Hi, did you check the source? Rupert the Frog (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No; I don't have access to it. If you can access it, and the text isn't supported by the source, then by all means change it to text that is, but you need to give an edit summary that makes clear that this is the reason. Your first set of edits had no edit summary, so you hadn't explained why you made them, and it wasn't surprising that you were reverted. Then when you undid the reversion, you just wrote "I'm removing meaningless wordiness" – this isn't a good reason to change what appears to be a sourced definition. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Kumara and remaining plants with (genus) disambiguation
Peter, I was leaving the Asphodelaceae genus Kumara with (genus) as the disambiguatory term. I think the single most common referent for kumara is probably the New Zealand English term for sweet potatoes, which means "Kumara (plant)" is still ambiguous. We're down to thirty plant genera that use (genus) as a disambiguator. For around half of them, I believe (genus) is the best choice as the genus name is also used as common name for a different plant, or there is an article at the base title about a product derived from the plant.

These are the remaining (genus) dabbed articles where there doesn't seem to be any risk of ambiguity if (plant) is used that I can't move myself:
 * Artemisia (genus)
 * Felicia (genus)
 * Rhamnus (genus) (perhaps a candidate as the primary topic for Rhamnus)?
 * Severinia (genus)
 * Solaria (genus)

I have some notes about some of the others at User:Plantdrew/Moveprep. Plantdrew (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Um... the problem with having a few genera using "(genus)" is that editors (definitely including me) get used to expecting the disambiguating term to be "(plant)". When I created the cladogram at Aloeae, I noticed that Kumara was a dab page, so changed the wikilink to "Kumara (plant)". Since this was a redlink, I was just about to create the genus article when I fortuitously found the existing article at "Kumara (genus)" – I could easily have missed this.
 * Given that the purpose of disambiguating terms is to distinguish between articles not topics, and there won't be an article on "kumara = sweet potato", it seems to me that Kumara (plant) is ok. I think that an alternative to "(plant)" is only needed when there could reasonably be two (or more) articles at "X (plant)", one of which is on the genus. I'd still be reluctant to use "(genus)", though, since it almost inevitably turns out that a word that is common enough to need disambiguating has also been used for an animal genus.
 * However, I've changed my mind on how best to disambiguate genera at least twice; it's still not obvious to me what the best solution is. There's something to be said for adding the family in parentheses, as some other wikis do – at least it always works – but it's too late to do this here, even if it had support, which I'm sure it wouldn't. The problem across the ToL is to choose the group name; why the very general "(plant)" but then "(spider)", for example, rather than say "(animal)"?
 * By the way, in sorting out the new genera and combinations in the Aloeae, I've created some temporary redirects until I can move the species, so you don't need to do your usual tidying up on these, as they will disappear in due course.
 * I'll look at the moves above and your notes as soon as I have time. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Kumara was one of 8 "(genus)" titled articles where there was a redlink for the corresponding "(plant)" title, rather than a redirect going to a disambiguation page. We may not ever have an article on "kumara = sweet potato", but we do have vernacular name redirects that use a "(plant)" disambiguator.


 * I don't think family placement is stable enough to be a good disambiguator, especially across the entire history of a genus. Authorship always works as a disambiguator. Earlier in my Wikipedia career I thought going with broad (plant)/(animal) ambiguator made sense since only one genus would be accepted in any one code. But it turns out there's a lot of unresolved homonyms within each code (or cases where finding the resolution is difficult). Last I checked, Lobularia, Tridens, Coccobotrys (among several others) were unresolve homonyms under different branches of the algae, fungi, plants code. Relevant databases displayed both names as accepted (or noted the existence of a senior homonym, without being able to provide a replacement name). When I started working on Suarezia, Wikipedia had internal links intending a plant, a moth and a beetle. It turned out the Suarezia that had ICZN priority is an isopod. Historically, botanists, mycologists and phycologists shared a code, but they weren't necessarily monitoring publications in the other subfields to check for homonyms. There's surely one Suarez who is obviously the Suarez among coleopterists, lepidopterists and isopodologists(?), but they never stopped to check whether there might be a Suarez in other fields.


 * I think disambiguating genera with terms that correspond to WikiProjects [(bird), (fish), (beetle), (moth)] reflects how awareness of potential homonyms has been siloed historically and how it continues to be siloed today. There isn't a single database for all insects, let alone all animals. Aggregatory databases such as CoL aren't yet doing a good job of flagging homonyms across the contributing databases. I expect that will change in coming years, with more homonyms getting noticed and resolved, but we're not there yet. Wikis can play an important role here, since we use genus names as article titles, and thus effectively as unique database keys. Homonyms are very obvious as Wikis develop (Wikispecies has an editor who, IIRC, is a scientist of some sort, but not a taxonomist, who has collaborated with several taxonomists to publish replacement names for junior homonyms they uncovered on Wikispecies). Plantdrew (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So perhaps the disambiguating terms for genera will change at some time in the future?? We'll see. However, I still think your undoubtedly correct analysis above shows why using "(genus)" as a disambiguating term for genera is never a good idea, since a homonym in another group is quite likely to turn up. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasn't predicting disambiguating terms would change in the future (other than changing (genus) to something more specific). If editors start carelessly cranking out tons of redirects for genus-level synonyms, which will surely end up bringing more homonyms in to play, I would suggest increasing use of authorities for disambiguation. But given current trends in editorship, that scenario isn't looking very likely. Plantdrew (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Spider cites
Hello. WP:CITESTYLE allows us to use the Chicago Manual of Style, which calls for 2 or more digits for the end of the page ranges. My effort has been to get consistency in throughout each article. So, instead of "123–4" and "234–35" and "567–568", I think "123–34" and "234–35" and "567–68" is the way to go. Also, note you reverted a correction to the OUP location. OUP is not located in Oxford, New York. Thanks, and thanks for your interest in spiders! 00:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:CITESTYLE requires editors to respect existing styles. Please read Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. The default way of writing ranges of years or pages is to use the full number as the end of the range. Change "123–4" to "123–124" by all means, but never change "123–124" to "123–24". It's particularly important not to use abbreviated ranges now, because many electronic journals use hyphen or dash separators in page numbers, rather than traditional numbering. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Monotypic no more
Peter, I need some advice and you may be able to assist. The genus of dragonfly, Oristicta, is no longer monotypic. A second species of Oristicta has been described (Oristicta rosendaleorum) and I would like to disentangle the wikipedia articles of Oristicta and the redirect from its previous only species Oristicta filicicola.

Question: Do I just cut-and-paste the content of the Oristicta article into Oristicta filicicola and leave the history behind; OR, do I ask for the redirect Oristicta filicicola to be deleted, then move Oristicta into Oristicta filicicola (with all its history), and re-create Oristicta; OR, is there a better way?

Do you know the best way to proceed? John Tann (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at Oristicta it's mostly about the species, Oristicta filicicola. So I would definitely move "Oristicta" to "Oristicta filicicola", because that preserves the history, and then re-create the genus article. I'll start things off and you can sort it all out. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oristicta filicicola now in place and quickly edited for the move. Just edit Oristicta now to create a genus article, then move/merge in any relevant material from Oristicta filicicola. Mark the articles with the merge from and merge to templates when you've done this. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing the fiddly work for me, Peter. I'll get on to editing Oristicta and creating a page for Oristicta rosendaleorum. John Tann (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

edit summary comment
It may not have been your intention to do your edit summary as a question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Myrtales&oldid=808425345 - a possible answer might be at - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plantdrew&action=edit&section=57 - cheers JarrahTree 00:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, I'd seen the discussion on 's talk page, but wasn't sure how it might end, hence the question marks. I do agree with Plantdrew that, as it stands, the plants portal isn't useful. More generally, I'm concerned about articles getting more and more cluttered with over-fine categories, taxon bars, off-wiki external links, nav templates, etc. I simply don't think that most of this is useful to readers, and it doesn't get properly reviewed and maintained – a very small number of editors are usually responsible for adding one or other of these to many articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Utility for the reader I would debate... when biota articles with only latin terminology - and nothing else I believe is not good for a reader trying to ascertain where the cat belongs or where they might be. Linking to specific articles relative to the subject of the category vis a vis the look2see idiosyncratic style is in my mind very useful and to a certain extent obviates the need for a portal link.  In the birds project, again the same issue - as well as many cat pages not even linked by a project tag on the talk page.

I appreciate both your response and plantdrews, it is very useful to see other perspectives, clearly you are both concerned with the state of the plant portal as a useful point of reference. So my suggestion is that the issue ends or is resolved at where a cat main space page has at least something that might indicate the latin terminology is relative to feather, fur or flower... so to speak. I have not problem at all of desisting in the plant area - the ornithological area still has truly challenging masses of blank areas... JarrahTree 11:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that category pages ought to have a description of the content and usage of the category, usually including a link to the "main" article for the category. Retrospectively fixing those that don't have this information is not a trivial task. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I do not have adequate emoji vocabulary to respond how I would like about the state of the subject we are discussing without probably breaking many rules of etiquette on wp space - thanks for your reply JarrahTree 13:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

From ms-wiki
(Moved from Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 14.)

I know this is not a appropriate section to ask to solve problem for another wiki. But I really want to solve this very problem, why is in ms-wiki only display "Kingdom: Animalia" all the time even though I have created all the Taxonomy template needed to display the necessary taxon. I use preview to see if any red template that I need to create, but there is none. Here the example page I used the Automatic Template. SNN95 (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * if you look at ms:Perbincangan pengguna:Peter coxhead, the first line produces its output inside a table, as it should be, and shows only the first line. The second line produces its output not in a table, and shows that ms:Modul:Autotaxobox is correctly moving up the hierarchy, BUT the output for each rank is not on a new line. So I think that ms:Templat:Taxobox/showtaxon isn't working correctly. Because it creates each line of the taxonomy table using wiki syntax, each |- and | must be at the start of a new line.
 * I believe it's because you've missed off this first bit of code from ms:Templat:Taxobox/showtaxon:

...
 * See the start of Template:Taxobox/showtaxon. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for that solution. I don't know why I get rid that one... silly me. Anyway, thank you again! SNN95 (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that ms:Burung nuri is ok now. Glad it worked. If you have any more problems, you can ask here – I wrote Module:Autotaxobox so I understand the automated taxobox system quite well.
 * Taxoboxes like the one at Parrot asli also need some code fixed – the red box marks an error. This isn't part of the automated taxobox system, but the ordinary one. I think the problem is because ms:Templat:Sets taxobox colour uses ms:Templat:str find0, but this doesn't exist in the mswiki. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tree
Hello Peter, I came across this little-used template at Florence Court Yew. Is there a reason that the binomial or species fields do not display when the native name is set? Or is this intentional? I'm just curious. Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I discovered that Infobox tree was incorrectly coded; I've now fixed it. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peter, glad you could solve the puzzle. Also, you are not allowed to retire from the project until you have at least trained a replacement . Loopy30 (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cupressus sempervirens
Hello, I disagree with you. The land of Israel is a part of the Roman Anciet Palaestina, and so was the Western Jordan, and also some parts of Syria. The nowadys Israel, containes the Western Bank of the Jorden river, that parts of it are under the Palestinian Authority. and as so, Israel is the major area to be named on.

so please, write "Israel" back, as one of the native areas of the Cypress (Anatavital (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC))


 * See Category:Flora of Palestine (region). The biogeographical region of Palestine, part of Western Asia, is defined in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions and is used in many botanical taxonomic databases where it's coded as "PAL" and includes "PAL-IS" and "PAL-JO" (Israel and Jordan). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Dracaena reflexa vs Dracaena marginata
Hi, now before we begin it is worth pointing out I am not a biologist I just have a Dracaena marginata in my office. Right, I am not convinced Dracaena marginata and Dracaena reflexa are the same plant. They are cousins however. The RHS would have mentioned they were the same also on the link you provide the accepted name is: "Dracaena reflexa var. angustifolia". Am I missing something or are these actually two different plants? Either way some extra clarification on the article would not go amiss. Much love EvilxFish (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Forgive me upon rereading it actually makes plenty of sense. EvilxFish (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * yes, I've grown "Dracaena marginata" and it doesn't look like the photos of the wild Dracaena reflexa. I suspect that what you have (and I used to have) are cultivars, i.e. specially selected forms, e.g. having narrower leaves (angustifolia means "narrow leaved") or clear red edges. I wonder about moving the material on D. reflexa var. angustifolia to a separate article – what do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree from what I have now read I think they are cultivars but I will look into this in more detail when I have time. If the previous statement is true and given the short nature of the article I don't think that is necessary to create a new one especially for D.marginata. Would we then make a new one for each variety? Maybe a small section on the history of the variety would not go amiss (if we can find it). I shall have to check my library for botany textbooks! Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...
Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please describe the vandalism you found
Peter, please describe the vandalism you found. I took a screenshot after my final edit at 2:53 p.m. today and it matches the current edit exactly, with the subgenus listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GardenOpus (talk • contribs) 05:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * sorry, not sure what you are referring to. (Please add new comments at the end of this page.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

 * thanks for both invitations. My interest is firmly in creating new articles (particularly about plants and spiders). As is the way of Wikipedia editing, I've been distracted into side paths, and seem to have ended up as the only editor currently maintaining the automated taxobox system. So I'm afraid I have neither the time nor inclination to take on anything else. Happy New Year! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No Problem Peter. Thanks for the response and have a Happy New Year. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  09:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Type species
Hi Peter, seasons greetings!. I am plodding my way through the Cyprinidae and trying to give all taxa Automatic taxoboxes and Speciesboxes. In the course of this I am trying to give the type species for each polytypic genus. I have an issue with the genus Semiplotus because Catalog of Fishes gives the type species as Cyprinion semiplotum, which is not listed in Fishbase as a species within Semiplotus. Does this mean that Semiplotus has had a new type species designated? Is it now a genus without a type species (therefore invalid)? Or is Semiplotus now a synonym of Cyprinion? Quetzal1964 (talk)  12:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm much less knowledgeable about the ICZN than the ICN, so you need to ask someone expert in the zoological code. For a plant, it would definitely matter that the type species was moved to another genus (e.g. when the type species of Meconopsis, Meconopsis cantabrica, was moved to Papaver, the genus Meconopsis needed another name – however this was so drastic that Meconopsis was conserved by act of a botanical congress). So I would expect that to keep the genus Semiplotus requires a new type species, but, as I say, I'm not sure about zoological nomenclature, and reading across from one code to the other is dangerous! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggesting asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. Trying to think of an editor who has commented with some authority on taxonomic matters, I came up with, but can't now remember in what context. also seems knowledgeable on the taxonomy of many groups. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * hi I saw this question on 's page and answered there. Thanks for the ping. Cheers  Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 20:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Witzany spam
Hi Peter, happy new year. I see that you reverted an edit on Elephantidae. It was one of many spam links by 83.215.123.233 who has a long history of adding citations to Witzany. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you too! Thanks for the information. Sadly, recently the proportion of vandalism and pointless edits on my watchlist is higher than I have known since I started editing Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Revert on my edit to Wall crab spider
I would like to suggest that a serious page reorganisation needs to take place as follows: "Wall crab spider" should redirect to a new page "Crab spiders" which would essentially be a disambiguation page comprising the section headed <"Crab spider" as a name in common use> (possibly expanded?) to be found under the page for Thomisidae (and removed from the Thomisidae page). The current content of "Wall crab spider" should be transferred to the Selenopidae page and needs to be expanded and brought up to date (which I am happy to do).

Bodhileaf (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely that "wall crab spider" doesn't make a good article title; it fails the precision test of WP:AT while not being at all common ("wall crab spider" doesn't show up at all in a Google ngram). So I will move "Wall crab spider" to "Selenopidae" now.
 * I would always prefer spider families to be at the Latin name, but it does seem that "crab spider" is a commonly used term for the Thomisidae, so I think that a wider discussion would be needed if "crab spider" were to be moved to "Thomisidae".
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry
on phone now. Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've been working through the categories used for plant distributions. The general approach in Wikipedia is that categories with some relationship to an article should use the same wording as that article. Hence "Flora of X", where X is a geographical area with an article, should have X = the article title (minus any "the"). So "Category:Flora of New Zealand North" should be Category:Flora of the North Island to match North Island. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Acis
Did you get an answer from IPNI? Lavateraguy (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * good question. Actually, after I got a bounced e-mail because IPNI had changed their e-mail address, I don't think I contacted them again. By then I had had a reply from Rafaël Govaerts at WCSP; he made some changes to the synonyms of Acis trichophylla and I adjusted the article accordingly. So I need to slightly re-formulate the query to IPNI. Currently I'm very involved on working on the flora distribution categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Micaria revert
How can you say that my change "produces too narrow cols in small windows"? The width parameter is not supported by the Div col template, so doesn't actually do anything. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, my error; it should be colwidth. Apologies. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Selenopidae
Hi Peter - agree that there should not be duplication of genera listing on pages, so, where is the most appropriate place for them to be listed taxobox or body? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhileaf (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I personally prefer to list them in the text. The taxobox is complex enough as it is, and if its length is increased, it interferes with the placement of images – given that MOS:SANDWICH says not to sandwich text between an image and an infobox, any image outside the taxobox has to be right-aligned, which puts it way down at the bottom in a short article. Also you can link to a subheading, so you can link to a species list placed in the text, which you can't easily do to a list in a taxobox. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, so then the next question is, when does a body listing become so unwieldy that it is better to have a separate page listing? (see e.g. Thomisidae entry). Bodhileaf (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I think there are several parts to the answer to that question.
 * Long before I started editing spider articles, it was decided to have separate articles for lists of species for every spider family. I've been told that the reasoning was that it was unlikely that all the genus articles would get created, and this was a way of ensuring completeness. I understand this, but I think it's now a problem. Since most family articles should have a list of genera, and most genus articles a list of species, the lists are duplicated, and don't always get updated in synch. So far as I'm aware, only spiders are handled in this way.
 * Normally if there are too many species in a genus to fit in the genus article, you would create a separate "List of GENUS species" article, e.g. List of Allium species. But for spiders, as there's always a list for the family, it seems better to create a redirect. So if you thought that there were too many species to include at Diaea, for example, then "List of Diaea species" could redirect to List of Thomisidae species.
 * To get back to your question, it seems to me personally that Ozyptila is ok, but Araneus wouldn't be. Where to draw the line between them is a matter of judgement; I'm not sure it matters much either way. Where the judgement is balanced, I personally incline to favour inclusion in the article, because it keeps information together.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As another example, I just came across the plant article Eragrostis, where I think the list of species should be split off. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Now done. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Linnaea vs Kolkwitzia
Thanks for taking a look at wider picture regarding Kolkwitzia amabilis vs Linnaea amabilis. This area is not my wheelhouse, but I am puzzled why it ever got reverted from Linnaea back to Kolkwitzia--apparently just because this particular plant did not get mentioned in Wikipedia's article for Linnaea. Hope you can fix this. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * well, I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants asking for comments. So far there have been none. I'll leave it until, say, Monday, and then I'll fix the articles to the new generic placement. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * see Talk:Linnaea amabilis. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi
Hi. How are you?. What do you think the appropriate portal for species?. TIA--مصعب (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * None. Portals are only useful, in my view, when used on very high level articles; typically these will be regarded as of high importance by some wikiproject. It's not useful, and definitely not the practice here, to put links to portals on the huge number of species articles, unless there is some truly exceptional reason to do so. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't know this - will stop doing it! Roy Bateman (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Converting a mononotypic species (possibly the issue)
Hello Peter. I have been having difficulty with Template:Taxonomy/Supella (Q46766077) and Brown-banded cockroach (Q2906271) ... the original writers of the latter, were under the impression that it was a monotypic genus (from old ITIS ref.), but we now know there are 10 spp. I have set up the genus page, but can't convert the "speciesbox" for Supella longipalpa. Brgds Roy Bateman (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * it seems quite ok to me when I look, so I'm not quite sure what you wanted to be different. Did you want to show the subgenus? If so, you can just add Supella to the Speciesbox.
 * It may not have been the problem, but one point to note is that you sometimes need a "null edit" – an edit and save with no changes – to make the system pick up the templates properly. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiData
I was attempting to add interwikis (sv, es, ceb) to Malva acerifolia, but the presence of a wikidata entry for Malva canariensis got in the way. You might like to merge these. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am utterly disenchanted with Wikidata. As far as I know, I don't have the necessary status to merge entries, and when I've asked for it to be done in the past, it's been refused. The Wikidata items appear to be for names, not taxa . We have managed to get taxonbar to work – see Malva acerifolia – by having multiple links, but this doesn't work for interwikis in the left margin. Sigh... You're welcome to ask at Wikidata!
 * And there was me thinking that Wikidata was intended to automate interwiki links rather than eliminating them. Next alternative is to talk the Swedish, Spanish, Cebuano and Winaray wikipedias into renaming their articles - once we are sure that the nomenclature mavens agree.
 * I've just tried the add links button on the page, and it looked like it my be working, but when I pressed the commit button it came back with error 1. Most informative. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've slowly been building up the taxonomy section at Malva acerifolia. I've only just read your note on your talk page – could you perhaps copy your query to IPNI to me, so we don't duplicate our efforts? My e-mail address is here. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. But I haven't had the automated response that I used to get yet. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Convallaria
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Convallaria&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. mettokki (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Convallaria majalis article refers to (in different places) var. manshurica and var. keiskei. As these different names for the same populations? Lavateraguy (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, WCSP has Convallaria majalis var. keiskei (Miq.) Makino and Convallaria majalis var. manshurica Kom. as synonyms of its accepted Convallaria keiskei Miq. So if you believe in WCSP's taxonomy, the answer is yes. I haven't found any convincing molecular phylogenetic studies to date, so I would tend to go with WCSP, albeit with a degree of scepticism. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Zefr
Hi Peter. I saw your note there. If Zefr is able to improve our article on Ayurveda that is of course fine. If in doing so he finds he has to edit-war or insult and belittle other editors, that will lead to a block. I hope that clarifies things for you. --John (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * to "insult" and "belittle" other editors would, of course, be wrong. "Edit-warring" is a different issue. If or any other editor, including me, makes edits to ensure that articles conform with well established policies, and these edits are consistently undone by editors who persist in adding pseudoscience against these policies, it's quite unreasonable to call this "edit-warring". I've seen too many good editors driven away by this attitude. Wikipedia is not neutral with respect to pseudoscience, and admins should not be neutral in judging so-called "edit-warring" in this context. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to your opinion and you're welcome to continue to discuss with me, including discussing lifting or modifying the restrictions. Nevertheless that's how the current restrictions are framed and I do still intend to enforce them. Anyone intending to edit there would be wise to read the restrictions. There is an edit-notice in place, so little excuse for ignorance. --John (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * the result will be that POV-pushers win, and the article will continue to be poor. For that I hold you and other admins responsible. I certainly won't edit there so long as this kind of restriction exists and admins cannot be trusted to uphold policy. No more from me on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. "POV-pushers" is the sort of language we are trying to eradicate from this area, so it's as well for you to stay away from the area. --John (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * then you'd better nominate the essay Civil POV pushing for deletion, if you regard "POV-pushers" as objectionable. It's standard terminology, widely and correctly used. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC); correction made, 23:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll think about it. We allow very wide latitude in what can be put in an essay. If it's a case of a user essay versus an ArbCom restriction, I'd say the latter wins. --John (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker comment: It's a misinterpretation of WP:ARBPSEUDO to treat reversion of material that blatantly violates the core content policies (i.e. is unsourced or based on unreliable sources and is challenged) as "edit-warring". The edit-warring is the re-insertion of such material after objection and without solid sourcing. As with WP:BLP, anything that violates WP:MEDRS should simply be removed, not tagged, because people (whether we like it or not) treat WP articles on medical matters are factual, and this carries real-world risks. Talk:Ayurveda (at which I do not edit) appears to be a long-running river of WP:V-, WP:NOR-, WP:RS-, and WP:PSEUDO-based objections and demands for proper sourcing, answered primarily by hand-waving, invective, edit-warring to re-insert improperly sourced material, and other tendentious system-gaming.  It is absolutely not the intent of ARBPSEUDO to hand carte blanche to the inserters of faith-based beliefs as fact into our articles by allowing them to meat-puppet their way around policy and around editing restrictions (nor, as in the original complaint, to brand as pseudoscience any theories with significant but not universal support in the scientific literature – it goes both ways). It is WP's job, in writing about science, to report the scientific consensus as such, and to give some (only WP:DUE) mention of alternative viewpoints.  If  or any other admin believes that ARBPSEUDO permits shutting down conscientious, RS-based editing to hand articles to pushers of pseudoscientific views, they are making a terrible mistake.  If this sort of thing is happening a lot, then a WP:ARCA should be opened to clarify ARBPSEUDO again.  It's already been through quite a bit of substantive refinement. PS: WP:CIVILPOV is a community essay, not a user one, and it represents broad consensus. (John, if you're misunderstanding Peter's sarcasm as a real suggestion, and actually considering MfDing that essay you'll be laughed right out of MfD.) The page is not being cited as if a policy.  When someone mentions CIVILPOV, they mean "the reasoning found on that page", which is all based in actual policy – WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DE, WP:GAMING, etc.  There is no fault in the reasoning (or, neither John nor anyone else has demonstrated such a fault).  Saying "a user essay versus an ArbCom restriction" is rather like saying "oxygen versus honor" or "happiness versus thermodynamics"; it's an attempt at comparison that doesn't make sense. And the remaining sanctions authorized by ARBPSEUDO: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted."  Neither Zefr nor Peter has transgressed them, but tendentiously re-inserting improperly sourced pseudoscientfic claims qualifies. Nothing in the recent edit history of the article or its talk page (or this talk page, or Zefr's) seems to qualify as "insult and belittle other editors".
 * There's now some relevant side discussion at User talk:SMcCandlish.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Bravo -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Revert first, ask questions later?
"Reverting a contribution may be appropriate. However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing" WP:REVERT Jozsefs (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to Tarantula. See WP:BRD: you were bold, I reverted, now we discuss.
 * I gave a brief explanation in my reversion. To clarify my view, the lead is poor, and needs expanding. Lead sections should summarize the article, and this one doesn't. What's needed in the lead is a summary of Tarantula – some tarantulas can indeed bite humans, but the more commonly encountered tarantulas, and certainly the tarantulas more commonly kept as pets, are the New World tarantulas, which are mainly problematic to humans because of their urticating hairs. So if you're interested in working on this article, I would encourage you to improve the lead. By the way, leads don't always need citations (see MOS:CITELEAD). Peter coxhead (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel you should join the discussion at the Tarantula talk page. I always feel that it is silly to start out by reverting good faith edits of registered and experienced members. You already know it's going to end up in a discussion searching for consensus between you and I, and by starting with the revert that immediately sours the consensus-finding process. Jozsefs (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have commented in more detail at the talk page. As for "souring", I refer you again to WP:BRD. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Adjusted approach at MOS:JOBTITLES
Hi Peter, perhaps you could check in at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters to see whether I have improved clarity for those arriving at the MOS:JOBTITLES page for guidance. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Update of WGSRPD
Hello Peter, I just want to say a big 'thanks' to you for your recent update of the WGSRPD. You put a lot of painstaking work into this. These categories will probably always need refining in articles to achieve the right balance, but your scheme now serves as a very solid foundation. - Declan Declangi (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for the thanks! The WGSRPD scheme is certainly not perfect, but it at least provides a foundation for categorizing plant distributions. I wish there was something comparable for animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Rhyniopsida page
Hi, can you have a look at my sandbox and let me know what you think. MisterCDE (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry to be a bit slow in looking at this. I made some cosmetic edits: it looks good to me and should definitely be deployed. I created a taxonomy template with "Tracheophyta" as the parent, at Template:Taxonomy/Rhyniophytina. However, I wonder if it would be better to just use "Polysporangiophyta" as the parent, which avoids the issue of whether rhyniophytes have sufficiently complex vascular tissue to count as tracheophytes, which seems disputed. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peter, I made a few more cosmetic edits and added a citation where it was needed. However, when investigating how feasible it is to move over the redirected Rhyniophytina page, I noticed the following on the redirect page: "This is a redirect from a monotypic taxon to its only lower-ranking member. In a biology-related article, when for example a family has only one genus, the family may be a redirect to the genus." As the template for that comes after the #REDIRECT it won't prevent me from moving over the redirect, but hopefully no-one will object just on the general monotypy principle? MisterCDE (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, for 'ordinary' taxa, the policy is to put monotypic taxa at the lowest level above species, but the whole point here is that the rank to be used is not clear because it's not agreed by reliable sources. It's really more a case of an alternative scientific name than a higher or lower ranking taxon, it seems to me. If there's a problem with the move, let me know. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't move the page, it says "a page of that name already exists", so it's not considered a simple redirect page then. Do you have the ability to force it? Thanks. MisterCDE (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake at first, but I think it's ok now. I swapped the old "Rhyniophytina" and "Rhyniopsida"; then I used your draft to update Rhyniophytina by copy-and-paste.  On reflection, I should have stopped after the swap and asked you to update Rhyniophytina by a copy-and-paste so that the page history would more clearly credit you, although I did say that it was updated from User:MisterCDE/sandbox. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all, I'm just glad it's tidier than before! Thanks, MisterCDE (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks. I made "definitions" into a separate section, as you'll see, and re-arranged it a bit. It's very difficult to write up clearly the range of confusing (if not confused) definitions and usage in the literature. Please feel free to continue editing it. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with it as you've left it. Just FYI, I'm not persuaded that division Rhyniophyta is validly published by Cronq. Takht. & Zimmermann ... I've looked at their paper and there is no description, it seems to be a replacement name for earlier names which they find unacceptable for reasons which are probably only cosmetic. But I've not been able to look at those earlier papers they cite, they are still in copyright although from 1930 & before, and in very obscure publications, most annoying. So ... I give up, for the moment. Cheers, MisterCDE (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me what exactly what is necessary to successfully publish an "automatically typified" (Art. 16) name in the ICN. If someone decides, for example, that the division Rhyniophyta should be reduced to a subdivision with the same 'type genus', then it's more like a transfer than creating a new name. Since there's no priority in names above family (Art. 11.10), there's nothing to stop Conquist et al. publishing a later name to replace "Psilophyta" even if they thought Psilophyton belonged in the division. Incidentally, as per Art. 16.4, Cronquist et al. were wrong to say that it should have been "Psilophytophyta" if based on Psilophyton. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The ICN is a minefield of contradictions. Because of Art. 11.10, Cronquist et al were entitled to do that, but because of Rec. 16A, subsequent authors are recommended to not use their name if it turns out they don't have priority. My interpretation of Art. 16 is that it refers only to typification (i.e. whether Art. 40 is satisfied); it does not consider the other requirements for valid publication (e.g. the need for a description or diagnosis if a new taxon: Art. 38). But then again, I could be wrong, I studied science at uni, not law! MisterCDE (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a legal mind is useful in dealing with the codes of nomenclature! Like you, I'm 'only' a scientist. Art. 38 has the provision that there can just be "a reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis". Cronquist et al. in the formal presentation of Rhyniophyta make explicit reference to "classis Psilophytinae Fitting et al. 1928" and "divisio Psilophyta W. Zimm. 1930" so if either of these were properly published with descriptions/diagnoses, then Rhyniophyta would seem to be ok under this provision of Art. 38. But it would need a real expert to say whether this was the case. Some editions of Strasburger's Lehrbuch der Botanik in which Psilophytinae was published are digitized and online, but I can't find the 17th edition referenced by Cronquist et al. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is an English translation "6th English ed. /​ translated from the 17 th German ed. by W. H. Lang." under the title "Textbook of Botany" ... it is on Google Books but not full text, however the snippets I have seen suggest there is enough there to warrant the term "description". But we can't be doing research, I would rather leave that sort of thing to Prof. Doweld at IFPNI who no doubt has a substantial library at his command. MisterCDE (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * nothing stops us doing research – we just can't use it directly in a Wikipedia article. I don't know about the IFNPI – paleobotany is very much a side interest for me now – but based on research in now digitized old works, I have found and reported errors or omissions in what must now be over 100 entries in the IPNI, which have then been changed and so can be used as sources in Wikipedia. Further, it's hard to convert highly technical taxonomic language into a form suitable for Wikipedia readers, and I find that if I don't fully understand the reasoning behind a taxonomic decision, then I don't report it accurately in a Wikipedia article – I've definitely made mistakes in the past.
 * Anyway, we probably gone as far as we need with this particular issue; the article is certainly much better. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Mandarin orange
Since a year ago you participated in a rename discussion at Talk:Mandarin orange (fruit) you may want to participate in a merge discussion regarding the same pages at Talk:Mandarin orange. Agricolae (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Citation style
I was a little startled just now, here to be informed that project pages must use in line citation not harvard. I thought we thrashed that out long ago. Your thoughts? --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  20:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I made some comments at Talk:Bentham & Hooker system. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

‎Plant categorization
Thanks for your note. The problem is that the editor in question has had a years-long history of disrupting a wide range of things; see the ban discussion for some of the issues. Since this was an obvious case of socking via IP, and since most of his edits are problematic, I had no hesitation in reverting them, but since some were helpful, you should have no hesitation in reverting me (even use rollback, if you feel like it) when you find that I reverted a good edit. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * ah, right; I have had long experience of Look2See1, and didn't realize this was socking. I quite understand. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Eukaryotes
Do you have a view on the utility of the likes of Category:Eukaryotes described in 1950? Oculi (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I do indeed. It's a complete mess. It's even worse if you go up to Category:Eukaryotes described in the 1950s, where the contents are a mixture of some Eukaryotes + some years, and subgroups of eukaryotes. Unfortunately, it's impossible to discuss these issues with Caftaric, who rarely responds to comments left on their talk page. There should be a requirement to gain consensus before creating broad categories like this that impact on many wikiprojects. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. So, if I were to initiate a cfd where all these are undone (eukaryotes upmerged back to species or whatever it was), you would support? Oculi (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * certainly. I remain concerned, though, that these one off fixes aren't the real answer. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A real answer would be to leave messages on Caftaric's talkpage stating that these undiscussed creations (many of which are deleted at cfd) are disruptive. Editors have been indeffed for this sort of thing. Oculi (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * well, if you look at Caftaric's talk page, you'll see that I do leave messages. Caftaric does do some useful work, e.g. splitting up "animals by year of description" into subgroups is in principle a good idea. The real problem is that Caftaric never initiates a discussion at relevant talk pages before acting, and pressure to do this would be useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

see the note I left at User talk:Caftaric. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)