User talk:Plantdrew

"Strigosella (gastropodl)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strigosella_(gastropodl)&redirect=no Strigosella (gastropodl)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

HNY
Happy new year and well done on getting above the 600k, trust it is a good new year for you. JarrahTree 01:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A belated Happy New Year to you too. I hadn't realized I'd reached 600k edits (it took me a bit to figure out what you were referring to). Plantdrew (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendron taxoboxes
I got a bit fed up with seeing so many Rhododendron articles coming up in searches for manual taxoboxes, so decided to fix them. There doesn't seem to me to be a classification to the level of section that is both well sourced and widely used, so after some study, I went with the one used in World Flora Online (see User:Peter coxhead/Work page). It does make the articles I fixed sometimes inconsistent with other Rhododendron articles, but revising them all is a major task. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * , sounds good. I think Rhododendron now has more manual taxoboxes than any other genus. I've never really touched it. I know there are Rhododendron articles that had manual taxoboxes that had some infrageneric classification that was lost when somebody else converted them to automatic taxoboxes. I had considered tackling Rhododendron following the American Rhododendron Society's classification, but that dates to 1997.


 * I had no idea WFO has started including records for subgenera and sections (and giving species records subgenus/section parents). I looked at a few other genera on WFO where Wikipedia has an infrageneric classification. Quercus on WFO looks to be consistent with Denk/Wikipedia. There are records for some Populus sections (but not Populus sect. Populus), but none of the species have a parent other than the genus. Pinus has infrageneric taxa, but they're either clearly synonyms of other genera (Pinus subg. Abies) or unranked, and no species have a parent other than the genus. Vaccinium looks like it may have a complete set of section records, but it they species only have the genus as a parent, and the WFO page for Vaccinium only lists the sections as children (i.e., you can't navigate from the genus page to a "placed" species). WFO doesn't have infrageneric records for Cornus, Juniperus or Tillandsia. I'll look around some more and see if there are any other genera where WFO has a usable infrageneric classification.


 * I haven't really done anything with manual taxoboxes for plants in several months. I think I'm about ready to get back into it. Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that WFO suffers at present from the same core problem as its predecessor, TPL, namely that it collates data from different sources without a great deal of curation, so the quantity and quality depends very much on the source. Hopefully it will improve. PoWO has so far been clear that it won't go into finer classifications, because of the workload that would be involved as I understand it. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Help?
I'm so sorry to bother you but I tried to add a species box to Cystotheca lanestris and it's throwing template errors I don't know how to fix. Any advice? jengod (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

firstly, it's OK to leave the article as you had left it. It will show up in an error tracking category that several editors monitor and somebody will take care of the problem in fairly short order.

Secondly, I assume you want to learn how to fix the problem yourself. You could learn that by reading Automated taxobox system/intro and the other pages linked there, but now that I am looking there, I think what would be most useful to editors in your position is something much less verbose, but with screenshots to illustrating what to do. So, actually, don't feel like you need to bother reading that; I've made a bogus speciesbox for this talk page thread that can serve as an illustration/example for now (and I'll put adding illustrations to the existing documentation on my to do list).

The basic issue is that every taxon above species rank needs to have a template created for that taxon in order for speciesboxes to work. Across pretty wide swathes of Wikipedia, these templates already exist. However, these templates are unlikely to exist when the taxon they are centered on doesn't have a Wikipedia article. And there are some swathes of Wikipedia where there are many existing taxon articles without the templates (and Fungi are probably the swathe with the most articles missing templates).

So, for the bogus speciesbox in this thread for "dafdsfads dfgah"", there's the red text "Missing taxonomy template", and below that "fix" in blue. Clicking on "fix" will take you to a page where you would be creating the taxonomy template for "dafdsfads", with most of the code already filled in. You will need to fill in a value for rank (which should be genus since you asked about Cystotheca) and a value for parent (and let's say that is Erysiphaceae for Cystotheca). link is automatically filled with code that will produce the correct value in most cases.

The bogus species box in this thread has two prominent red-links to Template:Taxonomy/dafdsfads. If you click those, it will take you to page where you would be creating that taxonomy template, but NONE of the code will be filled in. There will be a "click here to reset" link highlighted in sky-blue that you can click to fill in most of the code. If you are setting up speciesboxes that end up not having the required taxonomy templates you should be clicking on the "fix" links to create the template and not the red links in the form Template:Taxonomy/dafdsfads. Plantdrew (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hahaha I think I did it and I think I understand it! Mostly. I can definitely remember "click fix, fill in rank (genus in 99% of cases Id be dealing with) and add parent (the taxonomic level above that)." Thank you so much. I will endeavor to make myself useful with this knowledge and/or not break anything important. THANK YOU. jengod (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Species names vs. virus names
Thanks for your correction to the "Oryctes rhinoceros" page. As per the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses: ICTV (https://ictv.global/) there are 2 types of names a)species names which should always be written in italic and b)virus names which should not be written in italic. For the Oryctes rinoceros virus the virus name is "Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus" (not italic) and the species name is Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis (italic). In my view an unnecessarily complicated system. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , yes it is an unnecessarily complicated system. The species name was Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus prior to 2022 (see ICTV). The ICTV committed to using binomial nomenclature for viruses in 2020, and species are being renamed to meet the standards of binomial nomenclature (exactly two words, with the genus as the first word). I'll take your word for it that the context intended on the Oryctes rhinoceros page was as a virus name and not a species name. Plantdrew (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right the species name changed in 2022 from 'Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus' to Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis when they changed to the binomial system, see
 * https://ictv.global/taxonomy/taxondetails?taxnode_id=202203940&taxon_name=Alphanudivirus%20oryrhinocerotis
 * not everyone is happy with the new system.
 * Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Your notes on the redirect page Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis: This problem is related to the taxonomic system of viruses, where virus names and virus species are basically different names for the same thing. Usually (but not always), there is only one virus name assigned to a given virus species. Therefore, it does not make sense to have different wiki pages for both. The virus name refers to the actual virus particles which we can see under the EM and study, whereas the virus species is an abstract concept, used by the virus taxonomists to express the relation between different viruses. If we translate this to the world of animals and plants, we would have for example an oak tree standing somewhere in a park. We would give this particular tree a name like "OakX125" (the virus name) and study its genetics up to the last nucleotide. From the results we come to the conclusion that "OakX125" (virus name) belongs to the species Quercus bicolor (the virus species). Most botanists would simply say this is a swamp white oak tree (Quercus bicolor), but for virus taxonomists there is a difference between this individual tree and the concept of the species Quercus bicolor. In the case of Alphanudivirus oryrhinocerotis, I simply wanted to avoid an ugly red link, created by the Virusbox template. I don't know if the template could be modified to avoid such red links (not my field). Of course, the template is correct in distinguishing between virus names and virus species.Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * . After reading this and this, I have to say that virologists have some very peculiar ideas about how biologists studying eukaryotes employ scientific names. Some quotes from the first of those:
 * "laboratory virologists write with ease that a particular virus infects, for instance, “European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)” (rather than erroneously writing that the virus infects “Oryctolagus cuniculus”)"


 * and
 * "A species cannot go extinct (except if humanity develops amnesia) but it can cease to have members when those go extinct."


 * There is nothing erroneous (in zoology) about writing that a virus infects Oryctolagus cuniculus. And species are normally regarded as things that do go extinct.
 * I guess some of this stems from virologists assuming that the only host organisms worth studying have vernacular names that can be used instead of scientific names. There's also some assumptions made when those papers talk about individual organisms. Individuality in (most) animals and of virions (if you have an electron microscope) is pretty clear. Individuals in fungi and many plants are less clear. I also get the sense that virologists completely conflate taxonomy and nomenclature, which are regarded as related but separate things in other fields. And virologists are adamant that species are human constructs, while in other fields they are regarded more as real entities that exist in nature (or once existed; species do go extinct).
 * Virusbox is intended to show "virus species" and not really intended to show "virus names". It does have the parameters serotype, strain and virus, but these are for infraspecific entities, not the "virus name" for a "virus species". When articles have a serotype, strain or virus parameter there is usually an article for the species. Outside of virology, when Wikipedia says something "is a member of the species/genus/family" it can be understood that there are other members of the species/genus/family and that there is an article that covers all of them.
 * There are a few virus articles that use subdivision_ranks with "Member virus" to show a single "virus name". Lloviu virus is one where Wikipedia uses the virus name as the title of the article, and Sudan ebolavirus is one where Wikipedia uses the (old) virus species as the title. Doing it this way keeps the virus species from displaying as a link.
 * There hasn't been any discussion about how Wikipedia is going to deal with viruses following the adoption of binomial nomenclature. The majority of articles have titles and taxoboxes using (pre-binomial adoption) virus species. The simplest solution seems to be to update the taxoboxes with the binomial virus species, and leave the title with the old virus species (which is now a "virus name"), not to try to force the taxoboxes to show both "virus species" and "virus name". Plantdrew (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and help. The 2nd article you cited at the beginning ("Differentiating between viruses and virus species ...") is up to date and explains the virus taxonomy and its problems very well. I would still think using the virus name as the title for a wiki page is better than using the virus species because then you can describe its size, what organisms it infects, etc. As you mentioned, a virus species does not infect anything, it is just an abstract concept, a taxonomic category. The way you have changed the virusbox for the Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus is the best solution to the problem I had and it reflects the virus taxonomy correctly. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this discussion deserves an audience. Could it be pasted (and continued if needs be) here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses? Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, this would be very helpful in my view, but I would not know how to paste it. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If Plantdrew agrees, I will paste it. Graham Beards (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , you can paste it. Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have done so. Graham Beards (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Scientific (Latin) vs. common names
Thanks for your suggestion to move Asiatic rhinoceros beetle to Oryctes rhinoceros. I think, Wikipedia should have a policy to use the scientific (Latin) names for certain (most?) groups of animals and plants, to arrive at a standard naming system. At the moment there is a confusing mixture of common and scientific names in many genera, Oryctes is just one of many examples. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 08:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sedum
I moved Diamorpha to Sedum smallii which seemed justified – Diamorpha appears only to be supported by morphological evidence and older sources. But Sedum generally is a mess, e.g. Hylotelephium species recognized in its article are still in Sedum in its article. Then there's the question of infrageneric taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, Sedum is a mess. I guess Messerschmid 2020 is the latest word, but I expect there will be eventually be some further publications (the 2020 publication doesn't establish the combinations necessary for the proposed circumscription of Sedum). Plantdrew (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Rhamnus bourgaeana
Both IPNI and PoWO now accept that it should be bourgaeana and their websites will be updated in a few days at most. When I see the updates I'm inclined to move Rhamnus bourgaeana to Rhamnus oleoides subsp. bourgaeana. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion
Hello, Plantdrew,

I see you are tagging a lot of pages for CSD G5 speedy deletion. Just a tip here, in the field, please put the name of the sockmaster, not the sockpuppet. This is because if any admin has questions, they'll want to view the relevant SPI case and those are filed under the name of the sockmaster, not the individual sockpuppets. Thank you for making this adjustment. Your work is appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The process is also made much easier if you use Twinkle. But that's up to you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Austroperla cyrene
... don't know what I was thinking. Complete brainfart. Thanks for fixing it back up! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I thought about dropping you a note, but figured it was just a brainfart. Plantdrew (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Halophila johnsonii
I found Halophila johnsonii tricky to deal with. It seems clear that it's just a clone of Halophila ovalis or perhaps more precisely of Halophila ovalis subsp. ovalis. There's enough to say about it to warrant a separate article, I think, so I decided to treat it under the English name Johnson's seagrass, although the taxobox doesn't work perfectly. I would welcome your view. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * My inclination would be to redirect to H. ovalis, with a section there about H. johnsonii and its ESA listing/delisting. But the article does get a decent number of page views.
 * You had previously suggested using a vernacular name title to deal with Betula uber (a forma according to POWO, but ESA listed as a species). But when we had discussed that, Infraspeciesbox special didn't exist so there wasn't anyway to indicate forma rank with an automatic taxobox. I'm not sure what do with the taxobox for the seagrass. But I don't think subsp. ovalis should be listed as a synonym in the taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, I would in principle also prefer to redirect to Halophila ovalis, and the note I put under the section heading "Johnson's seagrass" could be expanded, but the article had quite a few wikilinks as well as page views. Um...
 * I do agree that I should not have given subsp. ovalis as a synonym, and I've removed it. Ideally the taxobox would show the sequence Halophila ovalis – Halophila ovalis subsp. ovalis – clone Johnson's seagrass, but this isn't possible with the current version of Infraspeciesbox special, and using a manual taxobox doesn't allow a line for a clone. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Monardella antonina
I'm not sure what to do with Monardella antonina. PoWO, Calflora and the Jepson eFlora all agree that it's not a separate species. Calflora and Jepson make it a synonym of Monardella villosa subsp. villosa. PoWO merges Monardella villosa into Monardella odoratissima, so has Monardella antonina as M. odoratissima subsp. villosa. This brief paper seems to be source of the merger of M. villosa and M. odoratissima; I would really have liked to see more detail, but can't find anything. Do you have a view? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , I've been traveling, so it's taken me awhile to get back to you. That paper says it is establishing combinations needed for the Flora of North America treatment, so I assume synonymy of M. villosa is likely to be accepted going forward. The Jepson Manual (1993) notes that M. antonina subsp. antonina "hybridizes with (and much like) M. villosa". I assume you saw the 2009 paper that synonymizes M. antonina and M. villosa subsp. villosa?
 * I certainly don't think an article for M. antonina is still warranted (it seems pretty dubious to recognize it even in the 1993 Jepson Manual treatment). Mark Brunnell is a co-author of the current (2012) Jepson eFlora treatment of M. villosa, so I expect Jepson eFlora will eventually be updated to follow Brunnell's 2020 treatment of villosa as a subspecies in odoratissima. Plantdrew (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * No worries about the delay; I've had plenty to do, here and in the real world. I've now given the fossil plant articles automated taxoboxes (and found a number of issues and omissions in the International Fossil Plant Names Index relating to the taxa concerned, which the editors have been quick to fix – IPNI seems to have delegated fossil plant names to this database).
 * I agree about Monardella antonina, and will move it. I thought I would first make a start on the taxonomy of Monardella odoratissima. Until there are secondary sources, such as the proposed revised Flora of North America and Jepson Manual treatments, it's difficult or perhaps impossible to fully combine the M. odoratissima and Monardella villosa articles, I think, because any attempt at a description of the united taxon would involve synthesis. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now revised Monardella odoratissima and Monardella villosa and moved Monardella antonina to Monardella odoratissima subsp. villosa. It's not a wholly satisfactory arrangement, but it's a far as I personally feel able to go pending the appearance of revised treatments in the Flora of North America and the Jepson Manual. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Genus categories
It seems you removed the genus categories I added to Bachmannia chubutensis, such as Category:Prehistoric ray-finned fish genera and Category:Ypresian genera. Are these depreciated or something? I've been adding them to every single one of the fossil fish pages I've been updating. Geekgecko (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * categories for genera belong on pages for genera (which could be either redirects or articles). I added Category:Prehistoric ray-finned fish genera and Category:Ypresian genera to the genus redirect Bachmannia (fish), and added categories for families to the Bachmanniidae redirect. There are various other categories such as Category:Eocene animals of South America, where there isn't really any guidance about including redirects vs. articles (or both) in the category. But if the category name specifies "genera" or "families" the page(s) in that category should be genera/families regardless of whether the page is a redirect or an article. Plantdrew (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah nothing wrong then, I must have completely missed that you just moved the categories to the redirect. I've done that many times myself, no idea why I didn't bother to check. Geekgecko (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Phallaria (moth)
I have no idea what I did wrong, but I can't get the automatic taxobox to display. Your help is appreciated. Thanks. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * if the taxonomy template is disambiguated (e.g. when a plant and animal genus have the same name), you must use genus and species in the Speciesbox, not taxon. taxon in Speciesboxes expects the value specified to be exactly two words, where the first word is the exact name of the taxonomy template to be called. Genus accepts multiple word template names such as Template:Taxonomy/Phallaria (moth).


 * Phallaria (moth) should be at Phallaria ophiusaria; per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. If a monotypic genus requires disambiguation, the binomial should be used as the title, as a form of natural disambiguation. Unfortunately, the guidelines for titles of articles covering monotypic taxa are exceptions on top of exceptions. Plantdrew (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I performed the first page move just before I suffered a fatigue spell. I did not realize that there was a plant genus with the same name until after it was too late. I'll be more careful next time. Thanks again. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Microphis boaja
Hello, I saw that the article I created, Microphis boaja, was turned into a redirect for the page Doryichthys boaja. Although my citations were kind of funky, as some referenced D. boaja, the valid taxon is Microphis boaja, according to Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes. I wasn't aware that there was already an article for the species under that synonym, so that's my bad. With that being said, should I move the D. boaja page to M. boaja, changing the name only? GunnarBonk (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * , Wikipedia follows FishBase rather than Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes for validity/synonymy of fish species. While it is uncommon for these two databases to disagree, in this case FishBase recognizes D. boaja. Plantdrew (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize that. Thanks for letting me know! GunnarBonk (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks like a case where Fishbase hadn't caught up with ECoF. The change is based on two recent papers (Stiller et al 2022, Hay et al 2023). I'd expect Fishbase to make the change soon and the article can be moved then. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Brownbanded bamboo shark
Hello, @Plantdrew!

I have re-inserted the content you deleted in the article about the brownbanded bamboo shark, and I have added a source so that it is no longer unsourced. (It is, of course, still trivia, but I would contend that the film has contributed to the awareness of this particular species of shark - I for one did not know about it until I watched the movie).

Sincerely, Nikolaj1905 (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Excavata orders


A tag has been placed on Category:Excavata orders indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit  14:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Latirus--my edit of your edit
Yesterday, you moved the article Latirus from Category:Fasciolariidae to the category that I'd just created for Latirus a day or two earlier. In fact, it seems that you did it literally moments before I would have added the article to that new category myself (I'd just finished moving all the species articles, and my last step when creating these genus categories is generally to add the genus article).

I want to explain the small change I made to your edit. I left the article in Category:Latirus, bud also put it back in Category:Fasciolariidae. Somewhere I did read that this is an exception to the general principle (not a hard-and-fast rule) that an article usually should not be in BOTH a category and in the parent category. The category Latirus is the eponymous category. While we wouldn't add all the species of genus Latirus to the family category, it's valid to have the article on the genus itself in both that genus category and its parent family category. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * , yes, articles with an eponymous category may be placed in both that category and the parent category, as outlined at Categorization. Just 7 of the 29 subcategories for genera of Fasciolariidae have the article with eponymous category also included in the Fasciolariidae category. It should be consistent one way or the other (either all articles with eponymous categories are included in the parent, or none are). Taxonomy/organism categories for the most part don't have articles in both the eponymous category and the parent category (it's not totally consistent, but it would take fewer edits to achieve consistency if articles were excluded for parent categories). Plants consistently do not have articles in parent categories. Fish are the only organisms I am aware of that routinely include articles in both eponymous and parent categories.
 * You might find commons:Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot helpful for the recategorization you are doing. It allows you to select a batch of articles to be recategorized without needing to open each individual article (but as far as I am aware, it doesn't support adding sort keys, so maybe it won't work for you). Plantdrew (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Centranthus


A tag has been placed on Category:Centranthus indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bullseye cardinalfish (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Bullseye cardinalfish (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Some remaining Asteraceae manual taxoboxes
As I guess you've seen, I've been working on the remaining Asteraceae manual taxoboxes. Some of the articles were quite tangled; Jalantzia is a case where PoWO right now is simply wrong to treat the genus as Vernoniopsis Dusén (I've e-mailed them). I've come to a halt with those currently listed at User:Peter coxhead/Work page, where it's not clear to me what to do; I really don't want to move the relevant articles to subspecies names.

Any views on this list? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In general, I'd be OK with merging the ones treated as subspecies. I'll look into each of the ones you've listed later.
 * Something weird is going on with Helichrysum rupestre DC on POWO. There are homonyms on IPNI. POWO says it is synonymized following COL where it is " [Cited as Helichrysum pendulum subspec. pendulum.]". Tropicos cites this publication in treating H. rupestre DC as a synonym of H. pendulum (authorship in that publication is H. rupestre Raf.; I believe the correct authorship is (Raf.) DC., Tropicos has a note to that effect, but still gives authorship as DC.; IPNI has "(Raf.) DC." that is linked to the POWO record for "DC.") . POWO has H. rupestre Boiss. as a synonym of H. pendulum I think POWO has mixed up the homonyms and I'd guess that them having the DC. name flagged as "nom. superfl." may stem from omitting "Raf." and not recognizing that the DC. name is a subsequent combination. I believe the correct synonymy for DC. is H. pendulum; not sure what to make of the Boiss. name. Plantdrew (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh! The Boiss. authorship is totally bogus; Boissier attributes authorship to DC. Plantdrew (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd noticed some of the issues with Helichrysum rupestre on PoWO, but not got as far as you. It's similar to their error with the homonyms of Vernoniopsis – a situation described as "bizarre" in Hind & Langhorne (2024) and which was accepted as incorrect in a reply to my e-mail. It seems that much of Asteraceae was imported from COL and has not been completely reviewed. When IPNI is correct, as with Vernoniopsis/Jalantzia, PoWO will eventually be fixed when a reconciliation is run. In the meantime, the moral seems to be not to rely on PoWO for Asteraceae in problematic cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Authority in speciesbox
Hi, I have noticed a large number of new species articles created by other editors that lack the year described in the authority parameter of speciesbox. Is there a guide to when to include the year? Why not wikilink to the botanist/scientists mentioned in the authority parameter as well? The parameter guidance also states presence or absence of parentheses is meaningful. What does that mean?

Take Syringa pinnatifolia as an example. Should it be:


 * 1) authority= Hemsl. - (as it is currently)
 * 2) authority= Hemsl. - (wikilinked)
 * 3) authority= Hemsl., 1906 - (year described)
 * 4) authority= (Hemsl., 1906) - (in parenthesis with year described)

Thanks in advance for the guidance. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * , it's better to wikilink the authority than to not link it. But that isn't something that I often make an effort to do.
 * There are different conventions for citing authorities under the botanical code and the zoological code. Under both codes, parentheses indicate that a species was first described in a different genus than its current placement. Parentheses have a meaning and are not just a matter of formatting style. Under the botanical code, the authority who assigned a species to its current genus (the combining authority) follows the parenthetical name of the first describer and the year is not indicated. Under the zoological code, the combining authority is not indicated, but the year is included.
 * The differences in authority citation betweeen the botanical and zoological codes stems, in part, from a difference between how the codes determine priority. Under the zoological code, priority is determined by the date of the first publication of the species epithet. Under the botanical code, priority is the date of publication of the combination (of genus+species).
 * A botanical example of the difference:
 * "Ligustrum reticulatum Blume" was described in 1851. It was transferred to Syringa in 1951 by H.Hara; the name is then cited as "Syringa reticulata (Blume) H.Hara". Hypothetically, let's say that Jones described a different species as "Syringa reticulata Jones" in 1900. Under the botanical code, the first combination of Syringa+reticulata is Jones, and the species named by Blume would need a replacement epithet if it was transferred to Syringa in 1951. Under the zoological code, the first publication of the epithet reticulatum is Blume, and once Blume's species is placed in Syringa, Jones later epithet of reticulatum would need to be replaced.
 * I don't know why botanical tradition doesn't include the year in authority citations; it would be useful, but tradition simply doesn't include it. And Wikipedia generally follows the tradition and doesn't include years. Absent tradition, there's no standard way to indicate the year. It might appear in parentheses on it's own; e.g. Syringa reticulata Jones (1900). Another way to do it is to include an abbreviated citation of the publication after the authors and before the year e.g. "Ligustrum reticulatum Blume in Mus. Bot. 1: 313 (1851)"; this is what POWO does with lists of synonyms, and is generally what is used in examples in the botanical code. The whole point of citing author and/or year is to give a bibliographic reference, but it's a heck of a lot more useful to include the title of the publication. Author+year isn't really sufficient for bibliographic purposes, but neither code has a tradition of including the title in an authority citation. Plantdrew (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that write up. I appreciate your willingness to walk me through that. Yes, the full reference or a reflink in the authority parameter would be ideal. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for fixing my copypaste error on chimpanzee - I think I've now fixed the issue that caused it...

~Puella Mortua~ Signed from the grave. (séance me!) 23:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) 

Cat idea
Hi @Plantdrew. I am thinking about creating categories for eponymous taxa/species. For example: taxa/species named after fictional characters/works of fiction, taxa/species named after people, taxa/species named after locations, etc.

This is to correspond to the list articles:
 * List of organisms named after famous people
 * List of bacterial genera named after personal names
 * List of rose cultivars named after people
 * List of taxa named by anagrams
 * List of unusual biological names
 * List of organisms named after works of fiction
 * List of things named after Charles Darwin

I find that the list articles are out of date and cumbersome. The categories would help improve tracking even though it is a bit of trivia.

I was thinking about it because of two new articles Thecamoeba homeri which is named after Homer Simpson (fictional) and Sternocera hildebrandti which is named in honour of Johann Maria Hildebrandt.

Of course this will come with its own problems. For example AOS's renaming of North American bird species (e.g. Thick-billed longspur), but I think that it will be a unique data point to highlight

What are your thoughts on this? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * N.B.: I see Category:Eponyms in biology>Category:Eponymous taxonomy>Category:Eponymous genera already exists, but is sparsely populated. So that could be a starting point. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure that eponymy is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a taxon (and that goes for other aspects of taxon etymology as well, e.g. taxa named by anagrams). The description of Category:Eponyms says that medical conditions are not included in the category (there is Category:Eponymous diseases, but it was recently created and might not survive a deletion discussion). I'd put taxa in the same boat as medical conditions; there are tens of thousands of taxa named after people or locations.
 * The lists of taxa by etymology may not be up-to-date, but they do include red-links, which could not be included in categories. Category:Eponymous genera is a fairly recent creation and its description doesn't put any restrictions on what could be included. List of organisms named after famous people excludes biologists (the source of the majority of taxon eponyms) and ethnic groups (one of the two articles currently in the eponymous genera category is named for an ethnic group). Red-links in the lists and some potential restriction on category contents are something to think about if you want to do this.
 * And if you do want to pursue this, I'd suggest you bring it up somewhere else (maybe Wikipedia talk:Categorization?) to get a sense for whether other editors think the categories would be appropriate. I don't want you to waste your time setting up categories that might end up getting deleted as not be DEFINING. Plantdrew (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Tripsacum floridanum
We have an article at Tripsacum floridanum, a taxon that seems to be supported by multiple US-based sources. PoWO regards it as a synonym of Tripsacum dactyloides, and that article lists Tripsacum floridanum as a synonym (based on TPL, but would be the same with PoWO). Tripsacum floridanum is not listed at Tripsacum as per the sources used there. So what to do? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , I guess the T. floridanum article could be redirected. I am concerned that the POWO record has no source for synonymy (the only source cited accepts the species), and iNaturalist accepts the species (they usually follow POWO).
 * Tropicos cites "An integrated assessment of vascular plants species of the Americas" (2017) as accepting the species, but cites online updates to that publication from 2018 in treating it as a synonym of T. dactyloides.
 * "Catalogue of New World Grasses" (2003) accepts Tripsacum dactyloides var. floridanum. Surprisingly, the library does not have a copy of this publication. But it is apparently being updated as a project within Tropicos. The project record accepts Tripsacum dactyloides var. floridanum but the "degree of acceptance" is "Doubtful or dubious". I'm not sure if the dubiousness is over whether it should be treated as a full species, or whether it shouldn't even be recognized at the varietal level (it is the only variety in the project record for T. dactyloides that isn't a synonym or illegitimate that is not presented in bold type.
 * Since you're working on grasses now, I want to give you a heads-up about Elymus trachycaulus. I think POWO is wrong in synonymizing it with Elymus violaceus. trachycaulus should have priority, and POWO bases the synonymy on a single book (while citing multiple publications that accept trachycaulus). Without seeing that book, my guess is that it is treating purported trachycaulus from far east Asia as violaceus, but is not claiming that all trachycaulus (e.g. from North America) should be synonymized with violaceus. I've inquired about the book at my library and I think they are trying to obtain a copy for me. POWO's record for Elymus sierrae is affected by this as well (I'm not sure that it should be considered a synonym at all, but if it is a synonym, apparently it should be one of trachycaulus). Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed response. I've only been working on grasses sporadically. I had decided that PoWO's treatment of some genera/species is not obviously correct, and so left them alone. For example, PoWO synonymizes some Australian genera that Australian taxonomic databases accept, and I couldn't see what sources PoWO was using, or else they seemed in disagreement.
 * Re T. floridanum, Vascular Plants of the Americas online here accepts it as a synonym, although claiming the last modified date as 10/12/2017, which is odd because the dataset S1 of the original Science paper dated 22 Dec 2017 lists both T. dactyloides and T. floridanum. I guess T. floridanum can be treated as a synonym, although I'd be happier with clearer sources.
 * I won't have much time for Wikipedia in the next week or so, but I've noted the possible issue with Elymus trachycaulus. If Elymus trachycaulus is ultimately based on Triticum trachycaulum Link, dated as 1833 in IPNI, and Elymus violaceus is based on Triticum violaceum Hornem., undated in IPNI, but the source Fl. Dan. [Oeder] t. 2044 is dated as 1832 in TL-2, then if they are synonyms, PoWO seems to be correct in claiming that violaceus/um has priority. But whether they are actually synonyms is another matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × juratzkae moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × juratzkae. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong in the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This was FYI for you as I know you weren't the initial author. I moved all but one of these new hybrid articles to draft as the referencing was all janky. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , for the hybrids you draftified, I don't think a source exists that associates the nothospecies name with a hybrid formula that has Cirsium greimleri as a parent. I expect sources exist (but aren't necessarily cited in the articles) that give Cirsium waldsteinii as a parent. C. greimleri was split from C. waldsteinii in 2018, and the only post 2018 source in the draftified articles is Vavrinec's 2020 thesis. Vavrinec doesn't mention the nothospecies names, but does list hybrid formulas with a C. greimleri parent. Plantdrew (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Question about Trivia
Hello! I have a quick question. Saw the removal of the trivia under the Shakey's Pizza page, and am wondering, as you are a far more experienced editor than I am, if it is necessary to delete them? As far as I understand it, Shakey's Pizza is a bit of a cultural icon/meme status in several countries, so the trivia is interesting from a cult status type perspective. That is why I had come upon the page in the past (i.e. looking up cultural references because of this phenomenon). As for the citations, aren't they self-referential? I think it would be a bit silly to have to add citations after a reference that refer to the... reference itself. Let me know! Cheers. Top5a (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * . See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive 63 and "In popular culture" content. Secondary sources (not self-references) are needed, and the subject of an article should play some significant role in the cultural item where it is being referenced (not just a passing reference to it by it's name).
 * "A flashback sequence features the character Deputy Doug saying "I'm not going to be a banjo player at Shakey's the rest of my life!"" is not a significant role. Plantdrew (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links! Top5a (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anthothelidae


The article Anthothelidae has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Per the world register of marine species (https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=125269), this article's current source, the name has been synonymized with Alcyoniidae and this article is no longer needed. All that could be merged is the list of genera (already in the other article) & the image, which will not be deleted with the page"

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. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)