User talk:Plantdrew/Archive 3

Jicama
Hi Plantdrew,

On your edit summaries you suggested that I instead request the move, at a page like WP:RM. By the looks of it, the page does not look very active with assistants, only with requesters. Meanwhile, WP:SLICE looks more maintained, I suggest that as the better option. Are there other alternatives? Also, I'm not sure whether the stress mark should not be used, as it is used throughout the article on the English Wiki, and is certainly more authentic to the Spanish language.-- ɱ   (talk)   22:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't notice this message earlier, I hope that this brings it to your attention. I'd appreciate insight on this matter. Thanks.-- ɱ   (talk)   03:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nigella sativa
Hello. Please do not modify the content of quotations, it is the basic rule of quoting, isn't it? Even if you sometimes think that your version is better, once we decide to take up someone's else statement we have stick to it. Cheers, ziel &amp; 08:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

WP definition of Ethnobotanist, or WP process for defining (applied, in practice)
Plantdrew, can you advise, refer or direct me to WP policy and practice - about what the term 'Ethnobotanist' means, or can mean? I ask due to a WP entry about a certain iconic 'hero' of psychedelic counterculture (post-Timothy Leary), speciously proclaimed an 'ethnobotanist' by an 'inspired' (cultic) following, often excessively reverent. I'm appreciatively aware that you as a WP editor well qualified by botany expertise, have tried to deal with this very problem in the entry I allude to (last year), by appropriate edits. It appears they've since been reverted, by someone - 'because they could' apparently - with no discussion or due process. There may be no means to prevent or correct such tampering in WP policy/procedure. I assume WP policies, procedures and practices - may simply lack critical boundaries for 'meaning management' ('definition control').

If there is any effective, reasonably functional way in this context, to secure a modicum of integrity for word meaning, officially - I'd appreciate knowing. Ethnobotanist isn't one of these words with various meanings in different contexts (like "type" or "theory" etc), able to be confused. What test if any does WP provide, to determine acceptable or valid use? The Talk Page for the entry reflects years of power struggle and edit war, as if 'legend-mongering' triumphs over factual integrity or truth, incorrigible and defiant. As if no reasonable standards of word usage or definition need apply, nor can mean anything. I'd appreciate if you can advise or refer this inquiry. I'd like to either find out how this problem can be addressed, or determine that alas, there's no adequate procedure, for all practical purposes - under WP policy and practice.

I don't inquire randomly. I'm an ethnobotanist - not because a devoted following declaring me so, but by widely understood, generally agreed-upon standards. Ph.D. from an accredited institution; publications in peer review journals (etc). My impression is this problem may be intractable, for all practical purposes, due to inadequacies of WP policy that, in effect, enables such misuse - by having no way to effectively prevent or even correct it - edit war and power struggle is all the emerges. I'd like to know if there's any stepwise method - to decisively inquire, clarify and correct not just misinfo but disinfo - as I can only conclude so far. Its actively practiced by a fairly determined partisan interest at WP - which it seems offers a conveniently unsecured platform, to broadcast a glorious hagiography, actively forged - as WP 'information.' Can any reasonable meaning for 'ethnobotanist' - criteria, definitional limits etc - be brought to bear? Thank youAkersbp (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessing redirects for WP:PLANTS
As you do quite a bit of assessment for WP:PLANTS, I thought you might like to know that I altered WikiProject Plants so that importance defaults to "NA" for redirect class articles, i.e.   is the same as   . Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Carambola / Damasonium conundrum
I don't understand why you added a hatnote to Carambola to the effect of:
 * for the marsh plant, see Damasonium

There is no mention of the term "carambola" in the Damasonium article, so the hatnote will just provide confusion. Perhaps an edit at Damasonium is necessary to explain why the term "carambola" is associated with this plant? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Marchantia
The dilemma I see in rating Machantia lower than Marchantia polymorpha is that most people coming here to look up information will likely go to the genus page first. Most people, even students or teachers in a botany course, will not make the distinction because "Marchantia" is the example used to represent all liverworts. When I said "model organism", this is what I was referring to. That's not what most biologists mean when they say "model organism", and I'm sorry if that confused you, but I couldn't think of another way to put this concept. Yes, M. polymorpha is the model organism in the laboratory sense, but it's the genus that's typically featured in texts.

My expectation is that once both articles are completed, the species page will have very little information beyond what the genus will have. There are many species of Marchantia and the morphological difference between them are small. If the species page is made the Mid/High page, then it really ought to have a lot more content, but that would likely mean duplicating the content from the genus page.

My solution is to treat the genus page as the more important article, and rate it highly because of its prevalence in botany textbooks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ideas for vital articles (10'000)
Hello fellow vital project member, I had many ideas for additions to the vital 10'000 whilst away and busy. But thought I would ask others opinions of the almost 100 articles that came into my mind before flooding the project talk page with them. If you have time let me know which articles you like and which you dislike. I am still looking for removals as well by the way. (I listed my ideas on my own talk page, here). Carlwev (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

please undo move of Pīngao to Ficinia spiralis
Naming conventions (flora) says ''The guiding principle of this guideline is to follow usage in reliable sources. In the vast majority of cases, this will be the current scientific name.'' It doesn't say you don't need to check with in every case. Pīngao is an important weaving and cultural plant in New Zealand and most reliable sources use Pīngao. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is fun
Saltbush! These are fun to make, and informative, too. —hike395 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Mel Òlalãl and all that
Well spotted. I have blocked the hoaxer - two articles with falsified references = WP:NOTHERE. Thanks! JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The complete Farmer
Thanks for your feedback on this article. Some of it is solved and the clean-up text is adjusted, but still it would be for best if the article would be rewritten completely. I will give that a try in the upcoming days. -- Mdd (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks a lot better now. The quotations are more clearly delineated from the text you wrote, which was my primary concerns. Plantdrew (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Conservation status under a different species name
Hi, I saw you addition of the IUCN information for Eugenia scortechinii at Syzygium scortechinii, which seems justified by their comment that many Eugenia have been moved to Syzygium. I discussed the matter with an IUCN person about a year ago who said that they had only 3 staff in the Red List Unit, and therefore would be glad to hear of significant cases where an apparently threatened plant species has been sunk in synonymy. Thought I should mention that to you in case you come across a tip worth passing on to them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

 * I thoroughly endorse Choess's comment. (At least we don't now have to patrol all your new talk pages with their assessments!) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have been making all that work for you. I didn't realize new talk pages (or redirects) were going into the patrol backlog. Plantdrew (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No apologies due from you – these were all necessary pages. (I don't think that newly created talk pages should need patrolling.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations
As you should know by now, I am one of your fans. And I was happy to see THIS. It was long, long overdue and I am happy that @User:Peter coxhead noticed it and nominated you. Congrats for a job well done. Mercy11 (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Plantdrew (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Columbidae
You appear to be mistaken as to the spelling of the word in question. manoeuvrable is a correct spelling, whereas manoeuverable is not. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed back to your spelling, and changed "colonize" to "colonise". Might be some other Americanisms in there, but I didn't check thoroughly. As somebody used to American spelling, "manouevrable" is very strange looking to my eyes. Plantdrew (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo
Hi, I'm terrible at uploading photos, but I know there are some for the various arctostaphylos species im working on. Could you upload some for the articles. You recently tagged some for this. Sincerely, Reedman72 (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not much of a photographer, but there are often photos already available on Wikimedia Commons for plants that grow in the US. There is a possibiity that photos on Commons are misidentified, so take them with a grain of salt, and there may not be any available for rarer species (I can't find any for Arctostaphylos wellsii). I've been kind of drive by tagging articles with "needs photo" without checking if Commons has photos, but I did manage to find photos and a range map on Commons for your Arctostaphylos pringlei article (though the range map doesn't show any populations in NV or UT).


 * If you are going to be writting more articles on several more Arctostaphylos species, check commons:Category:Arctostaphylos to see whether there may be available images for the species. If I want to see whether Commons has images on a random species of plant, I usually add commons category-inline, to the article, then hit Show Preview (not saving yet), and then follow the link created by the Commons template to make sure Commons has something there. If there is a page on Commons, I'll select an image, add it to the Wikipedia article and then save (adding the image and the link to Commons). If there's nothing on Commons, I don't save the addition of the Commons link template.


 * Yes wellsii is extremely rare, there are some photos at this website though that have fair use on them, check http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?where-genre=Plant&where-taxon=Arctostaphylos+wellsii. Thanks for the picture on the other article, amigo, it really is better with one. Reedman72 (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the licensing is that Wikipedia can't use stuff from Calphotos directly. Their fair use conditions permit reproduction of thumbnails for noncommercial use only; Wikipedia content can be reused commercially under the CC BY-SA license. So Wikipedia can't take content that wasn't authorized for potential commercial uses. However, Wikipedia can link to Calphotos. Many articles on California native plants include External Links to the Jepson Manual Online, USDA Plants, and Calphotos. I added USDA Plants and Calphotos as external links on the A. wellsii article. Plantdrew (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Thank you, glad to help. Plantdrew (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

VA/E: Major varieties of wheat and rice
Hi Plantdrew, I've always respected your contributions to the VA/E list especially in the areas of plants and food. I was thinking about whether the most common types of wheat and rice should be added. You can probably find better sources of information on this than I can but I suspect the common wheat and durum on their own provide a greater source of calories to humans than some of the less widely grown grains on the list. I'm not sure which types of rice to add. Indica rice and Japonica rice are both redirects. With regard to maize what do you think about nixtamalization, the process that made corn a reliable and healthy staple in the New World? Gizza ( t )( c ) 02:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. If I had my way VA/E would have 1000 plant articles (no, just kidding). If we're going by calories, common wheat is certainly very important, as is Oryza sativa. I am tempted to add them, but ultimately, with a limited number of vital articles, they might be best considered nonvital subtopics of the vital articles on wheat and rice. If you want to propose adding them, I'd support, but I'm a little biased to includig more plants. I've got some plants I've been thinking about adding or removing from the vital list at User:Plantdrew/Vital. I haven't updated it lately, so I have some listings that have already gone through VA/E remove/add proposals. If you'd like to make any comment/suggestions on my vital sandbox page (or see anything there that you want to propose adding/removing), please do. I do think Common wheat may be a good suggestion. Plantdrew (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Assessment tools
Hello ! You popped up on my watchlist when assessing an article. In case you don't know, there's a tool which can help you to assess articles much more quickly than doing it by hand. I've copied and pasted it from WP:ANATOMY: I recommend you have a try. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The rater tool may be enabled to more easily set and view the ratings of articles. For information about enabling this tool, see User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. This is best used in conjunction with the 'display assessment' tool enabled on preferences/gadgets.
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I expect I'll get a lot of use out of that tool. 17:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, always a pleasure to help out another Wikipedian. --LT910001 (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Mango cultivar infoboxes
I see you indicated Ivory (mango) needs an info/taxobox in this edit. Lots do: List of mango cultivars. I tried to add one to Ivory, but removed it. I couldn't figure out which species it is. If you give me a bit of guidance, I will add all the infoboxes. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not finding a lot of information on Ivory mangos. I'm reasonably certain the species is Mangifera indica, but I haven't found a reliable source to confirm that. It would be nice to have an infobox, but it's not a big deal if it doesn't have one yet. The parameter I added is called "needs-cultivar-infobox", but I think of it more as "lacks infobox"; the parameter adds the category Category:Cultivar articles without infoboxes to the talk page. I sometimes have vague intentions of going through that category and adding infoboxes. I might take a little more time to see if I can further information on Ivory mangos since you've raised the issue (I have access to a good library for this sort of thing). Plantdrew (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why the deletion?
Hi. You recently deleted the category Gallopheasants from the Cobthorn Trust article, but left no justification for the removal. Please could you explain why you deleted it.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See the guideline at WP:DEFINING. It's somewhat subjective, but categories are to be used for defining characteristics of the subject of the article. Being one of several Category:Conservation organisations based in the United Kingdom is a defining characteristic for Cobthorn Trust. The fact that the Trust works with Gallopheasants (among several other animals) is not a defining characteristic of the Trust. Why should the article have the Gallopheasant category and not categories for the sheep, pigs, cattle, poultry and junglefowl that the Trust also works with? Would it really be helpful for an article on a zoo to have a category for every type of animal held at the zoo? Plantdrew (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Set index article
You may be interested in a discussion at Template talk:Set index article, including a list of disambiguations that are candidates for set index articles—three of which have already been converted, one by you. If you wish to reply, I will expect it here, not on my own talk page.—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I've commented over there. Plantdrew (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Indian Carp
Hi, after your edits on Indian Carp, I am left with a link to a disambiguation page that I can not solve. I guess you are an expert in this, so I hope you can solve the link to Indian Carp in this template: Template:Carp. Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 09:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seemed appropriate to me to just remove the link from the template. The template had Indian Carp under "carp groups", but Indian carp aren't really a group. It's a common name used for seveal different carp that occur in India. Plantdrew (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That works too, thanks. The Banner talk 16:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ramosmania rodriguesi
Hi, about your move to the scientific name for this plant, I'm not sure that it is correctly spelled. Tropicos has that spelling, but IPNI has Ramosmania rodriguesii. Article 60C.1 (b) of the code, unless I'm missing some special case for Spanish -es, says that the consonant at the end should be followed by -i-i. (What a source of joy these terminations are.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it's (presumably) named for where it grows, Rodrigues (island), so 60C doesn't apply, and 60D doesn't provide any guidance for non-recommended endings for geographic epithets. I tried searching Google for each country that ends in "s" with an "i" tacked on to the end. I didn't find any plants, but there are a couple insects, Pollex laosi and Mythimna mauritiusi. Not our Code, but that's a little evidence that a geographic name can become a Latinized epithet with the addition of a single "i".


 * Presumably IPNI and IUCN, which use the "ii" form, were assuming the Ramosmania was named for a person, and correcting it. The Tropicos record originated from WCSP; WCSP is down for me right now, but I'd be inclined to trust WCSP. Plantdrew (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, that sounds good (your reasoning, not the genitive derived from a place name). (I've had no luck with WCSP for a couple of days, and hope it isn't a permanent situation resulting from their funding woes.) Perhaps that name falls into the category whose spelling must not be changed from the original and could be construed as "composed arbitrarily" as per 23.2. Unfortunately, it's a 1989 name out of BHL's jurisdiction, and a rather obscure journal. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

MoS
I've moved southern hawker back to its English name, as per MoS. If you can point me to a Wikipedia policy that insects are an exception to the MoS or a discussion showing consensus for this move, I'll restore the original. I appreciate that some insects don't have common names, but this one does (insects are a mess, with a mix of capped common, lc common and binomial, so I can't see an obvious agreement to except the order from MoS)  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

daikon
You're welcome. =) — Llywelyn II   02:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Project tagging
Wikiproject Equine is a "child" project of the "parent" Wikiproject Mammals, so you don't need to add the Mammals project tag to all the articles you did. Please undo that tagging of any I failed to revert. And thanks a bunch for making a shitload of work for other people to clean up, however well-intentioned you might have been. Montanabw (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject_Equine. Why not add all five projects and the "sister" ones to boot?  NO NEED.   Montanabw (talk)  23:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Project reports such as Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mammal articles by quality log and WikiProject Mammals/Article alerts don't recognize these conceptual parentages.  Article alerts for Equine articles simply don't show up in the Mammal article alert list if the Mammal banner isn't present. Is it better to have the mammal alerts spread out across 6 different subprojects? What is the point of tagging articles for WikiProjects anyway? I'd thought a large part of the reason for tagging for Wikiprojects was to bring the articles under the scope of the reporting tools. I assume you have no interesting in turning WikiProject Equines into a taskforce of WikiProject Mammals (which would be one way to make alerts show up in one place).


 * Talk:Horse has (and it's not my doing) banners for Equines, Mammals and Agriculture. Horses are high interest mammals, and play a role in agriculture. This tagging makes sense to me. WikiProject Agriculture doesn't even mention Equines as a subproject. Do you want to remove the Agriculture banner from Talk:Draft horse since Equines recognizes Agriculture as a parent project? I just don't see how that would be helpful. There's some overlap in the projects. Articles covering horses in agriculture could be tagged with both Equines and Agriculture. Articles covering species and genera of equines could be tagged with Equines and Mammals. Articles on individual racehorses, horse breeds, veterinary medicine in horses might be tagged with just Equines. Is something like Turkmenian kulan likely to be developed further by editors who are mostly interested in horses, or might there be editors interested in rare mammals generally who would contribute? Plantdrew (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And to address Equine grandparent or higher projects. WikiProject Animals has very few articles tagged given it's potential scope. It's a metaproject for broader animal related discussions and a dumping ground for articles that don't fit into any animal subprojects. WikiProject Tree of Life is another metaproject for organismal discussions with very few articles tagged. ToL tagged articles cover taxonomic concepts or organisms that don't fit very well into plant/animal/microbiology subprojects. WikiProject Biology is yet another metaproject with very few tagged articles given it's potential scope. There's no common sense reason to add any of these parent projects to equine articles. Tagging articles with multiple hierarchical WikiProject banners (but leaving off the broader meta-project topics) is common practice on Wikipedia, and common sense. Talk:Chicago is tagged with the Chicago, Cities, Illinois and United States banners. Chicago project is a descendent of Cities. Illinois project is a descendent of United States. WikiProject Geography is the meta-project that includes all of these as descendents, and it's seems to me to be common sense that Chicago doesn't need the Geography banner.. Going by your approach to tagging it seems the only WikiProject on Chicago should be the narrowest one, Wikiproject Chicago. Is that really the best approach? Plantdrew (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are over 3,000 articles tagged for WikiProject Equine. Knock yourself out, then, all or nothing.  Oh, and don't forget all the cats, dogs, pigs, chickens, ducks, cattle, sheep, goats, and so on.  Go for it.  Mammals cleanup tags could be reworked to post the cleanup listings for all the "child" proects if someone wanted to put the appropriate links at the project page Montanabw (talk)  05:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "All or nothing"? That's not what I was going for, and I'm pretty sure you know that. I'm tagging mammal taxa (genera, species, subspecies, and maybe hybrids); these article are clearly in the scope of WikiProject Mammals. There are around 100 articles on equine taxa, not 3000, and many of those were previously tagged for WikiProject Mammals. I'm not going to tag Saddle or California Chrome as mammals. Nor am I looking at tagging breeds of domesticated mammals. I already added the mammal tag to species and subspecies of felines (WikiProject Cats), and I'm not about forgetting about the jaqckals and wolves that are only tagged with WikiProject Dogs.Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. Obviously, it is ridiculous to tag thousands of already tagged animals. Please stop doing this until there is a ruling on this matter from the relevant project. You are off making a mess. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell whether you were being sarcastic when started off with a nasty attitude ("shit load of work for other people to clean up"). Please see WP:PROJGUIDE, and also read the preceding section. And yes, I have read the subsequent section on overtagging; 2-3 project tags hardly seems to be overtagging. If you're so concerned about this, why haven't you removed the Mammals banner on all the horse pages (horse, zebra, quagga, etc.) that were already tagged with both banners before I started? You can see them all, including the ones I tagged here?


 * And again, tagging with relevant parent projects is common practice all over Wikipedia. Do you want to remove WikiProject Film from Star Wars, just because WikiProject Star Wars exists and has it's own project banner on the talk page? Plantdrew (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ideally, it seems to me, it shouldn't be necessary to manually add parent projects. Two possibilities spring to mind: adding the subproject tag would add the parent project tag automatically, or the statistics generator should 'follow' some kind of project hierarchy. Do you think that either of these would be a good idea? Peter coxhead (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I said "shitload," because if you do this to 3000 articles, it will be a mess if consensus goes the other direction later. For what it's worth, I checked in with the wikiproject council page, got this reply here:, which basically says what Peter said.  I would think that a SMALL link to the mammals project done on the template in such a way as to add WPEQ pages to a cleanup listing might be possible, if technologically feasible.  I would not want to make the tag something that would require complex work on each article where it appears but if the template could be gently tweaked, I'd say it's an issue to take to WikiProject Equine and I'd want to talk to the tech people about how to do it right.    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, I've replied at WT:COUNCIL, but the basic answer is that WikiProject Mammals gets to tag anything that they want. A lot of WikiProjects have worked out a sensible "division of labor", but others prefer to tag everything themselves.  The rule is that the scope (and therefore what to tag) is exclusively the choice of the actual participants in the project.  This means that if Plantdrew is a participant in that project, and you're not (I'm not), then it's Plantdrew (and fellow members) who make the choice, not you or me.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, then I guess I can just join and un-tag everything then? That would be very silly and sophomoric.  I have been told multiple times in my 8 years on wiki NOT to tag both parent and "child" projects, else we'd have WP Animals, WP biology, WP tree of life all tagged, which becomes ludicrous.  My question has evolved a bit to whether Plantdrew's concerns (which, I think, is about wanting WPEQ articles to show up in cleanup listings) could be addressed in some way other than manually tagging thousands of articles.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  20:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The technically oriented may have solved this problem in a more elegant way. See Template_talk:WPBannerMeta. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I need help responding to copyright violation accusations
Justlettersandnumbers tagged [this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syntrichopappus_fremontii&oldid=613422240] as a blatant vopyright violation. To a non-botanist, this may look like a coyright violation. But it is not a copyright violation. The article cites three sources. The source I used in one example, Mojave Desert Wildflowers, is a field guide that is based on the Jepson Manual. Anyone who uses Jepson (the only thing going in California) would write essentially the same article. If someone had a different field guide, it would be based on Jepson, and result in essentially the same article, too. Plants are typically identified, e.g., in the Jepson Manual, by location (habitat and range -what kind of place, how far and wide they are found, etc.), and by a taxonomic description - overall growth pattern (e.g. shrub, tree, etc.), leaves and stems, flowers and fruit, and sometimes a history of the genus and species name, or of its use by humans or other animals (or plants). The articles as I been been finding them (typically written by IceCreamAntiSocial are all essentially in this format, but in paragraph form without inline citations. I have started breaking them into sections, and putting in the inline citations. I can see how this would look like a copyright violation to anyone that does not know that most field guides, when used as a source, all say about the same content, with variations on the wording. Can you help explain this to Justlettersandnumbers, or explain how to write the above mentioned article without it appearing to be a copyright violation to a non-user of Jepson? (I am putting this same note on Icecreamantisocial's talk page.) FloraWilde (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ivy
Hi Plantdrew, now that Ivy has been moved to Hedera, would you be able to take charge of turning the current List of plants known as ivy into a concept dab? (I haven't a clue about such matters.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Maurandella
I really wasn't sure what to do about Maurandella. The taxonomic history seems to be this: So I was puzzled as what to do. The problem with having any article at Maurandella is that because of the prominence of Wikipedia in searches, it actually perpetuates the genus name, which isn't desirable. It also seems inconsistent that an obsolete genus which can redirect to one genus doesn't get an article, but one which should redirect to more than one does. Any more thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rothmaler (1943) used it to split off three species from Maurandya: Maurandella antirrhiniflora, Maurandella hederaefolia and Maurandella petrophila. This split was not accepted by later workers. So, if this were the end of the story, the normal action would be for Maurandella to become a redirect to Maurandya and Maurandella would be discussed under Taxonomy there.
 * However, Elisens (1985) put Maurandya petrophila into a new genus, Holmgrenanthe. So in an ideal world Maurandella would be a redirect to two pages, Maurandya and Holmgrenanthe. But this is technically impossible.

Category:Solanaceae stubs
Category:Solanaceae stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your Edit Speckled Tortoise
Thanks for your edit on Speckled Tortoise I will get to the synonymy in the next couple of days am going to update it and bring it up to date using the IUCN 2014 Checklist, am waiting the outcome of the move request on its talk page. Cheers, Faendalimas  talk 22:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

How can I get my article reviewed?
How can I get Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone reviewed to find out what I am doing right or wrong, and what I might do to further improve it? FloraWilde (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PLANTS quality and importance table
I suspect that you and I are among the very few editors really interested in the quality and importance statistics for the WP:PLANTS project (when I go to fix articles showing up as unassessed or otherwise odd in the table, I usually find you've already done it!). So I thought you might like to know that, after a struggle with understanding how it all works, I have managed to get the SL class included in the table at WP:WikiProject Plants/Assessment – it wasn't before. The project does seem to attract poor quality lists, so I think counting articles in this category is useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome work. I'm a little inspired now to look through the stuff assessed as List class and switch the really messy ones over to SL. Since you're messing around with the classes for the project banner, could I convince you to set up an "FM class" (I guess FM stands for Featured Media)? It should be pretty straightforward, I think. Template:WikiProject Food and drink has an FM class set up, and most of the Food and Drink tagged files seem pretty relevant to Plants. I'm kind of tempted to tag the Featured Media under Featured_pictures with an FM class Plants banner. Plantdrew (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The system that generates tables for different WikiProjects is of amazing complexity, so I can't say I understand all of it. However, as noted at Grading_scheme/doc/table, FM does seem to be a standard class, unlike SL, so it should be easier to get it to show up and I've done what I believe is necessary. (However the bot only updates the statistics once a day, it seems, so you sometimes have to wait to see whether it works properly.) I've created Category:FM-Class plant articles; media rated FM should show up there regardless of the bot, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear as to the point of assessing a file for WP:PLANTS. The number in Category:File-Class plant articles represents a tiny fraction of plant images in Commons, and many (most?) of those categorized here aren't used in any article, let alone a plant article. I can see the point of categorizing a small number of very good images as FM-Class, but File-Class??? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

On a related issue, WP:WikiProject Algae doesn't seem to have its assessment system set up properly, which is (I think) why articles show up in Category:NA-Class Algae articles when they are actually marked as "Cat" or "Redirect", etc. This in turn pollutes WP:Plants categories, e.g. the category of NA-Class Algae articles turns up in Category:NA-Class plant articles. However, there doesn't seem to be any activity at that project at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC) I've now altered the WP:WikiProject Algae categorization system to match ours (other than SL which they don't seem to have used). This means that e.g. Category:Redirect-Class plant articles now contains Category:Redirect-Class Algae articles which it previously didn't because they were all put into Category:NA-Class Algae articles. I've left a note saying what I've done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae; hopefully no-one will object. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm with you on the File class; I don't see much point using it for a random handful of Commons hosted images as it is currently, and I'm not interested in tagging every plant related image on Commons. I'm pretty tempted to just detag all the Files currently with a Plants banner. Obviously since I requested it, I do think FM is useful; there aren't very many candidates for this class, and tagging these excellent, reviewed images makes them more visible to the Plants project (I'd been actively editing for probably 18 months before I was even aware of the stash of plant related Featured Pictures).


 * Thanks for fixing up the Algae categories. I've wondered whether it might be better to spin Algae (as well as WP:WikiProject Banksia and WP:WikiProject Carnivorous plants back into WPPLANTS as task forces rather than independent sub-projects in their own right. Obviously, I'd want to check with Rkitko and others who have been active with these subprojects before doing so. And I'm not sure what the technical issues are (manually retagging everything with a plants banner would be a huge pain, but I'd hope that the banner templates for these projects could be modified to automatically bring them under WPPlants). Banksia and Carnivorous plants do of course currently show up in the assessment table and quality/importance categories. However, they don't show up in the article alerts under the current system (lots of Banksia articles have been promoted to GA or FA, but we don't see the announcements that they are being reviewed for promoton at Plants). 22:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry, I read this earlier, but didn't get round to responding then. I agree totally about the sub-projects. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Dendrogramma
One of the articles started off making it sound like we had no idea. bad journalism, i try to watch for that. i guess having a mouth is a bit of a giveaway:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the headlines (and what I'm seeing on social media) are getting confused by "looks like a mushroom" and "animal that can't be placed taxonomically" to arrive at "animal? fungus? who knows?". Plantdrew (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * :) FloraWilde (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Whew! FloraWilde (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . Thank you for the barnstar. I was away from the internet for a week and of course that's when you and a couple other people decide to go an article creation spree. Thanks for all the articles you've made lately; there's been a lot to catch up with. Plantdrew (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Talk:Ratz (TV series) has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To explain further, I left this message because I found "assess" to not describe the nature of the edit in question, which removed a project template entirely instead of merely changing it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the taxoboxen you added to my articles. I just can't find enough info about Dusicyon cultridens! Where must I look? --Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . Unfortunately, there just isn't much information for many species known from the paleontological record, and this species seems to be particularly poorly known (the fact that scientists are questioning it's placement in Dusicyon, but not putting forth any other ideas for it's proper genus suggests that it has not been very well studied). You might find some useful information if you search for the older name for this species, Canis cultridens, and I found an abstract for one paper that is calling it Pseudalopex cultridens, though it doesn't seem that very many people accept the classification in Pseudalopex. Plantdrew (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hyphens in List of botanists by author abbreviation
Hi, just to remind you that it should be endashes not hyphens between abbreviation and name and between years in the entry for a botanist. Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , ugh, what a pain. I'll try to keep that in mind. I usually just copy paste the entry from IPNI, but I guess they use the wrong character there. Plantdrew (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, "wrong" by the English Wikipedia MoS, which is not quite the same! :-) If it's kept consistent it does make processing the lists outside of Wikipedia easier – every now and then I run over them with a tool which checks that the alphabetic order is correct, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your recent assessment of the article Monarch butterfly migration. I certainly appreciate the attention since for such a while I have not received much feedback concerning any of the articles that I have created or on ones having made major contributions.

I mean this in the nicest way possible - I disagree with the importance that you have tagged it with. I would like to request a re-assessment of the importance of the article for a number of reasons.

The timeliness and notability of the article has more importance than many of the other articles marked 'low importance'. The migration of the monarch differs from other lep articles for a number of reasons. Some of the study methods are unique to the study of monarch migration. The topic is notable and differs from other types of migration because of: the distance travelled during the migration, the multigenerational aspect of the migration, the cues and timing of the migration, the physiological state of dormancy during which the butterfly migrates(!), the number of animals participating in the migration (perhaps half a billion), the visibility of the migration and the public interest in the migration. In addition, the study of the migrations involves conservation organizations with big budgets, tri-lateral conferences between governments, interests of indigenous people groups in Mexico and the recent petition submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency to declare the monarch threatened with extinction along with the declaration that the migration is an endangered phenomena. A lot of people, a lot of non-profits, a lot of governmental agencies, some agricultural interests and even state transportation departments are being affected by the topic of this article. President Obama recently issued a memorandum regarding the migration. I don't believe he has probably commented on lep in general. If someone does a search on monarch butterfly migration on google you will find more than two dozen articles. Thank you for reconsidering your assessment. Much Regards, <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;">  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks for checking with me, but you're free to change it yourself. You're right, Mid importance is more appropriate. I was going through dozens of newly created pages on insects, and tagging them with the assessment banner. 90%+ of the new pages are pretty clearly Low importance Stubs, so I usually end up just copy-pasting a assessment banner filled in as Stub/Low. I should've been more carefully with this one. As a subtopic, I'd say it's less important than Monarch butterfly itself, but that article is rated High, and the migration certainly attracts a lot of attention so something higher than Low is appropriate. Plantdrew (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Plantdrew, Thanks for your comments.  I thought it was inappropriate for the article's creator to assess the article.  I would be reluctant to change the assessment because of this.  Would mind changing the assessment?  If you work in assessing arthropod articles, perhaps I can learn how to help with that.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;">  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . I upgraded the assessment for Monarch butterfly migration. Some projects might be touchier about creator's self-assessing their articles, but with a huge backlog in organismal article assessment, I don't think anybody much cares if creators self-assess. The two editors most actively creating articles on insects at present usually self-assess (although they grade all their creations as Low importance Stubs; I suppose if a page creator were calling all their articles High importance B-class, it might raise more eyebrows).


 * If you're interested in getting into assessment, there's some general guidance WikiProject Arthropods/Article Classification and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Policy Archive, but ultimately there's quite a bit of subjectivity in assessment. You can find new articles in need of assessment by watching User:AlexNewArtBot/ArthropodsSearchResult and User:AlexNewArtBot/LepidopteraSearchResult (the Arthropod results should include all the Lepidoptera, so there's no need to pay attention to both if your primarily interested in leps). Again, the most active article creators usually self-assess their creations, so you should just look for red-link talk pages to find new articles that haven't been assessed yet. Non-insect arthropods get the WikiProject Arthropods banner, insects get WikiProject Insects, and while most leps only have the WikiProject Lepidoptera banner, a fair number also have the Insects banner. Also, there are literally thousands of existing arthropod articles that haven't been assessed. You can find many of these by using a tool called CatScan v2. Using CatScan, search for a taxonomic category, input a number for category depth (the higher up the taxonomic hierarchy the category is, the larger the depth number should be), and then select the option to search for talk pages that lack the appropriate WikiProject template. Here is an example CatScan search for unassessed coccinellid articles. Plantdrew (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This sounds like fun (seriously). I will give it a try and start with some leps.  Thanks for everything.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;">  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 02:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

New categories
I notice that you added WikiProject Plants banners to some categories that User:NotWith recently created. Unfortunately NotWith doesn't ever seem to reply to comments made on their talk page, but I'm concerned that some of these categories simply won't ever be large enough to justify, which is one reason that although I saw them I hesitated to add the project banner. Part of the issue is that diffusing downwards in a category like Category:Monotypic Asparagales genera leaves that category small without necessarily creating large enough subcategories. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , well I haven't been responsive to talk page comments lately either. I don't think these subcategories are really justified (I'm perfectly happy to leave everything at the relatively large Category:Monotypic plant genera), but the categories exist for now, so I'm inclined to add the banner. If they're bannered, then if they get nominated for deletion the deletion discussion will show up in the Plant Article Alerts. I don't see bannering as a commentary on whether the existence of a category (or an article) is appropriate, just noting what exists, whether appropriate or not. Plantdrew (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point about showing up in the Plant Article Alerts (do they show up if just tagged with Db-c1 after emptying, I wonder?). Ok, so I'll wait to see if NotWith ends up with sufficiently large categories.
 * A question I asked on his talk page is whether an article or redirect for a monotypic taxon should be categorized in three ways or two. It's agreed that an article for a non-monotypic genus, say, goes in a category "TAXON1" as part of the main taxonomic hierarchy and in a category "TAXON2 genera" as part of a separate "genera" hierarchy (where TAXON1 is not necessarily the same as TAXON2). Should an article on a monotypic taxon also be categorized as "Monotypic TAXON3 genera" or should this replace "TAXON2 genera"? At present such articles seem to be inconsistently categorized, sometimes two ways, sometimes three ways. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I'd prefer to have them as "Monotypic TAXON3 genera" (where TAXON3 is "plant"). At any rate, I don't think "Monotypic TAXON3 genera" should replace "TAXON2 genera"; the article should be in both categories (although with monotypic plants getting divided into so many subcategories, placement in both categories does lead to some redundancy). I think it's more useful to the reader to be able to go to "Fooaceae genera" and see all the genera, rather than having some of them segregated under a monotypic Fooaceae genera subcategory. On the other end, I'm not sure how the reader benefits from having "Monotypic plant genera" subdivided. It's interesting to see how monotypic genera there are across the plant kingdom, and the single category is useful for editors doing maintenance (i.e., checking that only genera, not species are in the category, and any parenthetically dabbed genus titles are redirects rather than articles). Plantdrew (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Having thought more about it, I agree that the "monotypic" categories are best treated as a separate hierarchy, in the way that the "by taxon" categories are. I think we used to be reasonably clear on this, but since NotWith has started to divide them up so finely, it does begin to look redundant. I'm not sure about leaving them all at "Monotypic plant genera" – a few very top level categories may be useful (angiosperms, conifers, etc.) – but dividing by family seems pointless to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Subcategorization of another R template
I finally got round to allowing the subcategorization of R to scientific name via the addition of. I created Category:Redirects to scientific names of plants and added a few redirects as a test. When I next looked at the category it had grown significantly – largely through your work as far as I can see. You had obviously already been adding  although it was then just ignored. I'm most impressed! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. I figured I might as well use the (then ignored) parameter if was editing the redirect. And once it was live, I shuffled out all the redirects that had been placed in Category:Plant common names and went through some of the general "R to scientific name" category to get a sense of how much of it was plants. I've been using |plant in the monotypic redirect templates as well. Plantdrew (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been adding it to the monotypic redirect templates too. That template could also usefully be subcategorized, although my enthusiasm for getting involved in this has been dented by NotWith's activities. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

R categorization issues
There are a lot of Banksia redirects in Category:Redirects to scientific names that are actually from one "version" of a scientific name to another. Some can clearly be changed from R to scientific name to R from alternative scientific name – e.g. . But I'm not sure what to do about all the varied versions of the same name with the author citation added like or with incorrect typography, abbreviations or both, like  or. I started tagging ones like these with R templates such as R to short name or R from modification and leaving off the R templates for plant redirects, but then I became unsure as to whether this was the best approach.

Any ideas? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ,, Having looked through everything in Category:All redirect categories, the short/modification/long templates look like the best choices. It would be good to check with WikiProject Banksia (i.e. Hesperian and Cas Liber) though. Take note of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_9 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_24. It looks like the solution in the latter deletion discussion was just to tag the redirect talk pages for WikiProject Banksia, but the redirects in the earlier deleted categories never got their talk pages tagged. Given the numerous (and surely WikiProject supported) pop culture redirect categories in "All redirect categories", it seems like a Banksia redirects might survive a deletion discussion if the Banksia folks are still interested in tracking these through a category (as well as via project banner). Plantdrew (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about delay. Late here. Will need to digest this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh god that's boring...there are about 96 dryandra pages that need tagging :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Which dryandra pages did you mean? I haven't see any dryandra pages with the R template, although there are pages which could usefully have the   added to the R template.
 * The problem pages are ones like, which shouldn't have R to scientific name because it means "R from vernacular name to scientific name". It's not always clear though what they should be tagged with. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The genus Dryandra was sunk into Banksia about 5 years ago ... and had about 90-odd species - looking at Category:Redirect-Class_Banksia_articles it is all the binomials beginning with "dryandra..". I've done a few. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I went through all the rest of the Dryandra binomials and added a redirect categorization template. I didn't do anything with: Dryandra prionotes A.S.George, Dryandra wonganensis A.S.George, Dryandra xylothemelia A.S.George, Dryandra sp. 25, Dryandra sp. Cataby,  or Dryandra sp. Cataby (F.Hort 1779). These are the kinds of cases Peter was asking about initially. Are strings which include the authority, or provisional names, best categorized as scientific names, or are they not exactly scientific names? I'm not entirely sure. I also didn't do any redirect categorization for the various Dryandra series. It looks like most of them are monotypic, and that brings up another issue; how to deal with intersecting redirect categories (i.e., Dryandra ser. Folliculosae would be a redirect from a monotypic taxon when the target was Dryandra fraseri, but with it now pointing to Banksia fraseri it's not clear what the redirect category should be). There's discussion about the intersecting redirect categories at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants. Plantdrew (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - the species with authority I agree i am a little at a loss what to do with...I guess do they do any harm just as plain redirects unadorned by any templates or are they better deleted...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I would delete them. Who's going to search using these strings? And if they do, the article shows up anyway. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I agree. I might go ahead soon unless someone comes up with a reason otherwise. 19:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Update to autoed code
Hi, I've updated  at User:Peter_coxhead/common.js so that it handles cases when the "R to scientific name" template isn't the first (I came across a run of redirects like this). It seems to work ok, so you might want to copy to User:Plantdrew/common.js. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've updated my copy of your code. I've been fairly busy the last couple days, and likely won't have much time over the weekend either, so my progress is a little slow at the moment. Plantdrew (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

All done! Quite an achievement for us both, I think.

Looking upwards in the category hierarchy to Category:Plant common names, is there any point to the empty Category:Plant common name redirect pages? It could, I suppose, be used as category for "redirects from one plant common name to another", which I've just been tagging with "R to alternative name". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yay for finishing that task. I created Category:Plant common name redirect pages for redirects from the common name to the scientific name, but there were never more than 10 entries in the category. Once you'd set up the redirect template with the |plant parameter, I went that route and cleared out the category. I've been intending to delete the category, but it might be a good place to put the redirects from one plant common name to another.
 * Adding Category:Plant common name disambiguation pages as a subcategory of Category:Plant common names may not stick. It was removed a few months back per some MOSDAB nonsense (specifically WP:DBC); so far, mentioning the DAB category in the text of Category:Plant common names hasn't been reverted by MOSDAB partisans.
 * Ah, right – I see now why it was only there as a comment. It's more important to have the SIAs categorized than disambiguation pages per se, since these may include non-plants. Perhaps there should be a category for plant SIAs? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We've got Category:Set indices on plant common names. It's populated via template, so it wouldn't be hard to change if there's a better name for the category. Plantdrew (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While we're talking about category tree structure, do you have any thoughts on a better title for Category:Species common names? Common names for genera and families are also included, so the category title isn't very accurate. I'm leaning towards Category:Common names of organisms, but there are other possibilities. I'd prefer to stay away from "vernacular name", as the subcategories all use "common name" aleready, and vernacular name is fairly jargony (I do make a distinction between commmon/vernacular in contexts where WP:COMMONNAME is likely to be brought up, but I think the context is pretty clear with the categories). Plantdrew (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I favour Category:Common names of organisms; much better. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll change it then (I don't think there's much point in bringing it to a wider potential audience at say, WP:TOL; it'd still probably be just you and I commenting on it). Plantdrew (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I marked Category:Plant common name redirect pages for deletion; I don't think it's useful now.

With hindsight, I wish I had thought of an R template like "R between plant common names" or "R between common names|plant" to mark redirects from one plant common name to another; then there could have been a category "Redirects between plant common names" which would be useful for maintenance. However, we've been through the redirects from plant common names now, and I don't know of any way of finding the intersection between WP:PLANTS redirects and redirects to alternative names or redirects to modifications. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Going through Category:Redirects from scientific names of plants and checking incoming links wouldn't be too terribly onerous (but not super easy either). But I think categorizing those redirects is going to more complicated than "R between common names|plant" could handle. If there are two or more commonly used vernacular names in English, the plant should be at the scientific name anyway. Are the redirects pointing to okra or fir really redirects between common names? I'd be willing to call Bhindi a redirect from the common name in Indian English to the common name in global English (and also a redirect from a Hindi language term), but I'm not sure about all the variant spellings of okra, or common names in other languages. Fir tree seems more like a modification than a redirect between common names. There's probably only going to be a handful of cases where "between common names" would be relevant to plants (but thousands of cases for animals). I'm guessing it would mostly be relevant for vegetables with ENGVAR issues (US/UK/Indian/etc.). I've added the plants banner and "R from alternative name" to a few of these previously; aubergine, brinjal, courgette, methi and just now for swede (vegetable) and bhindi. For eggplant/aubergine/brinjal, I've been considering requesting a move to Solanum melongena to duck the ENGVAR issue, but I don't think a move to a poorly attested cultivar name would be a good compromise for courgette/zucchini or swede/rutabaga. Plantdrew (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, on further reflection, you're right: there are more cases than just "redirects between common names". It just seems a shame to have "lost" them given that they are prompts to at least consider moves. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Great masterwort listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great masterwort. Since you had some involvement with the Great masterwort redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 67.70.35.44 (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi! I am Gug01. I want to thank you for adding a taxobox to Abroscelis anchoralis. It is very helpful that you did that. Gug01 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Gug 01
 * You're welcome. Thanks for fixing my oversight in the name parameter. It looks like you've figured out how to add the taxobox as with Abroscelis longipes; just copy paste the taxobox from the next highest taxon (i.e. Abroscelis) and add whatever parameters are needed for the lower taxon (and make sure to change the name parameter as I'd neglected to do). Plantdrew (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for awarding me the barn star, and thank you also for improving Wikipedia by creating new tiger beetle articles. Plantdrew (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Also, thank you again for fixing up my stubs. Gug01 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01

Cylindera germanica, Cylindera germanica germanica and Cylindera agnata
Hi Plantdrew! It's Gug01 again. Could you please help expand the three articles Cylindera germanica, Cylindera germanica germanica and Cylindera agnata? I know you have expanded my articles before, so I am asking you to help expand these three articles. Gug01 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01