User talk:Plantdrew/Archive 9

Talk:Osprey/GA1
Probably time to close this. AIRcorn (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , sorry I left that running so long. I haven't requested/closed a GA review before; could you check that I've closed it out properly and correctly updated the Article history template? Thanks. Plantdrew (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats alright. I made a few minor edits (added a link to the GAR and removed it from the GA page), but everything else looks good. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Watsonia_(plant)
one of the most destructive disliked s--- of a weed that has consumed vast amounts of time, money and exasperation in south western australia over the last 50 years, and despite all the measures the bloody corms rise out of drying lateritic soils to start again like a perennial villain in Dr Who - really obscene superlatives are insufficient to give an estimation of the negative value on native flora in western australia JarrahTree 04:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Pelargonium cucullatum
Thank you for scaling the new article on Pelargonium coronopifolium. I recently extended the article on Pelargonium cucullatum, which is still scaled as stub. Perhaps you would like to have a look at it and scale it for the Plant and South Africa projects. Thank you in advance. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

, I've rescaled it. You used to contact fairly frequently about looking over articles you'd expanded. I failed to respond in a timely fashion at some point, and I think this is the first request from you I've seen since then. I'm not sure if my lack of response discouraged you from asking for further reviews, or you just haven't needed any reviews recently, but please feel free to request further reviews. Plantdrew (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and dont worry. I just haven't been active on Wiki for about half a year. A trip to South Africa resulted in images of many to me new plants. I'm trying to get IDs for those and will then upload to commons, this takes a lot of time. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Category size
Just out of interest, what criteria do you apply to decide whether to upmerge or demerge taxonomic categories? If I came across Category:Lychnis I would upmerge it to Category:Caryophyllaceae on the grounds that it was too small. I've recently upmerged dozens of fern genera categories (many created by Polbot); 10 actual entries and 20+ potential entries is, I think, roughly the standard I apply. This is actually far more tolerant of small categories than WikiProject Plants/Categorization: "Categories which run over several screens (say more than 50-100 entries) should be split up". Although I think I wrote up most of the project guidance, it was firmly based on the consensus of the time rather than my personal view; the consensus then favoured large categories. (I seem to recall that was an advocate of this.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been going with half of your standard; 5 actual entries and 10+ potential. A fair number of categories I've (re)created were previously deleted by Stemonitis, including some that now have 10+ entries. The Lychnis category was a mistake; I didn't notice that POWO doesn't recognize the genus until after I'd started the category and the taxonomy template (I'm generally leaving manual taxoboxes in place for now when POWO doesn't accept a genus). Plantdrew (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need to see if the consensus at WP:PLANTS has changed? Peter coxhead (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On the subject of POWO, they seem to have adopted a lumpering perspective lately, not just for ferns. They often follow the controversial GLOVAP approach. I don't know about Lychnis, but I've got more cautious about following them unless there is good independent evidence. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 22
NB bangs head slowly but repeatedly against wall... Narky Blert (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Neslia merge
I don't see the merge discussion at eitherr Talk:Neslia paniculata or Talk:Neslia. Am I missing something, or was the discussion not actually created? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Australian biota project
Has got to a new stage of its progress in this confusing and chaotic world... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unknown-importance_Australian_biota_articles = 0. Please help by when creating new biota articles for australia, to make sure the unassessed page stays the way it is adequately tagged, or please ask for help in doing so... More on the next stages of the Australian biota project soon... and thanks for whatever you have done for the project in any way since 2006 - JarrahTree 05:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Stenanthera
Hello Plantdrew and thanks for your work. I'm afraid I'm a clutz at sorting out taxobox/species box issues. I'd be grateful if you would take a look at Stenanthera and Stenanthera conostephioides. (I have tried to fix - I promise!) I'll watch and learn. Gderrin (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Taxobox question
When I look at the taxobox at Saintpaulia, I feel that "Subgenus: Streptocarpus subg. Streptocarpella" should appear as "Subgenus: S. subg. Streptocarpella". Generalizing, subgeneric taxa that are not the target of the taxobox should have the genus name abbreviated. Now if I only had to deal with ICNafp names, this would be easy to implement – assuming consensus that it was the right thing to do, and I won't make any changes without wider discussion. But ICZN subgeneric names seem to be set out in different ways, e.g. subgenus Y of genus X appears as either "X (Y)" or just "Y". In the former case, again assuming it's not the target taxon, what do you think about abbreviating the genus name? Are there other ICZN subgeneric ranks in use in taxoboxes? You look at a much wider range of taxoboxes than me, I think, so I would value your view before taking this further. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , if format "X (Y)" is used, I think the genus should be abbreviated, but I prefer format "Y" (although I'm not sure which, if either, is ICZN preferred). I'm not aware of any formal ICZN ranks in taxobox other than subgenus. There are a handful of manual taxoboxes with species_complex, species_group or species_subgroup (mostly Drosophila taxa). Values for those parameters aren't formatted in any consistent way. I'm pretty certain I've seen some manual taxoboxes with a species complex/group value in species. I think there may be a couple taxonomy templates for species complexes.Plantdrew (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've got a bit sidetracked by Saintpaulia → Streptocarpus and Chionodoxa → Scilla, but I will try to get to this sometime. The automatic title italicization doesn't work for "sect." titles, so this also needs fixing. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks
your cleanup editing always appreciated JarrahTree 23:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

One for you
See Prickly Pear Island snail. Caps? Taxobox? Ugh. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

DAB
If you get a chance, Calvitimela has a dab in the species list to fix. The link needs to be made red with an appropriate disambiguator. Also, the article is in only one redlinked cat. Fixing this one is a little beyond my bio knowledge. Thanks. MB 19:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Should be good now! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Weeds in my yard
Since this stuff is blooming right now, I looked for info in WP and didn't find anything. So I added something to Oncosiphon. Is that OK to talk about the species in the genus article. I didn't think there was a great need for a separate article. MB 04:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! Definitely deserves its own article. I moved your content here: Oncosiphon pilulifer. It would be cool to get some photos of it growing invasively. There aren't many images on Wikimedia Commons. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating article. It was probably much easier for you to to the taxobox than it would have been for me. I'll get some photos. MB 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I just noticed that Oncosiphon suffruticosum exists, but is not linked in Oncosiphon due to a slight difference in the name. I presume one should be a redirect. MB 17:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out! Should be fixed now. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, do you want a heads up?
Plantdrew, thank you for your work overall, and specifically adding an important taxonbox number thingie to Pinanga sylvestris. Do you like a notification from page creators, or does the system sort of do this automatically? Brunswicknic (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
You have been much help but now I cannot log in to Wikipedia!!! I have tried my password and some old ones but it will not accept me. I give up! Phycodrys (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Phycodrys Oh seems I am logged in! What was the password I used? If you helped - thanks.Phycodrys (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ditrichum
I created a stub article for the moss genus in place of the redirect to Verbesina. The redirect is not used in article space. It links to one of your user pages (User:Plantdrew/USDACommonNameAttention) where you have it on a list of articles that are needed. I thought this was an uncontroversial change but apparently not as it was reverted. I've left a comment at User_talk:Lithopsian if you'd care to comment. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Oreo: pop culture
Hello Plantdrew Regarding the page “Oreo:”I have to take exception to your removal of the complete “popular culture” section from this page, and have undone that change.

My reason for reinstating the section is that Oreos have something of an iconic status (admittedly in American junk food!), and the Pop Culture aspect is an important aspect of this. The wholesale removal of the complete section, based solely on a technicality which applies to individual items within it, seems pretty pedantic to me. Surely there can be a bit more latitude, in the interest of giving readers a true flavour (no pun intended) of the subject.

I don’t dispute that the items listed within the section are mostly without published source references (I doubt that such are available at all, short of finding a published script from each). All of the items listed, however, are of video or music examples which are currently and easily available to any internet viewer: What could be more verifiable than seeing or hearing from the actual source?

My only contribution, incidentally, was A Star Is Born; some of the other items have been there back to 2006. In a few cases the Wikipedia pages on the individual films make a connection to Oreo, albeit weakly. But that is the nature of each of these items; Oreos are mostly minor occurrences within the larger theme of a movie or song.

I’d be obliged of your consideration and response.

Regards Kokopelli-UK Kokopelli-UK (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Overlinking
Hi, thanks for your contributions. Please remember not to link years, dates, or common terms (like "plant"). WP:OVERLINK Tony (talk)  08:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ipomoea hybrids
Hi Plantdrew, on POWO, the hybrids Ipomoea × multifida and Ipomoea × sloteri are listed as synonymous. I would have merged the two articles based on the ref, but if one is an allopolyploid of the other, wouldn't that make them separate species and not synonymous at all? 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Switching tacxobox to spicesbox
Please stop switching tacxobox to spicesbox because I think the revision is unsourced and unnecessary. If you have any questions please let me know. User3749 (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Gymnogongrus
I did not think G. griffithsiae had been misspelled? Phycodrys (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Struthiola tetralepis
Could you please have a look at the new article Struthiola tetralepis and scale it for the Wikiproject Plants and WP:South Africa? Thank you in advance! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Located what may be a Cornish Alba
The leaf stems are a beautiful red while the branches long and graceful. When I look at the actual specimen that was collected the greens and cream or white MelD towards the Center of each leaf. The leaves have a distinct pointedness at each tip but the leaves are almost as wide as they are long. Does this sound like it might be a relative? This is my first venture into contacting an editor such as yourself so I am unsure of the exact protocol. I do have photos. I also have a somewhat now dried out sample. But I can revisit the site without too much trouble if you have an interest in seeing it in its long-standing location – In Birmingham Alabama, USA. Rick 205rickham (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Haramiyidae
Plantdrew...i was poking around extinct mammals and have gotten into a bit of an edit war with a user. The user insists a redirect to Thomasia (mammal) but the family has more than one genus that links to it, albeit they are all red. shouldn't Haramiyidae also be red and not be a redirect?....Pvmoutside (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Layout template for species articles
Hi Plantdrew- I see you on so many articles that I thought you might be able to spare me the tedium of wading through the morass of WP "guidance": I'm wondering if we have a sample species article layout suggesting section names and organization. I took a quick look at WikiProject Species, but didn't see anything. My motivation at the moment is trying to determine if we have a standard section where we might elaborate on a species' conservation status beyond the infobox graphic. Thanks in advance for any tips. Eric talk 15:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * there's a full guide for plant articles at WikiProject Plants/Template (too full, in my view; there's a need for a summary). Plantdrew will be able to say more, I'm sure, but there seems to be less consensus for animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the standard for bird article para heading sequence is here and includes a paragraph for "Status". The question on the standard accepted layout for species articles often arises on project talk pages. Here is a recent link and also an earlier proposal discussing the layout for all animal articles can be found in the archived discussion at this link. Loopy30 (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! I might never have found those except by chance. I wish this kind of reference were indexed somehow, findable from somewhere like Article development. Eric talk 13:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, I started a section in the article that prompted my quest: Scaphiopus_holbrookii. Thanks again for the tips. Eric talk 15:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Jaguar
Hi. You did an edit on the jaguar article which you called a taxobox cleanup, but you removed the Wiki code I used to zoom in on the jaguar. Can you explain the logic behind your edit please. Does the code not work on some devises? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No reply, so code returned to article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Adminship?
Hi Plantdrew, I was just thinking how I admire your worth as an editor, and how you'd make a great admin. I checked your talk page archive to see if I had suggested this before. I hadn't, but someone else had. Since it's been 2.5 years, I hope you may have reconsidered. "Net positive" is a common yardstick at RfA. It's one you easily meet, so either way, thank you for your continued commitment to Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Polyides rotunda
Thanks for your help. I note that the taxobox indicates the "rotunda" does not exist! Please help.Phycodrys (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Emile Campbell-Browne (1830–1925)
Just wondering if you have ever heard of this person? He is claimed to be an eminent botanist although a later edit claims he was also a zoologist. He doesn't come up in any searches from sources I have but a variety of editors (mostly IPs) keep adding him back into various articles such as Horton, Dorset here an image is added and Lemon meringue pie here where a claim that he was an inventor of the said confection. The one named editor involved is User:Astropolice but all the reversions are IPs. I have a strong belief that this is all a hoax and that this person is an invention, but before I revert them all again, I would welcome your view to see whether you have heard of him or have any reputable sources that mention him. Interestingly the only source given is a local history book, long out of print, which I can't find as an electronic copy anywhere - all hallmarks of a hoax. Any thoughts would be most welcome. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 12:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If this person were a real botanist or zoologist with this date of death, he would surely show up in a Google Scholar search. There's nothing for "Campbell-Browne", let alone "Emile Campbell-Browne" or "E Campbell-Browne". Revert is my view! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming its a hoax, which seems likely, its a persistent one, going back to at least 2016. The renowned botanist, zoologist, and penguin enthusiast has made it into a book on British Pies and is appearing in more articles (barbed wire, snares penguin, etc). Here's a new batch of contributions from a new editor. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is annoying. It looks very much like an ongoing hoax. Revert, demand verifiable proof of existence of this person, and escalate if user persists in adding this stuff. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Add: the purported image of this person that used to be at lemon meringue pie is of someone else. Clear hoax. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for all that input. I will put together an SPI and see how far back I can go to identify the Sock puppeteer. It was the image that first worried me. Eminent scientists photographed at the turn of the century nearly always had objects in the portrait that alluded to their interest and their fame, So nothing botanical, no penguins etc was a significant red-flag. Thanks for all your assistance.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Microcharmidae, family within Buthoidea
Plantdrew, I've done something to the taxobox of Microcharmidae which seems to have messed up the taxobox in Buthidae. Buthidae should say it's Buthidae, obvs., in Buthoidea, while Microcharmidae should similarly be a family in that superfamily. Sorry, not sure how to fix it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is fixed. Perhaps a stub article for Buthoidea is need now? — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Talk Page Stalker! And yes, Buthoidea needs a stub. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

many months ago
you alluded to articles that exist but not tagged for oz and biota - you were right - found a patch of ants and bees last week - cheers - trust the virus is the lead=st of your worries - thanks for the long not acknowledged tipoff JarrahTree 04:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

heads up re: Acridinae (frog)
Hi. Thanks for the backup on this particular case. I have just today had a long exchange with the manager of the AMNH Amphibian website, and it appears that there is a replacement name that has been suggested, and he has changed the entry in the online classification to reflect this new name; the group is now listed there as the subfamily Acrisinae, and it contains basically the same constituent genera as before. Since this website is an authoritative source, I think it's probably okay to restore the content of the former Acridinae (frog) article, but under a new article titled Acrisinae, as this source is more up-to-date than the sources which had these genera in Hylinae. My concern - for the record - is that Acrisinae is not a name that has been published in print, nor approved by the ICZN as a replacement. In a sense it is the lesser of two evils: the name Acridinae Mivart 1869 is not an available name, and neither is Acrisinae (until it appears in print), but given the choice of which unavailable name to use in Wikipedia, it is preferable to use one which does not perpetuate an ongoing conflict, and anticipates the proper resolution. Assuming Acrisinae is published eventually, at that point Wikipedia will already be in line with that new accepted nomenclature. It's marginal, but overall it seems beneficial to do it this way. I'll try to work on this later today. Dyanega (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Advice sought
There's considerable confusion over the epithet in Coleus and Plectranthus that is variously spelt forskalaei, forskolaei, forskolii, forskohlii, etc. (I think, as explained at Coleus barbatus#Taxonomy, that under the ICNafp, Art. 60.5, the first part of the epithet should be spelt "forskaol.." because the "å" in the original should become "ao", but no-one seems to use this spelling, so I have committed the sin of OR.)

At present, the following all redirect to Coleus barbatus: because that's how they were set up before I moved Plectranthus barbatus. However, it's clear from reliable sources that the use of this epithet for Coleus barbatus is an error, and they are synonyms (possibly illegitimate) of Coleus hadiensis, which doesn't yet have an article.
 * ''Coleus forskohlii
 * Plectranthus forskohlii
 * Coleus forskolii
 * ''Plectranthus forskalaei
 * Forskohlii

I'd really like to redirect them to some kind of 'disambiguation' page, which explains the two possible uses. Do you know of any examples that are set up in this way? I guess there could instead be hatnotes at Coleus barbatus and Coleus hadiensis, but a hatnote is awkward to write, I think, because of the variety of (mis)spellings. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

What! Coleus barbatus and Coleus hadiensis synonyms! No way! Leo Breman (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Achillea ambrosiaca
Sorry, I wasn't being pushy so much as clumsy ... I should have checked the history, noticed that you made an edit to the redirect, and asked your advice before taking any other steps. I'll do that next time. Still learning. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Copulation links
Why are you making changes like this and this? I also saw this. I'm asking not only because WP:NOTBROKEN exists...but also because the Copulation (zoology) link is the better link when the text is about, or mainly about, non-human animals. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the "I also saw this" part of my comment, that change adheres to WP:NOTBROKEN. So I don't see that as an issue. The first change I mentioned (this) also adheres to WP:NOTBROKEN. But why make this edit? Or this edit without replacing the copulation link with the copulation (zoology) link? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that the copulation (zoology) link is already linked in that section of the Head louse article. So I removed the "copulation" link from there. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

TFD for unused taxonomy templates
Please see Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 8. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your view sought
I'd particularly value your view at Template talk:Speciesbox if you have time. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Seidenforchis" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Seidenforchis. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Problematic taxonomy templates
Hi, I blanked Template:Taxonomy/Ceratodontiformes and Template:Taxonomy/Lepidosireniformes, which you recently created. They caused rank inconsistency errors, because they had a parent, Dipnoi, of the same rank (ordo). See the articles Lepidosirenidae and Ceratodontoidei for comments on these orders, which don't seem to be accepted now. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ceratodontiformes is still recognised by Fishes of the World (5th edition), which is the default taxonomy used by the fish project (maybe there is something else for fossils). Lepidosirenformes is no longer recognised, with its extant families subsumed in Ceratodontiformes. The Deepfin taxonomy retains Lepidosirenoidei as a suborder, which is consistent with FotW5.
 * The problem with the taxonomy templates is that the rank in Template:Taxonomy/Dipnoi was changed superordo (as in FotW5) to ordo, without a reference. The changes made to a number of lungfish pages reference a revised taxonomy in Kemp et al (2017), which places the living lungfish in suborder Ceratodontoidei within unranked clade Neodipnoi (with a new definition). The paper makes no mention of Ceratodontiformes, neither its past or current status. Their suborder Ceratodontoidei seems very similar to order Ceratodontiformes in FotW5 and Deepfin, although it places additional fossil genera. It seems that the taxonomy templates and taxoboxes are being changed based on a primary source in an unnecessary and inconsistent way. If following Kemp et al (2017) the parent of Ceratodontoidei should be Neodipnoi (not Dipnoi), but their new definition says nothing of the parent taxon, which would make it hard to create a referenced taxonomy template. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 13:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Extinct symbol with ichnotaxa
I don't have any real interest in ichnotaxa; I've only edited a few articles while fixing Ichnobox. I saw your edit at Oldhamia. It's never been clear to me whether the extinct symbol makes sense applied to an ichnotaxon. Since an ichnotaxon is group of fossil traces, not of fossils, then its members were never alive to become extinct. When the animal that made a trace is discovered, it has to be given a name under the ICZN, so the ichno-name strictly applies to the trace. However, I'm probably being over precise.

The ichnogenus taxonomy templates mostly have yes (or ), but not all. For example, searches among taxonomy templates give: All 26 ichnofamily taxonomy templates are marked as extinct.
 * Template:Taxonomy "rank ichnogenus" → 200
 * Template:Taxonomy "rank ichnogenus" "extinct yes" + "extinct true" → 129 + 48 = 177
 * Template:Taxonomy "rank ichnogenus" "extinct no" → 23

So for consistency, I guess that:
 * The minority of ichnogenus taxonomy templates with no should be changed to yes.
 * Manually added genera or species, e.g. as types or subdivisions, in ichno-taxoboxes should have † present, as you provided at Oldhamia.

What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion about the †; I was standardizing how type_ichnospecies and subdivision were formatted, and figured since †s go all the way down the taxonomic hierarchy as generated by taxonomy templates, they might as well continue down to species as well (although I'm sure there is inconsistency of †s for species in automatic taxoboxes). Eggs are alive (even if unfertilized?), so ooboxes should have †s. If there were a recently extinct wasp that was initially known from living individuals, I wouldn't be especially surprised to see a nest displayed in a museum with a label reading †Vespa extincta. If wasp nests were likely to fossilize, I also wouldn't be surprised by a label reading †Vespichnites extincta. But I do get the argument you make.


 * So, yes, ichnogenus templates should have yes (and I should have thought to check this when I was going through ichnoboxes yesterday). I think I have got † in all the type/subdivisions in ichnoboxes now (I'll double check when Template Data updates next month). Plantdrew (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly believe in consistency, so I've been through the 23 ichnogenus taxonomy templates that didn't have yes and fixed them. Not all the target taxa have articles, but those that do will now have the † symbol for the target taxon. I did the same for the oogenus and oofamilia taxonomy templates, a few of which weren't marked as extinct. There are some higher level 'ranks' in ootaxa; see, e.g., Template:Taxonomy/Geckonoid. It seems to me that the "morphotypes" and "basic shell types" aren't really taxa, and are based on extant eggs anyway. So I wouldn't mark them as extinct. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

HELP Phycodry1945
For complicated reasons I have had to log into Wikipedia anew. You have helped me earlier, can you help me now? Do you think I am fully lodged in with full Username etc. Phycodrys1945 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes you seem to fully logged in with a new account (and you should have received a notification that I've mentioned you in writing this comment; the notification wouldn't happen if your account wasn't valid). Plantdrew (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll have to work on it, I like a shortcut to the desktop. I had asked "Curries KnowHow" to help me get Zoom - they wiped out all my files, photos etc I'm a nervous wreck. Thanks to you I may recover.Phycodrys1945 (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Oh help - if you can, I cannot Edit source or open up one of the species I listed in me User page (if that is the correct name!). Phycodrys1945 (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Ah I have added a short section of one alga & added it to my userpage - I can open it from here. All seems OK. My thanks to you.Phycodrys1945 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Taxon vs genus/species
I may have asked that before, but is there something more than personal preference to having "genus=" & "species=" rather than "taxon=" in taxobox? Functionally it's the same, I hope. Botany vs zoology project convention? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , it's mostly functionally the same. However, in cases where the taxonomy template is disambiguated (usually when there are plant and animal genera sharing the same name), "genus"+"species" (with the template's disambiguator included under "genus") works, but "taxon" does not. That difference drives my personal preference for genus+species. Beyond that, consistency within WikiProjects; birds and plants mostly use "genus"+"species", while fish and insects use "taxon" (and I don't change fish or insects to "genus"+"species").


 * If you were prompted to ask specifically by my recent edits to Isabelcristinia or Catimbaua, my personal preference is a little stronger with monotypic genera; I feel it's a little clearer which authority goes with the genus and which with the species when genus and species appear under separate parameters. Plantdrew (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point about the disambiguation, that sounds a like a best practice worth cultivating. Cheers! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

On miracle fruit
Good call, I've always known it under this name. I imported a few big plants and fruit concentrate almost 2 decades ago for an ice-cream maker who was experimenting... Have you ever eaten them? Absolutely amazing! I ate a lemon with rind and all, and coffee tasted incredible. If I remember correctly, I first read about it in some text about a fruit orchard in Panama or Costa Rica... A theory (probably by someone who didn't like fufu) was that Nigerian food was so disgusting because this fruit made everything better -I don't agree, I like Nigerian food (ate jollof rice today!). I've still got an ama-cha hydrangea cultivar, but this doesn't work at all for me.

Also thanks for all the fixes here and there! Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Please explain
Please explain why you removed the assesments in this edit. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Arctic redpoll
Hi Plantdrew: I'm wondering about the Arctic redpoll article. You changed the conservation status here, but all it now shows is an unlinked "LC", because this species isn't recognised by the IUCN. (It is, however, recognised by many taxonomists.) It has been designated as a species of least concern by Partners in Flight, but we have no process of linking anything other than IUCN to the typical taxobox displays, so the colourful little line of circles (and the written out "least concern") doesn't show up. Any suggestions? MeegsC (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Shirakisotima
I see you have merged Shirakisotima with S. japonica, that seems fine. However, I had linked S. japonica with 5 other languages at Q7780082, some of which appear to have separate species and genus pages (e.g. nl), others redirect genus to species. Should Q7780082 and Q14333813 be merged as well or otherwise updated?Peterwchen (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Stewart Island shag
Hi Plantdrew: Since you had a bit of interest in this in the past, can you cast your eye over the (very short) updated Stewart Island shag and see if it reads okay to you? Thanks, MeegsC (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Support for spider category changes
Just to say how strongly I support trying to get rid of intersectional categories like "Sheet weaver spiders of Europe". I regard such categories as an abomination. They virtually never have a complete geographical set, so you end up with multiple categorizations like "Spiders of COUNTRY" and "Sheet weaver spiders of CONTINENT", creating webs [no pun intended] of categories instead of trees. Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Staphisagria has a broken automatic taxobox
I just noticed that the "automatic taxobox" is not formatting properly, and have no idea how to fix it. Did not approach whoever (if anyone) made it, as they may not know how to fix it, either. If this is something you can fix, feel free to jump in. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. It was just missing a closing curly bracket (}). SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 22:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Cite Q template
Hello Plantdrew,

I would appreciate your contribution to the debate about use of the Cite Q template here and here (starting about half-way through at "Hi Geoff"). I think plant names should always be in italics (including in references) but MargaretRDonald thinks the usefulness of the template outweighs its weakness. I have asked a similar question of Primefac. (A friendly debate.) Thanks in anticipation. (Watching here or wherever.) Gderrin (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I think may  be useful to keep the discussion in one place, my talk page, as that is where I have put forward arguments for the use of cite Q. I understand your concern about italics but I think it is far too early to shut down the usage of cite Q until many more people have had experience of the template and used it.  Given that many many plant articles fail to link to author sources at all, it is surely preferable to have a link minus the correct italics than no link at all. Compare for example, Pogonolepis August 2, 2020 with Pogonolepis December 21, 2020 where the italics have been lost but we are linked to the source article and to an important researcher in the area, Philip Sydney Short. Two important links given by the simple use of  . MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Elaeocarpus dentatus
Hello Plantdrew, I saw you just rated Jovellana sinclairii, recently I updated Elaeocarpus dentatus but it hasn't been reassessed. If you had a moment that would be great :). Thanks, ~ User:Beeveria 23/12/2020

Banners
Hello Plantdrew, let me clarify about WP:MAMMALS banners and project article tagging.

WikiProject Council/Guide advises: "The pages of a WikiProject are the central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. Editors there develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes and keep track of work that needs to be done. It also provides a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed."

WikiProject Council/Guide advises: "Many WikiProjects use talk page banners to mark certain pages as within the scope of the WikiProject. This helps the WikiProjects to organize their progress improving pages within the project's scope......Consequently, pages should only be marked with WikiProject banners for projects that intend to support the tagged pages." [My bolding]

WikiProject Council/Guide advises: "If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of a WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article. For example, washing toys for babies reduces transmission of some diseases, but the banners for WP:WikiProject Health and fitness, WP:WikiProject Biology, WP:WikiProject Viruses and/or WP:WikiProject Medicine do not need to be added to Talk:Toy."

In summary, WPDOGS gets to badge those articles that it intends to improve. It does not badge every article that deals with dogs, refer the projects scope. We should not be badging articles "for the good of the great WP:MAMMALS motherland". In my view, unless WP:MAMMALS intends to take on a management and development role for WP:DOGS-related articles, there is no need for a WP:MAMMALS banner. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 10:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)