User talk:Plantdrew

taxoboxes and wikidata

Hello Drew! Happy New Years Eve! I was playing around reptiles and noticed that many of the genera in Gekkonidae need to be moved around.....if any of the auto taxoboxes become empty, do I need to let you or Peter know or can you see them as they are done and can delete accordingly? ......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside: Happy New Years to you as well. You're asking about what to do with the taxonomy template when a genus using an automatic taxobox is sunk into synonymy? I don't know of a way to see/find unused taxonomy templates. I assume it's possible to do so somehow; a couple months back somebody was thinking about protecting taxonomy templates, and was able to compile a list of them by number of transclusions. That would be a useful search to figure out. For now, we've been dealing with no longer needed taxonomy templates by placing them in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates, and commenting out or blanking the template code. Peter goes through the category every so often and gets them deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside: I don't know either how to find templates by transclusion count: it would be useful! Editors do create taxonomy templates in advance of their use, so that currently unused ones are not necessarily wrong. As Plantdrew says, just comment out or blank the code and then add Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. It's necessary to blank the existing code or it causes errors elsewhere. This seems the simplest approach since going through the TfD process individually is tedious, and admins often don't understand taxonomy templates and ask questions. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Plants portal

Why are you removing the plants portal from relevant articles? Abyssal (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Abyssal (talk)12:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I entirely support the removals; they aren't relevant articles – unless you believe that every plant article should have the portal added, which I would strongly oppose. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that is my opinion unless there are more specific plant-related portals (e.g. for individual taxonomic families) in use on the article. Abyssal (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see the consensus for including the portal on all of the roughly 71,500 plant articles. Since a "portal should be associated with a WikiProject" according to Wikipedia:Portal guidelines, consensus at WP:PLANTS would seem to be essential. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Peter and Plantdrew, seems like a lot of work with maybe better time spent on other things?....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Authorities

Hi, hope you had a good New Year. When I am editing lists of species I always, if I remember, ensure that the naming authorities are in small text and I thought this was a standard convention in Wikipedia. Some users, however, disagree and are changing all the naming authorities to normal text. To my eyes, this looks strange. Is there such a formal convention or is it an informal one? For example see the page I created Ceratonereis. Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see if Plantdrew knows of somewhere 'official' in which this is documented. It's covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms#Sources and authorities, but this hasn't yet been adopted. Where authorities are formatted automatically, e.g. in taxoboxes or templates like {{Taxon list}}, they are always put in small text, so this can be said to be the normal style. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Quetzal1964: I don't know of anything more official than the draft MoS for organisms Peter linked. Small text authorities are also mentioned at the plant article template, but I'm not finding any discussion of small authorities in the ToL archives. I do regard small authorities as the standard convention myself; while I don't often make the effort to add the mark-up for small text when it is absent, I certainly never remove that mark-up when it is present. Plantdrew (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. There is an editor who is single handedly removing the small text from the authorities in Annelida articles because he doesn't like that style and says Wikipedia "is not a newspaper", whatever that means. I believe he is editing in good faith but also that what he's doing should be reverted. He is an experienced editor but doesn't seem to have a biology background and I do not want to single handedly go on a campaign to revert these edits, especially now it sounds like there is no formal policy. However, I will leave him a message pointing him to the draft Manual of Style.Quetzal1964 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Quetzal1964: I would also point out that this is the agreed style in taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the stubs I created recently. I've been working on the flora distribution categories, as you may have seen. Ideally I'd like to create, and at least minimally populate, all the Level 3 categories in the WGSRPD. I'm never sure whether working on categories is a waste of time or not; they seem to attract editors who love to "fiddle" with them. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you for cleaning after me when I forget to Latinize ranks in taxonomy templates. I think it's worth finishing the set of Level 3 categories, but I have pretty mixed feelings about categories on Wikipedia. They work OK for some defining characteristics that inherently have a hierarchical nature (e.g. membership in a taxon at a particular rank). WGSRPD give us a hiearchy, but the way Wikipedia diffuses (or don't diffuse) renders the categories not so useful to a reader; I think readers would generally expect the contents of a Level 3 category to include all the plants found in that place, not just the plants that were diffused from a higher level (and not diffused to a lower level). Not really much that can be done about it though; we're stuck with how Wikipedia categories work. Plantdrew (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the diffusing issue. It has several bad consequences. For example, the IUCN uses the lowest levels of the WGSRPD scheme, but combines them differently, making more use of country boundaries, and ending up with different continents (e.g. Oceania rather than Australasia and Pacific). If we didn't diffuse, we could use these lowest levels for plants and animals and categories like "Biota of ..." would always work, whereas now they are too often based on different definitions. I looked at sorting out Category:Biota of North America – the overlaps and inconsistencies could be improved, but it would still not work properly because of the diffusion to different higher levels.

One thing I would like to do is to change Category:Flora of North America to Category:Flora of northern America (and ditto for southern America). I remember this being discussed before, with no consensus to change. But it's hopeless to expect new editors to know that "Flora of North America" refers to the different, non-traditional WGSRPD definition, whereas "Fauna of North America" refers to the traditional definition. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Silky oak (disambiguation)

I don't think that moving the page to Silky oak (disambiguation) was a good idea; a single-non plant meaning could have been handled by a hatnote. However, given that it has been moved, what should be the WP:PLANTS template on the talk page? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It can always be moved back, but that's a lot of genera to do by hatnote (unless they fit in family, subfamily, or higher taxa somehow). Plus there is an unrelated non-biological page attached.......and since there is a non plant attached to the disambig page, a simple disambig on the talk page is warranted (that is, unless you want to hatnote the family, subfamily, or higher taxa, then the non-biological page).....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If there are non-plant meanings, I do class=disambig for the WP:PLANTS banner. A single non-plant meaning does make it a bit of edge case, and a hatnote might have been a better solution. 17:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT Pvmoutside, silky oak is a redirect to Grevillea robusta. So the hatnote could be at that species and would simply link the city and list of plants known as silky oak (rather than enumerating all the other plants in the hatnote itself). Plantdrew (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Brassicaceae and Felicia (genus)

Hi Plantdrew, perhaps you may want to look at Brassicaceae and Felicia (genus). I have expanded them substantially and I guess their current quality rating is inadequate. I'm considering whether these two in fact would be candidates for GAN, and would appreciate your opinion. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje: Wow, excellent work on both of those. I've upgraded them to B class. I don't really have any experience with GAN, but I think you should try taking the articles there. Plantdrew (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Argythamnia

I thought of going lower than the family at Template:Taxonomy/Argythamnia, but the sourcing for the tribes and subfamilies of Euphorbiaceae seems poor to me. It definitely needs improving for this quite important family. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: While I haven't been totally consistent, my general rule of thumb for intrafamilial ranks is not to remove (or add) this detail from Wikipedia when it can be confirmed. Confirmation is via GRIN, NCBI and/or APWeb (ideally all three are in agreement). I am somewhat leery of including red-linked intrafamilial ranks (so I didn't go down to subtribe for Argrythamnia), and I will note that GRIN and NCBI don't agree for this genus (NCBI has it as Euphorbiaceae incertae sedis). I have intentions of going through the taxonomy templates for plant subfamilies, tribes, and subtribes and adding references (to APWeb and/or GRIN); I'll probably take that on within a month. Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm guilty (and often feel guilty, but time is an issue) of creating taxonomy templates without completing |ref=, but this is the best approach, I'm sure. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Verticordia sect. Cooloomia

If Verticordia sect. Cooloomia is monotypic, it shouldn't have an article, surely? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, probably not, but I didn't want to take them time to merge it. The article on the section is very well developed (as far as articles on sections go, that is) and it would be a bit of a hassle to integrate the information into the species article. There are also 5 other monotypic Verticordia sections with articles; I've put them all in Category:Monotypic plant taxa for now. Plantdrew (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Parents in taxonomy templates

I'm increasingly reluctant to use ranks lower than family for genera in taxonomy templates unless there's a really up-to-date reference (no more than 5 years ago at most), since the "churn" in intra-familial classifications seems very high – every new molecular phylogenetic study in some groups contradicts the previous ones. On the other hand, with very large families, it is important to subdivide. I know nothing about the taxonomy of the Asteraceae (I did some work on Pericallis only because I had been scanning some of my old slides in preparation for a talk on the flora of Tenerife); however I note that GRIN ref you used at Template:Taxonomy/Pericallis for the tribe was revised in 2011, which is quite a while ago now. Are we sure this is still ok? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, the latest studies dealing with intra-familial classification of Asteraceae date from 2008 and 2009 (e.g. APWeb is following this tribal arrangement). However, that paper doesn't list the tribal placement for each genus, so other sources are needed. Aside from GRIN, the Global Compositae Checklist also has Pericallis in Senecioneae (record last updated 2010). I'm not finding anything that suggests that a 2010 database record is likely to be out of date regarding Asteraceae intra-familial classification. Plantdrew (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine then. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Lists of orchids by genus

Hello Plantdrew - thanks for your work (which helps me almost daily).

Re. the category "Lists of orchids by genus" - this leaves out smaller orchid genera (eg. Genoplesium, Corunastylis, Eriochilus). Should all orchid genera have a separate species list then? Happy to oblige with the ones I'm working on, if so. Gderrin (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Separate species lists aren't needed for smaller genera. For very large genera, it is probably better to split the species off into a separate list. I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line between smaller/very large genera; I guess maybe when there are several hundred or more species? I'm not sure about orchids particularly, but I do know we have some articles on large plant genera where there isn't a complete list of species anywhere on Wikipedia (making a List of Eugenia species is on my to do list). There's often a "Selected species" section, and I do make some effort to ensure that all the species that have articles are included in the "Selected species". But in the long run, it would be better to start separate lists of all species for the largest genera and "select" the species that are particularly important (i.e., those that are cultivated, are very well known in the wild) to be listed in the genus article. Plantdrew (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay - I'm fine with that. Thanks. Gderrin (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Henri de Peyerimhoff (entomologist)

I see you rated this article "Start" class: most readers will need more, soon after it was created. See Wikipedia:Assessing articles. It would be helpful if you could leave notes on the article's talk page (not here) saying what would be needed to bring it up to C class - useful to the casual reader. The subject is rather obscure. Are you aware of other sources that could have information? A list on the article's talk page would be useful. If there are none the Start rating, which signals to project members that more research will bear fruit, may be misleading. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aymatth2:, I've re-rated it as C-class. I'm pretty mystified by your comment on my talk page. You created it with the edit summary "stub", and made it slightly longer before I rated it. I've read the article assessment guidelines, and believe that quality ratings are generally applied more conservatively than the wording of the assessment guidelines suggests, and with more emphasis on article length than actual quality. I thought I was being generous (as far as quality ratings usually go) in rating it a Start at the time I rated it. You then managed to add more content and references.

I've never seen any suggestion that is the responsibility of people rating new pages to suggest specific areas needing improvement or additional useful references. I understand that it would surely be helpful to article creators if this was done, and am trying to read your comment in light of a request for assistance of this nature (initially I felt pretty attacked). I'm sorry, I'm not able to help with additional references for this individual. If you feel that you've done due diligence and additional references are unlikely to be found, please consider rating your own articles as C (or better) so that nobody is mislead to think that further research will bear fruit. I take the essay User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs to heart, and certainly consider C-class appropriate even for very short articles on sufficiently obscure subjects. Plantdrew (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean my comment as an attack, although I am concerned that rapid assessments like this may turn off new editors. See Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers "It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticise." The first version of most articles is often quite sketchy. I have scraped together everything I could find online on this obscure subject, which is not much. Perhaps there is a promising offline source, a Biographical Dictionary of Alsatian Entomologists or something. If that exists, a note on the article talk page could be useful to someone with access to a library that may hold the source. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The Croughton-London rule of stubs is new to me. I do not fully agree with it. The quality rating says how close the article is to being as good as possible, unrelated to its importance. I would say that if an article presents all available information, like Beornred of Mercia, it is potentially A class however short or important it is. Maybe the Croughton-London rule kicks in when the subject is really obscure but there is a mass of available information. No reasonable reader would want a huge article on a trivial subject. That is not the case with Henri de Peyerimhoff (entomologist). If there were a source of more complete information it would be reasonable to rate the article Start and give a pointer to the source on its talk page. But if this is the best that can be done, it is at least a C. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: you seem to be treating article assessment as though it assessed the editor. That's not its purpose. It is solely for the use of the Wikiproject in whose template it appears. (Different Wikiprojects can quite reasonably make different assessments; a plant article with both botanical and horticultural interest could quite rightly be rated differently based on the content.) In this case, I'd expect an article about an entomologist to say more about his work than is there now. Did he name any species? Were species named after him? Did he work on any particular family of micromoths? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Assessment rates the article in terms of importance and quality. Each project may have its own importance scale, but usually they all follow the standard quality scale. Quality includes technical aspects like organization, readability, citations, wikilinks, etc. and completeness. Completeness measures how close the article comes to presenting the available information, so how close it is to being "done" from a project viewpoint. An article may be complete even if it omits information a reader would typically expect. Beornred of Mercia, an article about a king, does not give parents, birth date or death date because this information is not known. From a project viewpoint the article is "done", complete. It is closer to B than to Stub. A reader may wish there were more, but that is all they are going to get. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: I don't meant to be rude, but your answer seems a bit arrogant to me. How do you know "that is all they are going to get"? Are you a professional historian of this era perhaps? Who knows what may be discovered in the future, or what information is lurking in old paper sources. It's also arguable (though I don't intend to put it forward) that if that's all that is known about this individual, he's not notable. Anyway, we must agree to disagree. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: All that is currently known of Beornred of Mercia comes from one short entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, virtually the only source for English history of that period. New information might emerge in the future, but the article provides all available information. There is a rule somewhere that "all kings are presumed to be notable." With Henri de Peyerimhoff (entomologist), the links to the article could be mined for a partial list of species he named or that were named after him, but that seems like original research. Perhaps there is a database somewhere? The question is whether we have good reason to believe that more could be added to the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Convallaria

An article that you have been involved in editing—Convallaria—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. mettokki (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fish/Truck

Thanks for catching that JarrahTree 21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fish project tagging has been tedious, but... JarrahTree 22:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I've been noticing your efforts in the quality log report lately. I tagged various plant and spider categories for their respective WikiProjects a few years back, but never got around to working on categories for any other groups of organisms. Thank you for working on this. Plantdrew (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the thanks, hope the errors are as low statistically as the truck item JarrahTree 22:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree:, regarding bizarre tagging, that editor was exactly who came to my mind. Plantdrew (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

yup :( JarrahTree 22:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Automatic italicization of taxon names

Hi, you may recall that I tried to add automatic italicization of taxon names to {{Species list}} and related templates, but took far too simplistic an approach and had to remove it. I've now drafted some Lua code that I think works safely. There's a table of tests at User:Peter coxhead/Test/T3. I've taken a conservative approach and tried only to "fix" botanical connecting terms that are in four 'word' names and are not already italicized. Italicization code needs to be added to the Lua underlying {{Taxonbar}}, because when there are multiple |from= and one links to a botanical infraspecies in Wikidata (as at Syrmatium veatchii) the connecting term is italicized.

Could you please have a look at the table, and add any tests of your own if you think I've missed any? Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added some tests. Several are errors in formatting connecting terms, so I wouldn't expect them to be supported anyway. Alpha beta'' subsp. ''delta exists in the wild, but is being italicized correctly.

Do you want get into six word names (i.e. with both varietas and subspecies)? Or making subg. and sect. unitalicized in three word names? It is unlikely that {{Species list}} is used often in these cases, so may not be worth the bother. Plantdrew (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree re {{Species list}}, but I'd like the Lua module to work elsewhere, so supporting subg. and sect. is worthwhile; thanks, I'll add this. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Re the other additions (thanks again):

• I think that "ssp." should be supported and expanded automatically to "subsp." (I always use "ssp." outside of Wikipedia and sometimes forget here)
• "forma" and other full words (e.g. "subspecies") should clearly be supported
• variants without full stops – um... I suppose there are no cases where "subsp" or "var", etc. could be part of a real taxon name?
• "var. purpurea", etc. (i.e. without a binomial) I regard as an error, so not to be supported

Peter coxhead (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've now fixed the code so that 3rd word connecting term variants are normalized, e.g. "subspecies", "subsp.", "subsp", "ssp." and "ssp" all get output as "subsp." Peter coxhead (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've now also fixed the code to support the 2nd of three words being a connecting term or "cf." or variants. I need to reorganize the tests into groups. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There seem to be two options with strings that already have italic markup. At present, if there's italic markup outside the whole string, I do nothing. So ''Alpha beta subsp. gamma'' is left alone by the italicizing code, and would appear as "Alpha beta subsp. gamma". The alternative would be to strip off all italic markup and put it back as seems correct. However, this could mess up special cases that have been italicized correctly, remembering that I want this to work not just in {{Species list}}. I'm also concerned about the other codes, e.g. "Candidatus" for bacteria and the very different treatment of virus names. Trying to cope with bacterial and virus names defeated the editors who originally automated italic names in manual and then automated taxoboxes, so I'm not going to try! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Another wrinkle {{Genus list}} redirects to {{Species list}}. It should be italicizing one word genus entries, but should it be a redirect or an independent template? And I'm being dumb and missing what I need to change to get {{Linked species list}} displayed in the See also of Template:Species list/doc] (what's with the comment tags at the ends of each line?); all of these taxon list templates need to get reciprocally linked in their See alsos (this has been a barrier in my making use of them more often). Plantdrew (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten this (yet!) but have got distracted with some other stuff – see below. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please have a look at the table I added to the documentation for {{Species list}}. The "Genus" aliases are also mentioned now in the See also section. Both "Species list" and "Genus list" really mean "Italic taxon list"; it's arbitrary which of the three is chosen as the template title. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking good, thanks for your work on this. 23:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Syrmatium names

I can't work out exactly what is going on with some names in Syrmatium ascribed by IPNI to Greene. Look at this entry for example and click through to this one. Considering only the epithet cytisoides, I would expect to see Syrmatium cytisoides (Benth.) Greene, not just "Greene". It's not the only example: all the pairs with the same epithet in the second list at Acmispon appear to be like this. It seems to have confused other sources into treating the placement in Syrmatium and the placement in Acmispon as separate species, rather than IPNI's synonyms (assuming IPNI is right). The latest Jepson puts all Syrmatium into Acmispon, which would solve the problem here, I guess.

This is more in your area than mine, I think. Can you throw any light on it? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be some problem with IPNI's database structure, not anything nomenclatural/taxonomic.

I notice that IPNI has GCI derived records for Hosackia combinations lacking a citation for the publication of the description/combination for a several species corresponding to your second list: namely H. cytisoides, H. juncea, H. micrantha, H. decumbens and H. prostrata. And there are a bunch of duplicated GCI entries from several Syrmatium, where one has a publication citation and screws up the combining authority, and the other has the correct authority, but doesn't cite a publication (Syrmatium veatchii is one of these). It seems to me that a missing publication citation may be screwing up IPNI's processing of these records. Plantdrew (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right now I look at it again. However, it's not just IPNI, it seems. The problem has fed through into other taxonomic databases. I'll compose an e-mail to IPNI when I have time. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Taxonbars

Happy to be of help.

I hear you on the placement of taxonbars. The trouble is, what I'm doing right now is a simple addition of the template to the bottom of the screen. What you're talking about likely will require some kind of substitution in the main body of the text. I'd prefer a substitution for various reasons, but haven't been able to come up with an effective one. Do you have any suggestions? Meantime, let me do a little bit of musing and see what I can think of. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You're talking something like this, correct? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have an idea that I can try out tonight. It's not perfect (if there's a DEFAULTSORT then the taxobox will likely be filled in after it), but it should take care of the rest of the issue. And cosmetically it will be better. That's the best I can think of right now - please let me know if you've got a better idea. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If you leave the |from= parameter blank, I will eventually place it correctly on the page, à la WP:GENFIXES, when I add the WD QID.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Awesome. Let me try a little something tonight that can get us halfway, and that should leave only a few that need to be moved. I'll let you know whether or not my experiment turns into an abject failure. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding:I think what I'm doing is going to work. Have a look at Anaxyrina and tell me if that'll do the trick. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Could you do this? Thing is, WP:GenFixes doesn't care whether or not there's a preceded empty line b/w {{Taxonbar}} & the last bulleted reflist entry, unless it moves {{Taxonbar}} there. If you're running AWB, I would actually consider putting {{Taxonbar}} at the bottom of the page on purpose, but leave GenFixes on to take care of the proper movement in the same edit (b/c anticipating all the possible text that could/should come after & before it is a lot of work, and has been done already, so no need to reinvent the complicatedly-shaped wheel).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Sure, I'll see what I can do. About to step away for a bit, but I'm going to try a few more before bed and see what I can do. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Did a few more, trying out the new model. Will those work? Or shall I go back to planting it at the bottom? Or something else? The problem with GenFixes is, I don't think they work on a new edit - they only work on what's already there. So to use the tool to put things in proper order I'd basically have to start the set again once I've done. Unless I'm missing something? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: the module actually fires before genfixes do, so if you put ArticleText += "\n" + @"{{Taxonbar}}"; in your module, genfixes will do the rest!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Nice, thanks. I'll give that a try tonight when I'm back by AWB. Thanks for your patience with me...there's a lot about AWB that I've never learned, not being of really technical bent. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: I think I've got it, by gadfry. Please let me know if you spot anything I'm doing wrong. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: only weird thing I see are 2 empty lines b/w {{Reflist}} & {{Taxonbar}}, which genfixes will gradually remove in the next few days as a piggyback fix to my QID additions, so nbd.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Awesome, thanks. I still might take a look tonight, see if I can find out what's causing it, just to learn a bit more about modules. Thanks for your help - I think I can bend this new information to some other purposes as well. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I'm still curious though, are you adding the template via the AWB module, by an advanced find & replace rule, or something else? The module should simply be:

public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)
{
	Skip = false;
	Summary = "";
	ArticleText += "\n" + @"{{Taxonbar}}";
	return ArticleText;
}

Let me know if you have any questions or problems.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
You also need to check "Enabled", then click "Make module", in the "Module" window fyi.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: No, I'm using the module. Everything seemed fine last night when I was using it. I'll take a look again tonight to be sure, but right now I'm pretty certain everything is in place as it should be. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Disregard; no problem! AWB diffs, um, differ from browser diffs, and they do some whitespace compression, so that was the inconsistency I was noticing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: No worries. I definitely can't differentiate between the different definitive diffs, either. Diffidently or otherwise. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Bambusa albolineata

What do you think? Artix Kreiger (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger:, looks pretty good. I caught a couple misspellings of the scientific name, and you had the wrong parameter in the taxobox for the synonym, which prevented the synonym from displaying. Plantdrew (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

About Rubus gunnianus

Hi Plantdrew, and yet again thank you for all your help.
Could you possibly have a little look at that article?
The clever men and women at The Plant List really do know all that there is to be knowed, but I've jumped in and said "none of them know one half as much, as intelligent Mr Shirt58"
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Shirt58: I've spruced it up some. Rubus is apomictic, with hundreds of described microspecies, which some taxonomist lump, while others split. The Plant List has many unresolved Rubus species; it appears that their data source made little effort to resolve the taxonomic complexities in the genus. Rubus gunnianus appears to be a low-hanging fruit (haha) as far as resolving the status of Rubus species goes. Unless there are a bunch of other tiny herbaceous Rubus species described from Tasmania, it should be accepted (and it is accepted by APNI). Plantdrew (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having read up on it a little further, it's one of two Rubus species native to Tasmania, and it's quite different from the other one (which is more typical of the genus). It certainly should be accepted. It's an extremely low hanging fruit that The Plant List failed to harvest. Plantdrew (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Penstemon barrettiae EoL discrepancy

Fyi this {{Taxonbar}}'s pre-existing |eol=578247 is different from WD's EoL of 1701233. Pinging the originating editor Nedst3r too.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

When searching the EoL for Penstemon barrettiae, the only result is the 578247. I was unaware that there was an entry for it on WD. Nedst3r (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

EoL appears to have a redirect at #1701233 since this leads to #578247. (Which makes, yet again, my point that many of the taxonomic databases do not have unique identifier for a taxon/taxon name.) I've changed the Wikidata item. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like having a tracking Category:Taxonbar templates using manual IDs might be useful (I'm using similar wording to Category:Taxonbar templates using multiple Wikidata items since neither of them would be considered errors). Do yall agree?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And/or Category:Taxonbar templates with manual IDs desynced from Wikidata Category:Taxonbar templates with manual IDs differing from Wikidata, which may or may not be an error.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding:, sure, these seem like potentially useful categories. Plantdrew (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Artix Kreiger/Chusquea tonduzii

Question.

I tried to add {{Taxobar}} with theplantlist. What did I do wrong? Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Happened to see this. I fixed User:Artix Kreiger/Chusquea tonduzii – it's good practice to include |from= anyway, but it's essential when, as for drafts, the Wikidata item doesn't link to our article. The Plant List parameter is |plantlist= – see the list at Template:Taxonbar#Taxon identifiers. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Scan results - IUCN statues on non-IUCN pages

If the article's infobox/title binomial DNE on IUCN (title is used as a last-resort), I then used its WP #Rs, and then IUCN synonyms of those #Rs, if necessary (i.e. if the #R itself failed the IUCN check), to validate IUCN existence. I used IUCN's weblink api as my validation mechanism, as long as it didn't say "species not found". The more #Rs a page has, the more IUCN attempts were made, so generally the more valid the outcome (i.e. if 10 #Rs couldn't be found on IUCN, it's very likely not on IUCN). {{Infraspeciesbox}}, {{Subspeciesbox}}, infoboxes with text in |binomial2=, |trinomial=, |subspecies=, & |subdivision= were all excluded from the parent scan, and so are also excluded here.

Per the original discussion/request, now archived, I found ~200 such pages with 1 or more #Rs which have a supposed IUCN status on Wikipedia, but probably don't even exist on IUCN, for manual follow up.

^† = 27 pages with persistent HTML errors in at least one of their queries; not sure why yet, but these might be suspect. Sorted by # of #Rs:

~200 pages with IUCN status that probably don't exist on IUCN

1. Libidibia paraguariensis (10 #Rs)
2. Lophius americanus (10 #Rs)
3. Patagonian toothfish (10 #Rs)
4. Paubrasilia (10 #Rs)
5. Penaeus monodon (10 #Rs)
6. Phyllostachys nigra (10 #Rs)
7. Rose fish (10 #Rs)
8. Silaum silaus (10 #Rs)
9. Ostorhinchus cookii^† (10 #Rs)
10. Powelliphanta gilliesi^† (10 #Rs)
11. Trimeresurus stejnegeri^† (10 #Rs)
12. Luzula sylvatica (9 #Rs)
13. Ocotea bullata (9 #Rs)
14. Paraponera clavata (9 #Rs)
15. Ryukyu kingfisher (9 #Rs)
16. Russian tortoise^† (9 #Rs)
17. Leucospermum conocarpodendron (8 #Rs)
18. Madagascar hissing cockroach (8 #Rs)
19. Visayan bulbul^† (8 #Rs)
20. Mindoro bulbul (7 #Rs)
21. New Caledonian thicketbird (7 #Rs)
22. Olive-flanked ground robin (7 #Rs)
23. Solomons cuckooshrike (7 #Rs)
24. Tropical boubou (7 #Rs)
25. Rufous-fronted babbler^† (7 #Rs)
26. Moluccan boobook (6 #Rs)
27. New Zealand fernbird (6 #Rs)
28. New Zealand owlet-nightjar (6 #Rs)
29. Orange roughy (6 #Rs)
30. Pompadour green pigeon (6 #Rs)
31. Red-headed macaw (6 #Rs)
32. Sardinella tawilis (6 #Rs)
33. Solanum pseudoquina (6 #Rs)
34. Western warbling vireo (6 #Rs)
35. Whiteleg shrimp (6 #Rs)
36. Olive tanager^† (6 #Rs)
37. Madeiran scops owl (5 #Rs)
38. Photuris pensylvanica (5 #Rs)
39. Red-throated wood rail (5 #Rs)
40. Rinderpest (5 #Rs)
41. Ringed warbling finch (5 #Rs)
42. Ruellia tuberosa (5 #Rs)
43. Ruwenzori duiker (5 #Rs)
44. Sabal causiarum (5 #Rs)
45. Saint Helena dove (5 #Rs)
46. Sphagnum cuspidatum (5 #Rs)
47. White-browed shama (5 #Rs)
48. Melicope saint-johnii^† (5 #Rs)
49. Pelophylax kl. grafi^† (5 #Rs)
50. Lycaena epixanthe (4 #Rs)
51. Nectomys magdalenae (4 #Rs)
52. New Zealand torpedo (4 #Rs)
53. Quercus deserticola (4 #Rs)
54. Raja stellulata (4 #Rs)
55. San Esteban chuckwalla (4 #Rs)
56. Scissor-billed koa finch (4 #Rs)
57. Senecio cambrensis (4 #Rs)
58. Sphagnum fuscum (4 #Rs)
59. Spot-legged wood turtle (4 #Rs)
60. Starksia y-lineata (4 #Rs)
61. Striated swallow (4 #Rs)
62. São Miguel scops owl (4 #Rs)
63. Tyto pollens (4 #Rs)
64. Viti Levu giant pigeon (4 #Rs)
65. Vitreorana oyampiensis (4 #Rs)
66. Wahlenbergia roxburghii (4 #Rs)
67. White-legged duiker (4 #Rs)
68. Peacock monitor^† (4 #Rs)
69. Williams' mud turtle^† (4 #Rs)
70. Large-spined bell toad (3 #Rs)
71. Malawi bushbaby (3 #Rs)
72. Mammuthus creticus (3 #Rs)
73. Mountain galaxias (3 #Rs)
74. Palaeoloxodon chaniensis (3 #Rs)
75. Parides chabrias (3 #Rs)
76. Pterocarpus erinaceus (3 #Rs)
77. Ruwenzori vlei rat (3 #Rs)
78. Sierra newt (3 #Rs)
79. Somalian slender mongoose (3 #Rs)
80. Speyeria zerene (3 #Rs)
81. Spotted catbird (3 #Rs)
82. Suaeda vera (3 #Rs)
83. Thismia americana (3 #Rs)
84. Tillandsia cyanea (3 #Rs)
85. Tulista kingiana (3 #Rs)
86. Twist-necked turtle (3 #Rs)
87. Upemba lechwe (3 #Rs)
88. Uvaria rufa (3 #Rs)
89. White-rumped shama (3 #Rs)
90. Wood harrier (3 #Rs)
91. Yellow clown goby (3 #Rs)
92. Mud adder^† (3 #Rs)
93. Rhoads's Oldfield mouse^† (3 #Rs)
94. Kerilia jerdonii (2 #Rs)
95. Lavender waxbill (2 #Rs)
96. Long-fin bonefish (2 #Rs)
97. Maracaibo wood turtle (2 #Rs)
98. Melicope elleryana (2 #Rs)
99. Molelike mouse (2 #Rs)
100. Mount Elgon vlei rat (2 #Rs)
101. Muenster yellow-toothed cavy (2 #Rs)
102. Muli pika (2 #Rs)
103. Multispine giant stingray (2 #Rs)
104. Nerine masoniorum (2 #Rs)
105. Owenia cepiodora (2 #Rs)
106. Palaeoloxodon mnaidriensis (2 #Rs)
107. Panorpa communis (2 #Rs)
108. Paschalococos (2 #Rs)
109. Peninsular chuckwalla (2 #Rs)
110. Perplexing scrubwren (2 #Rs)
111. Pogogyne abramsii (2 #Rs)
112. Poor cod (2 #Rs)
113. Pterostylis taurus (2 #Rs)
114. Puerto Rican flower bat (2 #Rs)
115. Raja texana (2 #Rs)
116. Red three-striped opossum (2 #Rs)
117. Red-capped tamarin (2 #Rs)
118. Rhodeus suigensis (2 #Rs)
119. Rodrigues bulbul (2 #Rs)
120. Rosa blanda (2 #Rs)
121. Rufous-bellied swallow (2 #Rs)
122. Réunion seahorse (2 #Rs)
123. Sabal domingensis (2 #Rs)
124. Sakhalin myotis (2 #Rs)
125. Sauromalus slevini (2 #Rs)
126. Scarlet minivet (2 #Rs)
127. Sea pony (2 #Rs)
128. Seagrass wrasse (2 #Rs)
129. Serruria aemula (2 #Rs)
130. Solanum abutiloides (2 #Rs)
131. Solanum ferox (2 #Rs)
132. Sorbus decipiens (2 #Rs)
133. Stout-legged wren (2 #Rs)
134. Streaked tuftedcheek (2 #Rs)
135. Streaked xenops (2 #Rs)
136. Sunda warbler (2 #Rs)
137. Tawny grassbird (2 #Rs)
138. Two-toed earless skink (2 #Rs)
139. Udine shrew (2 #Rs)
140. Uzungwe vlei rat (2 #Rs)
141. Vietnamese three-striped box turtle (2 #Rs)
142. Vitex pinnata (2 #Rs)
143. Yellow-bellied flowerpecker (2 #Rs)
144. Lichtenstein's seahorse^† (2 #Rs)
145. Nosferatu steindachneri^† (2 #Rs)
146. Sinoto's lorikeet^† (2 #Rs)
147. Smith's fruit bat^† (2 #Rs)
148. Thomas's yellow-shouldered bat^† (2 #Rs)
149. Verhoeven's giant tree rat^† (2 #Rs)
150. Negev tortoise (2 #Rs)
151. Kaloula nonggangensis (1 #R)
152. Kumara haemanthifolia (1 #R)
153. Labeobarbus osseensis (1 #R)
154. Lecanorchis tabugawaensis (1 #R)
155. Lespesia archippivora (1 #R)
156. Limnonectes bannaensis (1 #R)
157. Lycaena helle (1 #R)
158. Malapterurus tanoensis (1 #R)
159. Mangaia swiftlet (1 #R)
160. Megophrys parallela (1 #R)
161. Miniopterus fuliginosus (1 #R)
162. Monopterus desilvai (1 #R)
163. Napo saki (1 #R)
164. Negro stipple-throated antwren (1 #R)
165. Nesoluma st.-johnianum (1 #R)
166. Niedzwedzkia (1 #R)
167. Nomia aurata (1 #R)
168. Northern death adder (1 #R)
169. Northern snapping turtle (1 #R)
170. Oebalus pugnax (1 #R)
171. Oreobambos (1 #R)
172. Ornate skink (1 #R)
173. Oval electric ray (1 #R)
174. Paracanthocobitis abutwebi (1 #R)
175. Paracanthocobitis adelaideae (1 #R)
176. Paracanthocobitis canicula (1 #R)
177. Paracanthocobitis linypha (1 #R)
178. Paracanthocobitis maekhlongensis (1 #R)
179. Paracanthocobitis mandalayensis (1 #R)
180. Paralithodes platypus (1 #R)
181. Parnassius acco (1 #R)
182. Partula protea (1 #R)
183. Perritos de sandia (1 #R)
184. Pitted stingray (1 #R)
185. Poecilotheria ornata (1 #R)
186. Poecilotheria smithi (1 #R)
187. Poecilotheria subfusca (1 #R)
188. Poekilocerus pictus (1 #R)
189. Polylepis crista-galli (1 #R)
190. Polyscias maraisiana (1 #R)
191. Potamonautes isimangaliso (1 #R)
192. Protocheirodon (1 #R)
193. Ranitomeya rubrocephala (1 #R)
194. Rosa azerbaidshanica (1 #R)
195. Roystonea borinquena (1 #R)
196. Sailfin sculpin (1 #R)
197. Samwell Cave cricket (1 #R)
198. Scinax x-signatus (1 #R)
199. Senecio cadiscus (1 #R)
200. Seriola dorsalis (1 #R)
201. Seven-banded wrasse (1 #R)
202. Shinyrayed pocketbook (1 #R)
203. Siamese mud carp (1 #R)
204. Simandoa conserfariam (1 #R)
205. Sphagnum novo-caledoniae (1 #R)
206. Squalius pyrenaicus (1 #R)
207. Sterculia apetala (1 #R)
208. Tetronarce macneilli (1 #R)
209. Vachellia natalitia (1 #R)
210. Vachellia nubica (1 #R)
211. Vanda falcata (1 #R)
212. Vespula atropilosa (1 #R)
213. West African black turtle (1 #R)
214. Zombia (1 #R)
215. Pseudophilautus bambaradeniyai^† (1 #R)
216. Pseudophilautus dayawansai^† (1 #R)
217. Pseudophilautus jagathgunawardanai^† (1 #R)
218. Pseudophilautus karunarathnai^† (1 #R)
219. Pseudophilautus newtonjayawardanei^† (1 #R)
220. Pseudophilautus puranappu^† (1 #R)
221. Pseudophilautus schneideri^† (1 #R)
222. Pseudophilautus sirilwijesundarai^† (1 #R)

Let me know if/when you want the other 200 :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I took a look at a couple.....sierra newt, for example, has an IUCN ref and is classified as LC, but the IUCN ref is not inline.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside: thanks for taking a look. If you resolve the issues with any of these, please strike them out (if you're interested in collaborating on this extensively, I'll probably move the results to a sub page where we can work through them together). Before Tom ran the search, I was expecting that most of cases where a species had an IUCN status on Wikipedia, but wasn't actually listed in IUCN would be the result of people creating the page with a copy-pasted taxobox and failing to remove the IUCN status (that is a situation I've encountered a bunch). But now that I have the results, I'm seeing all kinds of different problems, and many of which can't be simply resolved by removing a mistaken IUCN status. With Sierra newt, the problem is pretty minor; IUCN spells it Taricha sierra, and Wikipedia/AmphibaWeb/ASW spell it Taricha sierrae. It could certainly use a note about the spelling, and an inline citation for IUCN status, but there's nothing actually wrong with the IUCN status in this case. Plantdrew (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

William Oakes

I have probably got a lot wrong even though William Oakes is a stub - I seem to recall having problems with correct botanical naming, for example, when I wrote John Horsefield. I've no idea if the guy is even a minor figure in world botany but he does appear to have had a significant local impact. I am probably not going to be able to develop the article much further because my knowledge of the topic area is, well, about on a par with what is apocryphally used to feed mushrooms. However, I have kept it on my watchlist because I am interested to learn from any mistakes I may have made. Thanks for doing the VIAF etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Well, it was not a VIAF but you know what I mean. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush:, well I've now added {{Authority control}} with the VIAF link since you mentioned it. Biography articles aren't my forte; I don't really know where to look for information about people. If a person worked as a botanist I know where to look to confirm that they existed, their birth/death year and their standard abbreviation, but that's about it. Thanks for writing the article. It's a fine beginning with no problems as far as I can tell. Plantdrew (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Artix Kreiger/Archive 2

Hey Plantdrew,

I had submitted a few entries and several were published. Wanted to let you know. Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye out for more publications of your drafts. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Historically recognized monogeneric plant families

Looking at Category:Monogeneric plant families, which you helpfully added to the Frankeniaceae redirect, I noticed quite a few articles which would appear to need merging and replacing with redirects to the genus article. I don't recall a discussion on whether the policy on monogeneric families applies to historically recognized families, like Alangiaceae. I'd be interested in your comments on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any previous discussion regarding historically recognized monogeneric families. I think deal with them on a case by case basis. There may be previous circumscriptions that weren't monotypic. Based on what's currently in the Alangiaceae article, I'd merge it with the genus, but Watson & Dallwitz include Metteniusa in Alangiaceae; I guess that is based on morphology, not DNA? It's certainly quite a different view than APGIV has. And an order Alangiales has been published; I do wonder what had been included there.Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think case by case is sound advice. Re Watson & Dallwitz, unfortunately this website doesn't seem to be kept up to date; e.g. for Frankeniaceae, by 2003 even Kubitzki (usually a conservative splitter in my experience) had only 2 genera in the family, but Watson & Dallwitz still show 4. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea where Watson & Dallwitz get their circumscriptions, but they do mention APGIV synonymies for Alangiaceae, and APGIV ordinal placement for Frankeniaceae. It is being kept up to date in some fashion, it's just not clear what system they are following. At any rate, a polygeneric circumscription of Alangiaceae seems to be quite rare (Airy Shaw 1966 proposed including Metteniusa, but Cronquist and Takhtajan reject this). Probably fine just to merge to the genus. Plantdrew (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

My impression is that they have just added bits to the end of these articles without updating circumscriptions. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Rate of decription

Hi Plantdrew, I am quite happy to take your word that species are being described faster than they are being added to WP. I had my doubts about the validity of Chris Troutman's objection, but the RfC is now closed in favour of a trial anyway. I hope it goes well as I find it much less hassle to add a little bit to an existing stub than to create the article from scratch. My interests include marine ecology, and recording sightings, and often check what is available on Wikipedia and find nothing, but don't have the time to create an article, but maybe do have the time to upload a photo and add a few sentences from my references. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I got the last comment in before the RfC closed; I'd intended to comment some more on common name issues. I don't buy Chris Troutman's objections in terms of bot-created stubs making it impossible for human editors to get an internal award that very few care about. I do agree that it is easier for human editors to add information to a well-crafted stub than it is for them to create the stub in the first place (especially so for people who don't have much experience editing Wikipedia). Plantdrew (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Policy mentioned in an edit

Hiya 😊 You recently reverted an edit to Violin plot, with the reason "Remove xkcd spam per WP:xkcd". However, as you can see, WP:xkcd is redlinked. Is there another name for it that perhaps WP:xkcd should redirect to? Xmoogle (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xmoogle:; oops, that should have been WP:XKCD. Plantdrew (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't realise that'd be case sensitive! But it does seem like maybe WP:xkcd should also be a redirect, given the webcomic's proper title is lowercase. I might "be bold" and add one in later 😊 And thanks! Xmoogle (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Help : review article

Hi Let me introduce myself. I am Felix and I’m a novice in Wikipedia ! I wrote an article recently, it’s a biography of a french-american journalist : Laura Haim. Now, I’m waiting for validation from wikipedian reviewer. Would you be able to help me? I have no idea how long it could take… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Haim Many thanks for your help. Best

Felix