Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

I noticed in your opening comment at WP:AE "seems to have been unwilling to debate the issues", and that struck me as more than a little odd. All that I have been doing is debating the issue. Perhaps there is more to this than I am seeing? For example, later on you mentioned "His posts have, in my view, been somewhat confused and repetitive". First, that is his or her, or their, but in this day and age his has long lost its universal gender. Secondly, normally my writing is at a professional level. Has that really declined to the "somewhat confused" level? Is there actually anything that anyone can point to that I am confused about? Is "confused" a euphemism for "wrong"? Almost all of my focus at MOS has been on correcting an absurd error - of using an endash for a hyphen in names. No one has been able to demonstrate even one name that uses an endash. How is that confused? Apteva (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

To begin with, let me repeat that I'm actually not a great supporter of the current guidance in the MOS on this subject, so I would welcome a well-argued debate.

My main problem is that you seem to be arguing that proper names should be a special case. Even if a semantically parallel non-proper name would legitimately use an en-dash, you appear to want to recommend that as a proper name it would use a hyphen. This would violate the logic of the current guidance in the MOS which, although complex to implement, is coherent. If I mean to say "there have been many wars between the French and the Germans" and actually write "there have been many French–German wars", the MOS clearly recommends an en-dash. If there were one particular war called "the French–German War" there would be no reason given the logic of the MOS to change the en-dash to a hyphen. And you have never provided any such reason – showing that sources which are based on other manuals of style or no manual of style at all use hyphens is irrelevant. Given the existing MOS, I can see no reason to treat proper names differently.

Arguments about styles need to be based on stylistic issues: are there reasons for using the style? are these reasons sensible and coherent? is the style set out in the style manual in a way which enables writers to use it? does the style violate the style recommendations of authoritative sources? And so on. Counting uses, which you have spent a lot of time doing, is not of great relevance, and certainly doesn't convince supporters of a particular style.

Purely as an example of this latter point, consider the following. I'm a strong supporter of the Oxford British English style, which uses many "-ize" endings. I always use it where it is permitted. If you were trying to convince me that it's not a good style, telling me that in British English the spelling "generalize" is much less common than the spelling "generalise" would have no impact at all. The reason I use this style is not because it's the most common, but because there are good reasons to do so: it's etymologically correct; it more closely represents pronunciation; it increases commonality between British and American English. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I notice at the end "He or she" is used, would it be possible for you to add [or she] to the place where he is used? Thanks. Apteva (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, apologies for making this mistake. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Peter I put the link in since following the Kew List instructions for the country/region codes got me nowhere so I put the code url in to help. My problem with these pages (I'm only concerned with species found in Ireland) was that they don't present a world (Palearctic) view. Maybe it would be best to write a short article on the Kew list.What do you think? -the alternative is to give a country list in the article.I'd be grateful for any help with the inclusion of text from the Italian pages. Maybe German too. All the best from the Emerald Isle Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's not straightforward to interpret the cryptic codes used in WCSP. When I use it as a source I have a spreadsheet which maps codes to country names. I also agree that too many articles about plants are parochial in their view – they often ignore occurrences outside the editor's home country, so including information derived from these codes is important. A short article with tables of the mapping seems to be a very good idea. A reference footnote could then a link to this article. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We could really use your expertise on the ape discussion board as there is a very active discussion right now. I am trying to get the community to create more balanced articles on apes and monkey to reflect the inconsistent definitions both in and out of the sciences, but the articles are dominated by people who want to push only one definition Historyhorror (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Because you participated at some point in this lengthy discussion about the wording of MOS guidelines pertaining to the use of BC/AD and BCE/CE, I thought you might want to contribute to the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE). I'm trying to notify all the individuals who took part in the earlier discussion but haven't weighed in yet for the current one. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, but I'm trying to wean myself off wasting time in MOS debates. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, so why didn't I get one of these? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style's talk page. Short version: I argue that logical quotation is not akin to misc. ENGVAR issues, because failure to use it opens a floodgate to WP:V problems, and "American" typesetters' quotation can be and is being bent in that direction on purpose for POV/OR-pushing purposes. WP must use LQ or never be credible. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, no problem about overwriting the changes that I made, I was really just testing to see how far off the list was from what it should be. You systematic replacement is much better (and I'd prefer to skip the Spanish common names, leaving them for the Spanish wikipedia). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree re the Spanish common names. I wish we could agree on a standard policy of only using English common names unless it's clear that a name from another language is widely used in the English-speaking world.

What do you think about including subspecies? These can be extracted from the WCSP checklist, although I haven't got this working as smoothly as for species. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the common names in other languages question could be proposed to WT:PLANTS to see what others think. I'm inclined to remove them if there is already an interwiki link to that language (which there is for Spanish).

I can see an argument for including subspecies on the grounds that they might be sufficiently interchangeable with the species rank that people could be searching for them, but to be consistent the autonymous subspecies name ought to be included. On the other hand, omitting them on the grounds that it is too much work to keep them up to date would also make sense to me. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I was merely implementing the changes suggested by Wikid77. I did try to implement a testing process before the implementation. It seems to have not caught all the scenarios. The code is too complicated by for me to understand. I was glad we had one other person who was able to figure out what Martin did and change the code. The taxobox is too important to be single threaded. — Ganeshk (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Then as I'm not an admin and can't do it, could you please change this:

| parent = {{Taxobox/taxon|{{{taxon|<noinclude>Acacia
  </noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>|}}}|{{{1|}}} }}<!--

to this:

| parent = {{Taxobox/taxon|{{{taxon|<noinclude>Acacia</noinclude>}}}|{{{1|}}} }}<!--

which should restore the original behaviour. Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done I have implemented the change that you requested. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To avoid expansion-depth errors inside of Template:Taxobox/taxonomy/ex3, I have listed the current chains of taxon names under Eukaryota, which could be updated in future years as taxon levels are changed. The taxon names are currently ordered in the sequence as follows:

• Eukaryota, Unikonta, Opisthokonta, Holozoa, Filozoa, Animalia, Eumetazoa, Bilateria, Nephrozoa, Deuterostomia, Chordata, and Craniata.

By updating that one template, then those upper-level taxon names would be changed for all the many thousands of related articles, within minutes. Those specific names are listed in the template to reduce the expansion depth. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understood why you made this change and I am appreciative of the very useful work you've done on the automatic taxobox system. I do think, though, that the hard-coding should have been discussed first, e.g. at Template talk:Automatic taxobox. I'm also concerned that the changes made recently, including the hard coding, are not properly documented. How would an editor who changed e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Opisthokonta know that this template is currently unused so any changes are irrelevant? Another example is Template:Automatic taxobox/map, which is important for other editors trying to maintain the automated taxobox system. It would be useful if you can find time to review and update the documentation. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Long-term redesign of taxobox templates: I have been planning to update more of the taxobox, or speciesbox, documentation. However, these templates are extremely complex for outside users, even so complex that User:Smith609 has responded to not be involved, any longer, with the complicated changes to improve performance (with such severe template limits, of only 41 levels, when computer software often nests 200 levels or more). Hence, it has been left to others to reduce the expansion-depth errors, among the staggering thousands of taxobox articles, while requesting permission from cautious, fearful admins to update these templates that only a few users begin to understand. During these fearful changes, there will be a transition period, and not all templates will be 100% compatible, due to limited hours from part-time volunteers to optimize such an intricately entangled set of interwoven templates. For example, many articles still run {Taxonomy/Opisthokonta} when not nested too deep (see: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Taxonomy/Opisthokonta). I have not made any changes which are intended to totally bypass such templates, and thus template {Taxonomy/Opisthokonta} and related templates are still vital members of the taxobox templates.
  Also, I have asked some developers to improve the general wp:parser functions, to reduce all the time-consuming, repetitious invocations of nested taxon-parent lookups. As you likely know, we need a simple parser function to reset the value of parameters, such as {{#set:x|45}}. By that very simple means, the repeated taxon-level parents would become serial re-assignments, of the form {{#set: taxon_parent|...}}, without the 60-deep nesting of templates to chain 60 parents. In general, more support from our many computer scientists is needed to "fix" the neophyte template markup language, such as parsing for tokens #then or #else with #endif, as optional syntax. Also, we could simplify parameter usage with an alternate syntax as "#[x]" rather than only the error-prone, triple-braced "{{{x}}}". Anyway, I thank you for notifying me of the related taxobox problems, and hopefully, we can continue to improve these biological knowledge-base templates, on many levels, such as coding some Lua script modules to allow faster templates, for next spring. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I do understand the problems with the template mark-up language. I used to think that the syntax of XSLT was the worst of any programming language I had ever used until I started using the wiki template language! In terms of semantics, one area that could perhaps be fixed fairly quickly would be to provide more built-in string handling, i.e. "magic word" functions equivalent to, say, the basic string handling set in Java or JavaScript. Actions like testing strings for included substrings and splitting strings are very inefficiently done at present via templates; I think this is part of the problem with the automatic taxobox system.

I'm firmly from the functional programming school of thought, so I'm not easily convinced that assignment statements are the right way forward. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:MOS#continuing. Sorry for the inconvenience. Can you reply there? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Peter. I've just had a read of Hyacinthoides lingulata, and was struck by the line "Its leaves are not fully hardy". Although I think I know what is meant, I wonder if such terminology doesn't always need clarifying by geographical context (e.g. in this case, not always hardy in the UK), because of course all wild species must be fully hardy in the area and climate to which they are adapted. This is implicitly supported by my Collins English Dictionary, which lists definition number 4 of "hardy" as "(of plants) able to live out of doors throughout the winter". I know the RHS have their own hardiness definitions (which have changed recently of course), but I'm thinking such descriptions don't fit very well in a global project like Wikipedia. Any thoughts? (I posted here rather than at the article's talk page as I imagine this subject is relevant to many articles, and it just happens that you've written this one). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In this specific instance, it's really careless wording on my part: what is meant, I think, is "not fully frost hardy", i.e. can be harmed by even a few degrees of frost (I don't have the source to hand just now, but I'll check and fix the article when I do). But in general I agree that there is a problem: "hardy" is meaningless in an international context. A rating on the relevant local scale is what is needed. I've thought for some time that the article Hardiness zone is unsatisfactory. It's a redirect from "USDA hardiness zone" and for the British Isles and Europe it simply applies the US ratings instead of discussing the local alternatives. If there was a separate article on the old and new RHS ratings, for example, then when using British sources it would be easier to specify hardiness more precisely using a link to the correct scale. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Hardiness zone is incomplete; it should mention all variants, not just the USDA prescriptions, although I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the article also applying the latter to the UK and northwest Europe, as my guess is that globally the USDA prescriptions have greatest use. (As an aside, I think that the map of the USDA zones in the British Isles needs a different source, as much of central England - as shown by recent winters - can experience temperatures below -12°C, and should therefore be in Zone 7 or even Zone 6, not Zone 8; similarly parts of Scotland - such as around Altnaharra - should be in Zone 5, not Zone 7). It's a shame that hardiness descriptions can't be standardised across all articles in which they're given, but of course the obstacle to achieving that is that the sources use different prescriptions, and I suppose that converting from one scale to another (e.g. from an RHS description to USDA) would be a form of WP:SYNTH. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No wait! I've had a rethink on my statement regarding the Hardiness zone article; under its current title and scope it should only briefly mention classifications such as that used by the RHS, as it's a subtly different kind of system. (It defines plant hardiness using a descriptive rating that takes an area as given - i.e. the UK - and hence lacks a linked geographical delineation, unlike the USDA system which assigns plants to particular defined zones). You are right about having a separate article that covers the RHS ratings; it perhaps should be called Hardiness ratings. My comment about the USDA map of the British Isles still stands though - I should mention it on the article's talk page. Looking at that map one can see why the RHS devise their own system - particularly the revised one - as it's much more nuanced. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have approved your request for rollback. Thank you for all your excellent contributions and HAPPY NEW YEAR :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Peter for your brilliabt contribution to the Gibraltar Botoanic Gardens list. I woke up this morning and it was like the elves had visited. No new shoes but a shiny list with apparently much more content. Pass on my best wishes to whoever is in charge of those clever elves. Victuallers (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent message, sorry I was inconsiderate and forgot to reply. I also completely forgot that I had created a paleobotany stub type, which is definitely useful in the context you said it was. :) Abyssal (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. (I constantly forget what I've done on Wikipedia; I read something I want to change and then discover from the history that I wrote it!) Peter coxhead (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I noticed when editing Musa beccarii that it shows these red links under 'Templates used in this preview'

• Template:Taxonomy/Musa beccarii (edit). This will only appear on the editing page. I don't know enough about templates to guess if this is important or not, so I figured I'd let you know about it.

(Good grief, I really don't understand templates, because the links are showing up blue as I preview my message here! I wonder why?)

Also, I've tried keeping to the {{reflist|refs= citation style you've already been using (which I think I will try in the future, as it seems superior to the one I've been using heretofore). Although everything looks as though it worked out perfectly, sometimes I miss things I don't know to look for. Let me know if I've done it improperly in any way. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Because I've used {{Speciesbox}}, it won't need "Template:Taxonomy/Musa_beccarii" – {{Speciesbox}} gets the taxonomic hierarchy by extracting the genus name from the species name and then looking up (in this case) Template:Taxonomy/Musa. (Apologies if you know all this!) So I'm not sure why you apparently saw the species template. The automatic taxonomy system templates are very prone to getting "stuck" in caches, though, at least in my experience, so if anything at all "odd" happens, I've learnt to try a dummy edit and save or two before accepting that there's a problem.

The {{reflist|refs= style is fine when editing a smallish page, and it prevents the small amount of content getting lost between the refs. What annoys me, though, is that you can't "park" an unused ref here until you need it in the body of the text (I have asked at the template talk page if this could be allowed, but the consensus was that it shouldn't be). So if you are editing a long article, when you really need to edit section by section, you end up creating reference errors between edits. I guess it doesn't matter, as you can correct them quickly, but I still don't like it!

On a slightly different tack, I prefer the method I've now used at Musa beccarii to show the reference used for the subdivisions. It's comparable to using |synonyms_ref=. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As a teacher of mine once said, 'you don't know, what you don't know, until you know it'. And I still don't know it. Regarding your first answer, no apologies necessary; I basically knew how {{Speciesbox}} worked (or, rather, what it does), but I really don't understand templates in general. All my knowledge of all things remotely computerish are merely by doing them repeatedly, until they stuck. Don't worry, I won't ask for further explanation, as it would take many boring hours of your time. However, I will say that the same red links show up when editing Musa bukensis, and probably (though I didn't check) others. It sounds like your saying that it probably isn't anything to worry about, so I won't.

In regard to the part you don't like about using {{reflist|refs=, have you tried this?: having it ({{reflist|refs=) handy on, say, a .txt file; then adding it in at the bottom of your section edit temporarily, to test how the reference looks when you preview it. I find this works fine when using {{reflist}}, except I have to remember to remove it before saving, or I'll have to correct it (which has happened to me several times).

On the third point, showing the references used for the subdivisions: I guess it's a just small matter of personal aesthetics, as the way you like it just doesn't look as nice to me, but, no matter... Hamamelis (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess it is just a personal view, but "List source:^[2]" looks odd to me, because the logic of the raised index style of adding references is that the text is written exactly as if the reference weren't there. To place the reference at the bottom, I'd be inclined to write something like "List according to Tropicos^[2]". Peter coxhead (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, even though I think a similar argument could be made for placing the reference next to the word, and not [below] the list. I didn't mean to seem critical, I just think sometimes there's no truly rational and objective explanation for why some things just "look wrong" to one person, and "right" for another, as they hinge upon how the individual has become accustomed to view things. Ultimately, either method works. Anyway, I hope my suggestion in para 2 is helpful. Hamamelis (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The technique I've tried is opening the section to be edited in one window/tab and the References section in another. The only problem is if someone else edits the article before you finish or if you forget to close both and ; recovering from the edit conflict is more complicated! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ref display

Hi Peter, your view of some ref displays got me thinking, because I partly agree with you. If you would check out Coopernookia, and see what you think of its species list ref display. It may be an improvement. Hamamelis (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's always difficult to reference lists, especially where you have to use more than one source to complete the list. I know that I have used quite different styles as I've done more Wikipedia editing. I tend to prefer the "introductory section" approach these days, as at Musa (genus)#Species or Classification of the Cactaceae#Classification. I've also used a full note approach, i.e. just having one reference number showing, and then explaining all the sources in a note. There's no perfect answer! It's just that I have taught referencing to university students and used to say that in the numbered references approach, you should be able to delete the reference and end up with good English, just as in the Harvard system you should be able to delete anything in parentheses with the same result (see [1]). I must have got that from some style guide or other, but I forget where now. Anyway, there's no right or wrong way to do it; just a matter of preference and aesthetics.

The real problem in Wikipedia are the completely unreferenced lists of species, usually out of date and often including multiple synonyms, which litter too many genus articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful U of B link, and your advice is sound. Regarding Musa jackeyi (your message on my talk page): I'm embarrassed to say, after struggling to find the connection, I'm quite puzzled as to why you thought this species would be of particular interest to me (though, as with all plants, it is interesting to me). So, please jog my memory, or...perhaps I wasn't the intended recipient of the message (?) Thanks.

Regarding the unreferenced and outdated lists (mentioned above), I quite agree with you, and when I'm bored I try to bring these sorts of lists up to date. Frankly, I don't know why most editors don't see the need to reference such lists in the first place. Hamamelis (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your bafflement was justified: wrong person, sorry. Either old age on my part, or crossing too many time zones in the last couple of weeks! Peter coxhead (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Peter. It's so nice to see Musa (genus) looking so much bluer than red these days, thanks to your efforts. Have a cat! this one looks to be ever alert (mostly for mischief ). Hamamelis (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this sounds nicer than "skunk cabbage" of any sort. You started the article, and I wonder if you can check any sources on this issue of whether it stinks? In particular there is a UK reference which hints that at least someone noticed there was no bad smell, but without being able to see the referenced article I'm a bit stuck. Please see also the note I wrote on the talk page. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the page. I added a reference -- I don't think the introduction as a whole reads well, but don't know quite how to handle it. After all, in a sense, what should the Japanese name have to do with it? Yet the "common name" (I know this is correct as a technical term, but if a plant doesn't grow in an English-speaking area, it isn't really a common name in the normal sense), um, is misleading, and how things are named by people who actually grow up with them should be significant. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the list from the Spanish Wikipedia. The source given at the end of the article is Musa balbisiana L. A. Colla, Memoria della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 25 : 384 (1820) and E. E. Cheesman, Kew Bulletin 3 (1): 14 (1948). If some of the names don't agree with reliable sources they should certainly be removed (Xufanc (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)).

Thanks for your prompt response. These sources are very out of date; there's been a lot of taxonomic research since then. I'll sort out the list when I have time. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably not an area of your particular expertise, but should you have the time, would you please have a gander at Huckleberry, particularly the Nomenclature section? Much of it appears to include what should be in other sections, but in some cases there appears to be (to my my eyes, anyway) some crossover of topics that may include both nomenclature with other sections, somewhat embedded into one another; that is, they seem to be very mixed up! But I'll admit, I may be wrong... Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a problem with articles of this kind, i.e. plant articles about a common name which covers more than one species. What is the article actually about? It doesn't seem to me to make much more sense than it would to have an article called "Heather" which was about all the different kinds of plants whose common names included this word, or even an article called "Robin" which was about the American Robin and the European Robin and any other bird which happened to be called a "Robin". The article says, for example, that the huckleberry is the state fruit of Idaho, so I immediately want to know which huckleberry? (The Vaccinium membranaceum article claims it's that one.) It's certainly a mixed up article, but I don't quite see how to sort it out, other than by making it a kind of "longer disambiguation page", which just explains what kind of plants get called "huckleberries" and then lists/links to the species concerned. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I think you're right. The article's subject is probably so vague that it would be unsatisfying to attempt to correct, unless it was restarted from scratch. There used to be an article with a similar problem called something like "Mole (word)", and at the time I was for it, especially as the original editor did such exhaustive research, but have since realized it was like trying to write a complete, definitive article for "thing" (which is, as you have suggested for huckleberry, a disambiguation page). Thanks for giving it a look. Hamamelis (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter, do you agree that the word "supragenus" should be removed from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's very difficult, as we both know well, to word this stuff accurately, but the recent restoration of this term is not right. The position seems to be that all ranks formed by adding prefixes to a "base" rank, whether above or below the "base" rank, are italicised in the same way as the "base" rank. "Supra-" does occur but is rarer than "super-" and is misleading as an example because of its alternative use to mean all ranks above a "base" rank.

Actually I'm coming to feel that it was an interesting experiment to produce a combined animals/plants page, but it doesn't really work. (Also some edits seem to be to be too concerned with pushing partisan positions.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You're brave. It was interesting to see how quickly the proposal at the IBC to give some consideration to a revised Biocode was shot down. I didn't see enough of the buildup to that to understand why it was so rapid, but it was a relief.

Anyway, it's good to see that the supragenus rank is holding its distance for the time being. I'm not really able to look at the rest of that material in serious detail just at present. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for breaking the impasse at MOSNUM about the grammar. Michael Glass (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In regard to this revision at 23:01, 12 February 2013, please note that "singular verb" does not mean "verb without s at the end", and "plural verb" does not mean "verb with s at the end". A singular subject governs a singular verb, and a plural subject governs a plural verb.—Subject and Verb Agreement | Grammar Rules
—Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Or see my glossary at [2]. The error I was correcting was a plural noun with a 3rd singular verb, hence the edit summary "corrected grammar; plural subject but 3rd singular verb". Peter coxhead (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The expression "3rd singular verb" in your edit summary refers to the form before the correction was made, and not to the form after the correction was made.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's called an "apostrophe", not a "single quote", unless it's used as a quote-within-a-quote. It's so sad that people who set Wikipedia "style" policies seem to be mostly incompetent in punctuation and typography. If this keeps up, mankind will soon be unable to communicate. Babel. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Cultivar names are governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants which says "Cultivar epithets are enclosed in single quotation marks". It's common, but not quite correct, to shorten "quotation mark" to "quote". "Apostrophe" is certainly not correct in this context. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Do you have an ORCID ID? If so, you can add it to your user page, using {{Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter, if you ever run across another problem like the one you had with http://www.cosbyrampfestival.org, you can try using the wondrous Wayback Machine; it has archived previous versions of websites by date. Although this example was fixed by Michaelmas1957 (by finding a completely other source which had the same info needed), the wayback machine divulged for me this, which led me to this! Hamamelis (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do know about Wayback Machine, but it never seems to have archived the page I really, really want to find! I have to say that ramp festivals don't fall into that category so I didn't look. What this example teaches is that "cite web" refs should always be archived. I regularly resolve to do this and then forget. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I'm assuming you mean WebCite, or something else like it. Hamamelis (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter, any particular reason for reverting my edits? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Very odd; I have no recollection of making this edit and was very surprised to see it in the history. I was working on my iPad at the time so I may have pressed the wrong link, which I find is easy to do on an iPad. I've reverted my error; apologies – quite unintended. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to hear that you hadn't detected insanity in me that I was unaware of ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your last edit to Talk:Pseudotsuga had four effects, and I'm not sure which were intended.

1. Reverting the archiving of the page. That's OK --- you can object and we don't need to archive.
2. Reactivated a closed discussion about moving from Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga. Given that the move has already occurred, then this has no effect. Given that the discussion just closed, if you intended this, I would recommend going through the move review process, or at least starting a discussion with the closing admin.
3. Created a duplicate requested move. I moved the discussion of moving Pseudotsuga menziesii to unhyphenated Douglas fir, due to limitations of the bot that manages the requested move page. Now there are two such move requests. I would really like to archive this one and concentrate discussion at Talk:Pseudotsuga menziesii, where there is a productive discussion but no consensus yet.
4. Registered your opposition to one or both of these moves, I'm not sure which.

I would really like to close down the move discussions at Talk:Pseudotsuga, to not confuse other editors, admins, or bots. I welcome your participation over at Talk:Pseudotsuga menziesii. May I close these discussions? —hike395 (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to ask permission to revert the disruptive, although good-faith, re-opening of closed discussions. I've reverted to the version of the archive edit. On the chance that archiving older discussions was objected to, then the archive edit can be undone in its entirety, but also turn off the automatic archiving, or it will just happen again, and blank the archive. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems that I inadvertently followed an out of date link from another discussion, and failed to notice that I was adding to an old discussion. Apologies. Reverting is quite correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter, I used one of your recent comments as an example in a conversation on Epeefleche's talk page. If you have the time, please read the thread. In any event, I don't want you to think I was singling you out unfairly for criticism, and I thought you might want to read my comments to Epee. If you have any questions, let's talk. Best regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to get this discussion back on track. If everyone else will focus on your three points, we may get there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to finish splitting the list, but you seem to have paused. Just wanted to express my appreciation :) Thank you! Hamamelis (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I paused because I realized I wasn't doing it quite the right way. It seemed to me best first to create the new halves, then change the links to point to these, then blank the original. However, this loses the page history, which you're not supposed to do. So I've worked out a different (but less simple) way to do it, which I'll try now! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Splits now complete. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent Peter! All the pages are opening for me (and, I'm sure, for everyone else) in mere seconds—thanks again! Hamamelis (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there's some kind of non-linear factor going on here; a page twice the length seems to take more than twice as long to appear, at least in my rather unsystematic tests. Anyway, somewhere around 40-45kB seems to me a good upper limit, suggesting that A–C might soon need splitting again. B and C seem to be very common first letters in botanical abbreviations! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh good grief! Hamamelis (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This might account for some of it: it was announced today on NPR that last night (US time), there were at least two massive hacker attacks on the DNS (the second larger than the first, as the system was adjusting to the first attack), which caused computers to run slower all over the place. Mine is now again running kind of slow – perhaps repairs are being done in the wake of the attacks. Hamamelis (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ARCHAEOBOTANY;c1b55387.1305 for confirmation of my post. Yazee (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't doubting the facts, but we do have to follow WP:BLP which requires verifiability. I think it will be ok if this reference is added along with the year of death. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Peter, my reference was to day-month-year dates, such as "15 January 2013," which are the predominant full date format in the UK and Commonwealth countries (with the exception of Canada), as opposed to the American-style month-day-year dates, such as "January 15, 2013," which are the predominant form in the United States. I agree that the abbreviated slash dates such as "12/1/2013" are ambiguous in an international publication and generally should be avoided. My point was that a small percentage of Americans, including the U.S. military, do use DMY dates, but it is an eccentric minority practice outside the military. Forcing LQ quotation conventions into encyclopedia articles written in American English is no less eccentric in the face of the 99.x% of all American writers and publications that use traditional quotation conventions. As a result, the MOS provisions regarding LQ are among the most widely ignored, and inevitably lead to editor conflict when someone attempts to conform an existing article to LQ. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure of your point about dates; thanks for clarifying. As to LQ, if we were starting again, I agree that it makes more sense to wrap up punctuation differences in this area into ENGVAR differences. But we are where we are, so is it worth trying to get a change? I don't have strong views either way on this issue, but do have a strong view on the MOS: it should be more concerned than it is with documenting consensus views and practices. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that MOS should emphasize real world consensus practices, and I also agree that we are probably stuck with LQ for the present. A combination of inertia and a handful of vociferous LQ advocates make it likely that any RfC at this time would probably result in a stalemate, and thus continued inclusion of LQ in MOS. I have avoided proposing an RfC or any serious discussion, knowing full well the controversy that will inevitably ensue. Nevertheless, the issue will continue to arise from time to time as good-faith American editors, new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with MOS, object to LQ in American English articles and raise the issue on the MOS talk pages. This is exactly what prompted the latest round of discussion. Personally, I am content to let the issue percolate for the time being, but I will defend the newbies when LQ advocates dismiss the newbies' objections to LQ as nonsensical. Those objections are valid. The MOS' prescriptive use of LQ in American English articles in the face of the 99.x% American writers and publications that don't use LQ is contrary to common sense. But that's an argument for another day. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe I made this error at Fe'i banana! Thanks for noticing and correcting it. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, Peter. I was perplexed for a moment when coming across that dating, then, after reading the note underneath, I realized that the problem is easily resolved by exchanging two digits. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

Here's a rough draft of text intended to fit above the synonyms material that is currently on the project page. I suspect that it doesn't do justice to your point of view, and, of course, would benefit from your perusal/rejection. One further point that I think would amount to clutter if expressed on the project page, is that I don't think that creating redirects for all synonyms is practical, there are just too many. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Synonyms: one or multiple classifications?

• Taxonomic arrangements of plants have frequently changed, and continue to change as more-detailed systematic studies are completed. As a result, it often happens (as of the time of writing, 2013) that the classifications in the better-known reference works are out of date.
• Wikipedia's page structure reflects a single taxonomy, and we would like to base that structure on the best available scholarly opinion. The classification chosen for each group of plants is decided by consensus among wikipedia editors.

The tricky issue here is what "group" means, and I think something needs to be said here. For example, for extant angiosperms it only makes sense, I believe, to use one classification – currently APGIII. Thus either we use the broad Asparagaceae of APGIII or the segregate families of APGII. In terms of page structure and taxoboxes, as far as I can see, we couldn't use Hyacinthaceae but not Agavaceae even if the consensus in reliable sources favours the former but not the latter. Or maybe there's some clever way round this? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Classification changes are represented in botany by synonyms: a disused name is a synonym of the correct name, and it is helpful to list these and create redirections to the pages where they are listed.
• Synonym lists need to be accompanied by citation(s) for the source(s) of the list. The citation(s) needs to reflect internally consistent taxonomic opinion, which means that usually a single source would be listed. In some cases, a second source may be needed to explain the major source, for example, IPNI may need to be cited to demonstrate that what some sources consider to be the correct name is actually invalid or illegitimate.

In many cases, the synonyms for a plant taxon may be uncontroversial and of little interest to a reader except to serve as pointers to the updated name used in the page title. In other cases, the varied classifications require explanation and/or are of interest in themselves. In the second case, a section of the text area of the page would be needed, which could be called Taxonomic history or Nomenclatural history. When the synonyms are uncontroversial, placing them in the taxobox instead of in the text will keep the list from cluttering the page, and may also protect it from accumulating well-intentioned additions from readers who see some different synonyms listed in an old reference, and do not realize that those names are inconsistent with Wikipedia's chosen classification.

Minor point: it's usually a subsection within a Taxonomy (or as I increasingly prefer Systematics) section rather than a full section.

More controversial perhaps is that I find long lists in the taxobox a problem on many pages. On short pages (e.g. species and genera about which there is little in the literature) it makes the page unbalanced. Even on long pages it can make it difficult to put images in the right place when the taxobox runs too far down the page. I wonder about putting long synonym lists in a "show/hide" section, initially hidden. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Synonyms: the mechanics of listing them

[Followed by the current text]

Sorry to say, I'm going to have to leave this for a while as real life has intervened. I have come to agree with you that rolling up the synonyms list is a good idea, even if some redirects may be a bit confusing if the text is hidden. On the other matter on WT:PLANTS, I don't have time to follow the huge discussion there, but agree that WCSP is best for those families that it covers; my problem is that it doesn't cover many of those that I'm interested in, notably Rosaceae. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies since you put effort into this, but I don't anticipate getting back to this. Enthusiasm for wiki effort has deserted me as a result of recent dramas here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the tip. Can you check the above and below articles that are used to be stubs?:--Mishae (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Carex humilis
• Carex panicea
• Cotoneaster insignis
• Ulva acanthophora
• Ulva anandii
• Ulva atroviridis
• Ulva bifrons
• Ulva brevistipita
• Ulva burmanica
• Ulva compressa
• Ulva conglobata
• Ulva crassa
• Ulva elegans
• Ulva flexuosa

Feel free to revert any edits that I might made with above mentioned articles. Also, can you give me an example of an actual stub (I think I have plenty of Ulva species which fall under such category)?--Mishae (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Another thing: I have changed this article from Stub to Start, but now I am unsure about it: Cotoneaster dammeri. Can you see if I did it right.--Mishae (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I think I got it: As long as it have only external links is a Stub, while if it have references is a Start. An I getting it right?--Mishae (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's really the criterion. The question in the assessment table is about how much useful information is there for readers. It's a subjective judgement; there's no exact right or wrong, but I would say:

• Carex humilis is a Stub: all it says is that the species is a sedge from Western Europe. No description at all. It doesn't really tell you anything useful; it's just a "place holder".
• Ulva compressa is a Start: it tells the reader what it is, where in the world it's found, what its habitat is, what it looks like, including some measurements, and what it's used for, plus (importantly) all this information is referenced; there's also a photograph.

Here are my quick opinions:

• Carex humilis - Stub
• Carex panicea - a bit more, but still a Stub: doesn't really begin to describe the plant as a whole (by the way, it says the leaves are pale blue but in the image they are very green).
• Cotoneaster insignis – still a Stub
• Ulva acanthophora, Ulva anandii, Ulva atroviridis, Ulva bifrons, Ulva brevistipita, Ulva burmanica, Ulva crassa, Ulva elegans – all definite Stubs
• Ulva compressa – a Start as noted above
• Ulva conglobata – a Start; tells me something interesting about medical use as well as giving a description; pity there's no image yet
• Ulva flexuosa – a Stub, in spite of the length, because the list of countries doesn't really tell me much more than saying it is "worldwide"

So concentrate on the information for readers. If there's a brief description, something on distribution and habitat, something on uses, and all this is referenced, then the article gives the reader at least some useful information. Anyway, that is my opinion! Peter coxhead (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am still confused, but eventually I will get a hang of it. At least I now understand which one is a definite stub and which isn't. However, some of them I still have issues with:--Mishae (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Artemisia chamaemelifolia
• Artemisia stelleriana
• Bromus pannonicus
• Ulva ohnoi
• Ulva prolifera

It's always a matter of judgment. Mine is as follows:

• Artemisia chamaemelifolia – there are four distinct sections all with useful information to a reader, so, for me, this is a Start.
• All the others don't have this number of different kinds of information. Consider Bromus pannonicus. Although there's some description, there's nothing on habitat, and there's no other information – does it have any uses, for example? So, for me, these are all Stubs.

Anyway, don't worry about it; the status isn't as important as finding more information and adding it to Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats where I am confused the most: Although there's some description... Like, when does a Stub article becomes a Start one or bigger? Like for example one of the users changed Melica animarum to C. After which, I changed every Melica article that I wrote as C.--Mishae (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Either way, I want editors to be informed on the status of the article as well. True, our readers perhaps wont care if its a Start or a Stub because they look only on the main article not the article's talkpage...--Mishae (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Like for example will this articles be considered as Start?:--Mishae (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Adenocarpus ombriosus
• Bauhinia galpinii
• Bauhinia petersiana
• Cotoneaster acuminatus
• Cotoneaster franchetii
• Cotoneaster horizontalis
• Cotoneaster humilis
• Cotoneaster kaschkarovii
• Cotoneaster kweitschoviensis
• Cotoneaster newryensis
• Vernonia arkansana
• Vernonia gigantea
• Vernonia missurica

Um, I'm not sure it's useful just to keep on discussing long lists of articles. Here's another way of thinking about it. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template. It lists four sections which should be present in a good article: Description, Taxonomy (I prefer to call it Systematics in many cases), Distribution and habitat, Ecology. Then it lists some optional sections. As a rule of thumb, if there's a reasonable Description section and two or three reasonable other sections from this list, I would tend to call it a Start. If the material isn't arranged in sections, but is there, I would tend to call it a Stub, but then you should put the material in sections and think again. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, I think its better for us to discuss one article at a time, and no, they are not that long. I already got a clue on definite stubs so I skip over them (which is the majority of them either way), and give you only those that I really am not sure. So, can we go over the list (if not today, then tomorrow)?--Mishae (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Like for example will you consider this article to be a Start?:

• Landolphia kirkii

It have a description and even a sentence about its discovery!--Mishae (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

And this one have a description and a sentence on habitat and uses:--Mishae (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Parinari capensis

So, all in all, the above list and those two articles are the only ones that I have a question about.--Mishae (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at Landolphia kirkii. I thought that with a little work it could be made into a Start. But then I saw quite a few problems:

• "the fruits ... are edible, due its green colour that is considered to be an antioxidant." Where does the source say anything about antioxidants? I removed this bit.
• "The liane is used for making of Mukanga, Muungu and Runyangarwapene in the South, and for rubber and sand apricot vines in the East." The source doesn't say this at all. It says that it's called "mukanga", "muungu" and "runyangarwapene" in the Shona language, and "rubber vine" and "sand apricot-vine" in English. I moved the bit about the English names; we don't usually report non-English names in the English Wikipedia.
• Please look at how I've cited the Flora of Zimbabwe.
• A minor point: try to avoid the two occurrences of "in" as in "9 cm (3.5 in) in length"; say e.g. "9 cm (3.5 in) long" or "with a length of 9 cm (3.5 in)".

Now I've edited the article, I think it's probably not quite a Start; it needs a bit more from a different source perhaps. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, thats the reason why I need to discuss eevry article with you! Now, can we look on those ones?:--Mishae (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Parinari capensis
• Adenocarpus ombriosus
• Bauhinia galpinii
• Bauhinia petersiana
• Cotoneaster acuminatus
• Cotoneaster franchetii
• Cotoneaster horizontalis
• Cotoneaster humilis
• Cotoneaster kaschkarovii
• Cotoneaster kweitschoviensis
• Cotoneaster newryensis
• Vernonia arkansana
• Vernonia gigantea
• Vernonia missurica

Sorry, I haven't time to look at these articles now. I was happy to give you general advice, but I can't promise to look at all the articles you edit! Peter coxhead (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Those ones are the last ones just to let you know. When you will have time feel free to come back. If you want to you can leave me talkback template on my talkpage.--Mishae (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter, would you be available to help assess the relative historical and scientific importance/significance of botany and biology subjects? None of the present VA/E project participants have any particular expertise in botany or biology topics, and I thought it would be a smart move to reach out to someone who did. Please let me know if your would be interested in helping; the time commitment would not be very great, but would involve you reviewing the relevant sublists, and giving us your opinion regarding the relative significance of each subject (see here.) Are you willing to help? Perhaps several of your Botany project pals would be interested in helping, too? (I promise the VA/E participants are much better behaved than the MOS crowd.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's really true that the time commitment would not be very great, I'm willing to try to help. A quick look at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences reinforces my existing opinion that the "top level" articles are often the weakest ones, at least in areas of Wikipedia I know about, probably because they really needed to be part of an overall planned structure, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What we're really trying to do is trim all of the VA/E sublists three to five percent because the overall VA/E list is about 400 articles over its 10,000-topic limit. No one had been minding the store since the list was originally compiled four or five years ago, so a lot of random topics have been added without any supervision. I got involved in late February, sort of by accident, and I've been trying to bring some clarity and organization to the add/drop process. As you might guess, the worst cruft has been added in the pop culture sections, but the VA/E regulars can mostly handle that as knowledgeable generalists. Most, if not all of the VA/E regulars lack the hard science background to evaluate the science topics, and I'm trying to gather some Wikipedia acquaintances with expertise in those areas to help. One of the purposes of the VA (1,000 most vital) and VA/E (10,000 most vital) articles lists is to draw some editor attention to high-priority topics that need work and maintenance. I also thought this might be a good place for you and I to work together outside of MOS, given that I generally am not around to argue the merits of capitalization of pine tree species. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(Aside) I really shouldn't get drawn into arguing about capitalization, but this is another area where the "MOS crowd" demonstrably behaved in an aggressive and hostile manner towards editors who expressed opinions different to the ones they had managed to get into the MOS. So I always want to say "yes, but ..." to any opinions in this area that seem to me overly dogmatic.

Ok, I'll try to find time over the weekend to look at the science topics. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You're the model of the Reasonable Englishman, Dr Coxhead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

All I know is that the page came back onto the uncategorized articles list. If that happens, I'm obliged to deal with it, and I have no way of knowing whether it's a category you're about to create or simply an error — which means I have to then change the category to one that does exist, because leaving it on the list is not an option. In the future you might want to consider creating the new category before you add it to an article, or adding another category alongside it so that it has at least one existing bluelinked category and thus doesn't get detected as an uncategorized page — but it's really not my responsibility to possess the ability to read your mind. Bearcat (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It this is some kind of a joke: Blidingia marginata? I wrote some micrometers and got a Skype number. Can you explain to me please, what went wrong.--Mishae (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The convert template does not appear to support scientific notation, and the smallest imperial unit is "inch". So I think that either you don't convert, and just use SI units, or you have to do it manually, e.g. "100–200 µm (4–8×10⁻³ in) wide". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it.--Mishae (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, as I can see you got more freetime now, can you go through those for me?:

• Parinari capensis
• Adenocarpus ombriosus
• Bauhinia galpinii
• Bauhinia petersiana
• Cotoneaster acuminatus
• Cotoneaster franchetii
• Cotoneaster horizontalis
• Cotoneaster humilis
• Cotoneaster kaschkarovii
• Cotoneaster kweitschoviensis
• Cotoneaster newryensis
• Vernonia arkansana
• Vernonia gigantea
• Vernonia missurica

Just to see which one is a Stub and which ones aren't. Please!--Mishae (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That makes it much easier to edit the article! Thanks, --AfadsBad (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've found that except for very short articles, it's always worth moving all the refs to the reflist template. Not only is it easier to edit the article, but it's also easier to make all the citations formats the same when they are all together, and it's also easier to copy references from one article to another. However, it can be a tedious task; although I have a tool to help in creating citations, there doesn't seem to be one to move refs in this way – yet it's a purely mechanical task, so I'm sure it must be possible to automate. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to do a page move, the short article about James Reveal is titled, "J. L. Reveal," for some reason. I cannot move the page, because there is a redirect from "James L. Reveal" already. I clicked on the instructions for requesting a move, and there are a lot of comments about controversial moves, however, this appears uncontroversial. Who knows why it was created under his initials to begin with? It seemed uncontroversial until I got into the edit history; in the edit history it seems there was a fight between a couple of editors about whether it should be called "J.L. Reveal" or "J. L. Reveal."

Is this really a controversial move that requires discussion due to this argument about J.L. versus J. L., when there was no real reason to have it at only the initials to begin with? Should it be at James L., or James L, or James Lauritz, the latter being linked from the list of botanical authorites to the J.L. redirect page to the J. L. article? How does anyone do any work around here with all of the discussion?

Any suggestions, pointers? Thanks, --AfadsBad (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How does anyone do any work around here with all of the discussion? – if you're not very careful, you don't get any "work" (i.e. writing articles) done! There seem to be quite a few editors who rarely work on articles, but write a lot on talk pages.

I don't see that moving to "James L. Reveal" would be controversial; "Reveal" isn't a very uncommon surname, so the extra disambiguation of the full first name could be useful.

If a redirect page has never been edited since it was created, you can swap it with the main page by moving regardless of your status in Wikipedia. If it has been edited, then you can't – only an administrator can.

So you have three choices:

• You can directly ask a member of WP:PLANTS who is an admin to make the move. (I'm not.)
• You can ask at WT:PLANTS if an admin will make the move.
• You can put {{Movereq}} on the talk page and wait to see what will happen; if it's a plants-relevant request I would also put a notice at WT:PLANTS.

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved to James L. Reveal per sources on talk page--Melburnian (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I tried to move it, but was led to the page with dozens of instructions, and it seemed to indicate that prior fights qualified it as "controversial." Much easier this way. --AfadsBad (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The documentation is nightmarish, so I keep my own notes about how to request a technical page move like this one. Template:Db-move is used on the talk page of the page that is in the way, "James L. Reveal" in this case. Aside: why not move it to "James Lauritz Reveal"? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not do a lot of checking, but "James L. Reveal" is a common usage of his name, and you will see this a lot, while "James Lauritz Reveal" is not.

--AfadsBad (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I checked through a number of sources and have listed several at Talk:James L. Reveal, it's the form he uses on his publications and cv.--Melburnian (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)