User talk:MPF

User talk:MPF/Archive 1

Dear, MPF! Would you accept to be an Administrator on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Administrators and presently there is only 23 out of 216 active users.
Please see Administrators for information about Admins rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for adminship on your behalf.

Dan Koehl (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Koehl: Hi Dan - OK thanks, I'll give it a go! - MPF (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks! Dan Koehl (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are now an Admin on Wikispecies, Congratulations! You may indicate your adminship with the userbox {{User Admin}} on your user page.

Dan Koehl (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Heres something to delete at the Candidates_for_speedy_deletion Dan Koehl (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done! - MPF (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are welcome to revise it. Congratulations for your admin nomination! Mariusm (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Will do later today. - MPF (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are you still planning to revise the "Species of the week" template? In case you don't I'll do it. Mariusm (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, still planning - been distracted by 'certain events' taking up too much time! - MPF (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@MPF: @Franz Xaver: @Floscuculi: Hi I was looking through WS for a bit of mini work to do and would like to tidy up Fagales. However, I notice that you have an interest in this taxon. I would like to start with Myricaceae and notice that it has one of those NZ categories at the bottom - this family is naturally found pretty well across the world except New Zealand and Australia I believe and so it will have to go! However, to update the family it will need Morella and Cerothamnus to be incorporated into Myrica s.l. anybody got a problem with that? Andyboorman (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andy - yes, please, go ahead! The genus split of Morella (e.g. GRIN) is well founded; not sure on Cerothamnus though. - MPF (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Morella/Myrica split is certainly well established (Huguet, 2004 DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2004.11.018) , but controversial (eg. Tropicos). The sort of thing I like! I will keep digging but we may have to accept that it is not black and white. I will do my best of course. Andyboorman (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! If I recall rightly, it's more a matter of dry [Myrica fruit] or moist [Morella berries] ;-) I've seen a few things before on Tropicos that weren't too good, so I'd be for keeping them separate. - MPF (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Kew suggest three genera in Myricaceae. Andyboorman (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

No details or reasoning, unfortunately! - MPF (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: Based on Huguet et al. (2005), it is quite obvious that Morella should be kept separate. The controversy at Tropicos is easy to explain: In two older of their projects, i.e. Flora of North America (1997) and Flora of China (1999), it has been included in Myrica. Tropicos simply reproduces these synonymizations. However, under "references" it lists three refs from 2001, 2002, and 2011 that accept Morella. Moreover, most listed "projects", i.e. Antioquia, Bolivia, Madagascar, Madidi Checklist, Mesoamerica, Nicaragua, accept Morella as well. Also the treatment in Manual de Plantas de Costa Rica from 2007 accepts Morella. So, the "controversy" in Tropicos is only a documentation of an older classification side by side with a more recent one.

The listing of the monotypic Canacomyrica in the Kew genus list seems to be safe - see [1]. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Franz Xaver: @MPF: @Floscuculi: @OhanaUnited:. I have made a start, so thanks for your advice. If you would like to look through Myricaceae I would be grateful for comments about content. Unfortunately, Stho002 has decided to use "recent changes" follow me around and indulge in an edit war introducing his own non-standard formats and removing at least one legitimate reference. I have largely reverted his changes, but left one useful template in place. What to do? I cannot protect the pages as I will be accused of abusing admin powers. I have tried reason in the past but to no avail. Any advice? Andyboorman (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: @Franz Xaver: @Floscuculi: @OhanaUnited: thanks! I'll take a look. Unfortunately, I'm getting the same treatment, so anything I do to restore will just get reverted too. - MPF (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I stuck some comments on his talk page - here's hoping. Andyboorman (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reading a «it would have been "more civil", to say the least, if MPF had approached me privately about this matter in the first instance» quote at the village pump, thought it is something you would like to keep a note of for future reference. (Were it possible to move discussions from a village pump to a personal talk page without losing history, things would be much easier, as far as I can see.) Gryllida (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are you 100% certain that the the species you removed are actually synonyms? Just because the species of Platycarya do not appear in Flora of China but without references in this source it is not definitive on its own. The level of detail in Tropicos tends to show a different picture. Similarly for Juglans. Removing Tropicos because it differs in circumscription is a bit of a cheat. However, I am not an expert in these genera so I am happy to go with you if you are 100%. Thanks for your interest by the way as it adds another voice if an edit war appears. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andy - not 100.00% certain, but very close, say 99%; I'm not aware of other sources accepting any of the other names. I'm not convinced how good a resource Tropicos is in cases like this, like IPNI (and often the Plant List, too), it acts more as an index of published names, rather than a verified list of distinct taxa ;-) MPF (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

99% good enough for me. I agree with Plant List and Tropicos - good for a start. IPNI is what it says on the tin just an index of validly published names. Tropicos is a much better start than TPL and has lots of other useful info, I use the later for its CSV files so easy to write Excel macros to generate WS lists for the larger files, but it needs a thorough checking. At least the genera and species in World Checklist have been or are being reviewed. I wonder if our work on Juglandaceae generates an edit war. If so I cannot really help as off for a few days break and away from a computer, so good luck and you have my support. I prefer the full citation for the original description in the Reference Section and the complete scientific name (see IPNI) in the Name Section. Just me being fussy! ;-) Andyboorman (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: According to this, Platycarya longzhouensis was published after the Flora of China treatment, actually at about the same time in 1999. So, it may well fall within the circumscription of Platycarya strobilacea of the FoC treatment, but it seems that it has not been formally synonymised yet. Therefore, technically it is an accepted species, unless it can be shown, that someone has put it into synonymy. The three other names are listed in synonymy in the FoC treatment. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

MBF,

Why are you making Zt templates and not author templates? PeterR (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peter - I was just improving on Stho's rather odd formatting for his Zootaxa template - MPF (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK. PeterR (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that this family be circumscribed based upon

• Olmstead, R.G. (ed.) 2016. A Synoptical Classification of the Lamiales. Version 2.6.2 (in prog.). 20 pp. PDF (Internet Archive) Reference page. 
  

Do you have any objections? Andyboorman (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fine by me (and for the rest of Lamiales as well) - MPF (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have made a good start on both. Stho002 had a real issue with Olmstead I think and took to interfering with the work a few months ago, so I temporarily abandoned it. Just have a look at Acanthaceae! Back on track. Do you have an opinion over the sockpuppetry?

Typical mess! If it's easier, just go back and restart form the 19:17, 27 October 2014 version, before he interfered? On the sockpuppetry - well, on other wikis, it's a permanent banning offence for the first account as well as the puppets. - MPF (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Okay, but in Spanish is not capitalised by spelling rule. See our rules provided by the Spanish Ornithological Society. Thanks! Jacobo Vásquez  _{Express yourself}  05:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

This version (1994) is obsolete -SEO is working on a new release-. New versions do not capitalize the names, e.g. this (2009). Regards, Jacobo Vásquez  _{Express yourself}  16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@MPF: Thanks for suggestions re format. Only one not sure about is the space between author initials, just looks odd to me. I know there has been a lot of learned debate about this over the years! Also see Dan's talk page, another probable sockpuppetry by the usual suspect. Andyboorman (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: Thanks! Yep, spacing between initials is variable in use in different journals; I think the important thing is to be consistent, either no spaces (A.N.Author; as used by e.g. ICBN and IPNI) or fully spaced (A. N. Author). What I find looks bad and I think should be avoided is mixed spacing with spaces after some fullstops but not others (A. N.Author, A.N. Author). Agree on the CU request; I've added my support. - MPF (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Had it crossed your mind that the person recently blocked for adding "<nowiki>" to some beetle pages, B-vivace.Y, might be another sockpuppet of Stho002? Or am I over-suspicious? Accassidy (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm . . no idea! I guess it might need to be checked, though. - MPF (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Accassidy: I don't think so, as this account had vandalized at enwiki recently in the same fashion and earlier (before Stephen was blocked) in other fashions. Its edits both there and here are also at times of the day when Stephen did not generally edit. (Very late night/early morning antipodean time) Koumz (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman:, @Koumz: Thanks for the detail. I will leave it there. Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Its not everyday we get credit and appreciation for our idealistic work, why its a joy for me as fellow wikispecies user to congratulate and thank you for 10 years of contributions to Wikispecies, which I believe is today. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Then I would like to say "thanks and well done" too. That is some effort. Accassidy (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ouch, have I been here that long?? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the

Mariusm (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please look at User:Miguel Angel Mancera. Is in Spanish, which I am very poor with. It appears to deal more with US border cartels, and may not be in our line. He is definitely not spamming, and his only contributions are on his user page. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! It's a copy/paste from es:Narcotráfico en México; I've removed the text and redirected the user page to his talk page; will keep an eye on it. - MPF (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I hope we can reach an agreement regarding reference formatting. I saw you changed the Template:Latham, 1790‎ from YEAR: to (YEAR). I would like to point out that in ZOOLOGY, 95% of the refs have YEAR: while in BOTANY the majority have (YEAR). My proposal is to leave it as it is and not start messing with this, or have you other ideas...? A discussion was started on the ref standardization, which ended without conclusions. Mariusm (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Marius - a tricky one! I see "(YEAR)." a lot in ornithological literature, though admittedly not universally. Have to confess, I associated "YEAR:" very strongly with Stho-style and assumed it was one of his offbeam weirdo formats (so my preference is for "(YEAR)." throughout ;-) MPF (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wrote Franz, who started earlier a discussion on this to conclude it. The best solution would be to set a standard or maybe a couple of them for Zoology & Botany, so we wont have dilemmas regarding the ref formatting and will direct our energy towards adding content. Mariusm (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I guess it does not matter if more than one format is used within Wikispecies, but also think it is a good idea to stick to one format on any one taxon page - MPF (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have seen "YEAR:", "(YEAR).", and "YEAR." in journals. There is no one universal standard citation. Some even put "YEAR" at end of citation. Our system can be easily copy-pasted into reference sections by scientists with minimal adjustment. I am doing this myself for 2 manuscripts I am working on. Zootaxa uses "YEAR.".

I have been covering Zootaxa since Jan 23, which means about 10 reference templates, and 30 thereabouts author pages per day, plus stubbing into taxon pages as required. I have been following format as we discussed it on Village Pump, where template titles mention up to 3 authors, with 4+ as FIRSTAUTHOR et al. All authors are named and linked in citation body.

Botany and Zoology are different formats, so we would do well to accomodate. I am not very familiar with Prokaryote reference formats, so it might be good to examine those as well. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear MPF,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! :-) - MPF (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Did you get my email? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear MPF, I have nominated you as bureaucrat on Wikispecies, please confirm here if you accept the nomination. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, you are now bureaucrat on Wikispecies.

Bureaucrat may use the bureaucrat user box on their user pages. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Bureaucrat}}

If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the Wikispecies bureaucrat user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC).Reply

I did pass your message to our curator of ornithology. He confirmed what you told me. I will change captions and in place of the image in a few hours. Bravo for your vigilance: you're the best! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! MPF (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think you may find that your recent edits on the synonyms of the above are incorrect, for example, Pinus picea is a basionym not a heterotypic synonym. But may be you have a reference that differs from those presented, Govaerts is usually authorative. In addition the PubMed link is dead. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andy - There's no mention of Linnaeus's Pinus picea in Miller's protologue, so nothing to indicate that it has any status as a basionym, or even be homotypic. Govaerts also seems to have missed that Miller also only used Linnaean binomial nomenclature consistently from the 8th ed onward of his Gardeners Dictionary, so the 7th ed doesn't count as validly published; ditto Duhamel, which is why his early name isn't valid. I'll check and update the PubMed link. - MPF (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I notice that PubMed and Govaerts (as an option) use the term Replaced Synonym for such a combination. Should WS do the same? This could be undertaken by a rewrite of template HET/HOT, perhaps with the name REP. I appreciate that this term is rarer than BAS but clearly fits the bill. By the way what do you think of the current HOM template in WS? In my humble opinion it just covers the junior homonym and not the wider category as well as being atypical in relation to layout. Thanks for your time. Andyboorman (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Yep, sounds like REP could be a good idea. I'll take a look at the HOM template. - MPF (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just saw that you deleted the article New Zealand, thanks for that, nothing to object of course, but I got curious as to if there was any links to the age, and yes, there was a few... Dan Koehl (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Oh gosh, I thought it was just linked from talk pages (where it doesn't matter too much), but also from quite a few taxon pages - that'll need a bot to deal with, I guess. - MPF (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I will take care of that, unless someone has another opinion, see Village pump.Dan Koehl (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, is there a particular reason not to substitute {{BASEPAGENAME}} for the taxon name? I see you're replacing it. One reason in favor of {{BASEPAGENAME}} is not to have to change it when the taxon is transferred to another name. Mariusm (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've no huge opinion either way, but I remember it being disliked a while back on the village pump - I don't remember the reasoning though. I can leave it for now. When a taxon is renamed, the synonyms list will of course still need changing to add the old pagename, maybe it was a worry that might get forgotten too easily? - MPF (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just thought, it's not going to work when changing rank (subspecies to species, or vice versa), that could be the reason why - MPF (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to Cgt on danish Wp, we can now see statistics on patrolling: https://cgt.name/patrolstats/wikispecies.html MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please note that the patrolling stats URL has now changed from the da:WP user Cgt's personal web page (listed above) to a URL within the Wikimedia project itself, more specifically https://tools.wmflabs.org/patrolstats/specieswiki.html at Wikimedia Tool Labs. The old "cgt.name" URL no longer works without a proper SSL certificate. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC).Reply

What is the reason for the larger images? Uleli (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Uleli - it was discussed a bit at Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 33#Image size and choice, but not acted on at the time. The preferred option would be to make image size 25-30% of screen width; unfortunately I don't know how to do a % width; my increase to 350px is a rough approximation to 25% of a modern monitor width - at 250 px, ideal for 1990s monitors, hardly any detail is visible in the pics. If you know how to make it 25%, please do so! - MPF (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Does this change also apply to the "mobile" version of Wikispecies, found at https://species.m.wikimedia.org/ rather than https://species.wikimedia.org/ – and if it does: how? I usually sit in front of a nice 27" screen, but I know that quit a few users enjoy their smart phones or tablets instead. Surely there must be a big difference when editing using a 4" iPhone or 9.7" iPad, rather than a +20" computer monitor..? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC).Reply

I don't know! I never use a mobile, so don't know what would happen. But I think that's why the % width idea was made. Hope someone can find out how to do it, I think the pages look poor with a vast expanse of white and just a small thumbnail in the top corner. - MPF (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, fair enough. :-) As for percentage values for image sizes, I had that discussion in enWP and svWP some years ago. Back then there was no support for it in the Wiki software. That might of course have changed, since the Wiki software is constantly being upgraded and added to. Also, it's often done in a rather diaphanous manner, with changes being made that most users never gets aware of. But as far as I know, nope, it's not possible – at least not yet. It can of course be done using CSS instead, but to me that seems like a very "contra-wiki" way of solving the problem. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC).Reply

Hi MPF – thanks for your good work! However, please note that edits like this one doesn't comply with the recommended format for reference templates (see Help:Reference section). The format was decided upon in a Village Pump poll (results here). In the case with your edits this is not a huge deal at all, and I can understand if you chose to write author names as Author, A. B. C. rather than the recommended Author, A.B.C. when you create new pages. The same goes for scientific journals, such as Acarologia 9 (1): 55–75 instead of the recommended Acarologia 9(1): 55–75. But that's for new pages you create. In my opinion, and since we do have a recommended format, editing pages specifically to only change the format to a non-decided format is, well... not right. Any thoughts?

Last but not least: I'm not here to pick a fight, mind you. I just want us to reach some sort of agreement, or at least understanding. :-) Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC).Reply

Hi Tommy - I guess it's being a bit on 'auto-pilot', I tend to forget the exact spacing recommendations. Though the current recommended spacing is illogical and inconsistent, with spaces after some punctuation but not others, so very odd-looking; it would be much more logical if either fully spaced (Author, A. B. C.) or fully non-spaced (Author,A.B.C.). Maybe it could be revisited at some point? - MPF (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

We certainly can, and I think at some point we should. As for now, one thing that comes to mind is line breaks. If we use the now recommended formatting of author names, we might come across line breaks such as

Author,

A.B.C., rest of citation

which is unfortunate, but personally I find it okay. On the other hand, if we use "your" system we might have to suffer with line breaks such as

Author, A. B.

C., rest of citation

which from my point of view looks awful. Again not a huge deal, but still. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC).Reply

┌─────────────────────────┘Thanks! I'd think that would argue for the "Author,A.B.C." format, or else use of non-breaking spaces. Though it can't happen often, as author names are at the start of a line, unless there's dozens of authors? - MPF (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can you please make a page for Cyclommatus metallifer? I'd really appreciate it. 108.44.229.213 16:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done: Cyclommatus metallifer; not a species I'm familiar with, so just basic details ;-) MPF (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good enough, I'd say! I added a list of subspecies. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC).Reply

Thank you. :-) 108.44.229.213 13:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Further to recent messages, I am also offering to serve, so that we have three checkuser operators, to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable. Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Please do not take offence to any of my remarks and opinions on our recent discussions on my talk page. Just a few not particularly strongly held opinions except for the use of the full taxon name, including abbreviated publication details, in the name section and synonymy. For this is is imperative that WS follows scientific taxonomic treatments and hence my discussions on the pump and additions to the help page. I am persuading colleagues to follow this and also add more details on the reference section and that this should include the protologue with links, if possible. Generally I feel that the reference section for most taxa is very thin and try to beef it up whenever I can, for example; with appropriate templates for journal articles, the use of IPNI and WCSP, and so on. I appreciate you are an experienced editor so hopefully I have not caused offense or discomfort. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andyboorman: - sorry, been forgetting to reply - don't worry, no offence taken! - MPF (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well I tried - is Wikidata now a dead end? Brya can be very stubborn in my few contacts. I see that you have updated Wikicommons. Not a lot can be done with Wikipedia except to add a WS link there - can you do that as I am not a WP adept? I have a added a note to the WP entry and its discussion page, but that's it for me I guess, as I do not even feel comfortable adding a reference to WCSP or Farjon (2010). By the way I do not use Typus. I have nothing against the term and I know it would be better to use it, but have used Type Genus and Type Species for so long it would need a bot and consensus on VP to change my (and many others) approach. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: Thanks for trying! I use 'typus' simply as it is botanical Latin, and therefore more fitting to WS's language-neutral policy, but it isn't something I consider very important. Best wishes! - MPF (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

i dunno why IPs are blocked indefinitely - they shouldnt! 83.24.204.147 14:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @MPF: Thanks for your edits on Phytolacca. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion here on the VP? I am seriously considering getting rid of the subgeneric classification, as what we have is not correct, unreferenced and confusing. It also appears that there will be real problems correcting it and to do so may conflict with the OR policy. I addition, I am not sure any classification will add useful information, but I am not an expert on the genus. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andy @Andyboorman: - unfortunately not; I know even less about the genus than you do. I saw the discussion, which was what prompted me to look at the page, but all I felt I could do was tidy it up a bit and replace the dubious cultivated plant pic with a wild-origin pic of the type species (future proofing against any other species being removed from the genus!). - MPF (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Thanks anyway. Andyboorman (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi MPF,

I try to create order among Cervidae; to put the species in their right genus, subfamily; but I dont know how to create new family trees and rename old pages. This is an example: Hyelaphus. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look, but it might be a few days! - MPF (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks. DenesFeri (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I know your opinion for vernacular names - that is not to use those that ordinary people use, unless they meet your precise criteria. However, once again to prevent edit wars I would suggest that you take your ideas to the pump for opinion and consensus. If the majority agree with you then fine. Lets face it the whole English speaking world calls it Norfolk Island Pine, which must be the definition of a vernacular name in this case. Andyboorman (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ahoj, dej prosím pozor na to, abys bezdůvodně neměnil pravopis názvů. V této editaci došlo k pavopisným chybám. (velká a malá písmena). / Hello, please be careful not to change the spelling of names unreasonably. This editing has encountered misspelling errors. (uppercase and lowercase).

--Rosičák (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Rosičák: - The orthography was correct; please note that the VN list uses Title case (as you would expect in a formal list or index), not text case. Basically, add the name as it is displayed at the relevant wikipedia, as in e.g. cs:Třezalka kalíškatá - MPF (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

To je obecně chybný přístup, protože vzásadě všechny články začínají velkým písmenem (což možná ideální není). Abychom to kolektivně probrali, založil jsem před nějakým časem: Žádost o komentář.[2]

This is a generally erroneous approach because, basically, all articles start with a capital letter (which is perhaps not ideal). To do this collectively, I founded any time a go: Request for Comment.[3]

P.S.: Ubezpečuji tě, že název rodu (Genus) se v češtině, polštině, maďarštině i slovenštině uprostřed věty vždy píše s malým písmenem. Pravopis každého jazyka je jiný proto bych byl opatrný.

P.S .: I assure you that the name of the genus in Czech, Polish, Hungarian and Slovak in the middle of the sentence is always written in lowercase. The spelling of each language is different, so I would be cautious. See also cz-třezalka, Biolib (cz-třezalka), pl-dziurawiec

--Rosičák (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Rosičák: - yes, I am sure that the name of the genus in Czech, etc., is always written in lowercase in the middle of the sentence. But an index list is not the middle of a sentence; each line is the start of a new sentence. Therefore, it should show as the start of a new sentence does in Czech, etc. - MPF (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @MPF: - no, there is no start of new sentence with verb. Line starts with "čeština:". After colon is very "unusual" to write lists with capitals. There are fixed grammatical rules for lists: [4], [5]. Do you understand it? ---xfi- (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi @-xfi-: - please use the agreed format of Sentence case; see Help:Vernacular names section, where it states "Attention: Titles of the articles in interwiki always begin with a capital letter (Sentence case). The VN list should follow suit, even when the within-sentence convention for vernacular names is in lower case in some languages" (my emphasis). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MPF: - What is reason for this? It is incorrect information about vernacular names. For example: on wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1270680#P1843 is duplicity of taxon common names (P1843) for Czech, and that duplicity for Czech language is due to incorrect information from Wikispecies. For whom is list of vernacular name useful with incorrect information? Thanks! ---xfi- (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────────────────────┘ @-xfi-: One problem is that as a database, Wikispecies should handle all data of a certain type in the same way. When possible, all author pages should be formatted in the same way, all categories should be constructed in the same way, all templates should follow the same standard, etc. This is also true for the list of vernacular names. Wikispecies can currently be presented in any of 32 different languages, and for the vast majority of them title case (as desribed in Help:Vernacular names section) is correct. Sadly this may become a problem in some of the languages, but I guess the majority rules... Another example of this is how we have agreed to format author names. As explained in Help:Author Names all middle name initials should be written without spacing, i.e. written as "Gerald A.H. Bedford" and not "Gerald A. H. Bedford". This strikes many users as odd and some – including many of those with English as their first language – even find it outright wrong. Nevertheless we have had this up for vote, and the outcome of the poll clearly states that the majority prefers the format without spaces. This may be wrong in some languages, but since there is only one version of Wikispecies and that one version should simultaneously serve all the people on Earth regardless of language, we will sometimes have to make compromises. It's of course easier on Wikipedia where there is one WP version for each language, and every single Wikipedia is supposed to be monolingual. Here at Wikispecies we don't have that luxury. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC).Reply

Thanks @Tommy Kronkvist: for a far clearer explanation than I could manage! - MPF (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

To accuse me of being anti-science is crass, insulting, Trumpist and down right childish. It is behaviour that should be beyond a crat and admin. A brief review of my work and sourcing of scientific literature should be enough to prove you dead wrong. Please retract this statement. Andyboorman (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: Most of what you've added has been scientific, yes. But if you insist on calling it a pine, then you should provide the scientific evidence and transfer it properly to Pinus where it belongs if that is indeed the case. If you can't provide that evidence (I've never seen any genetic data supporting the case), then there is no case for adding inaccurate mistranslated/misconstrued information stating that it is something that it is not. - MPF (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Who ever said that an Araucaria is a Pinus? I do not confuse plant taxonomy with common English, nor do I insist that the English speaking peoples of Australasia conform to my interpretation of their language preferences. In addition, I do not use wikis to further my own teaching agendas or OR, as per policy. Andyboorman (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you call it a pine, you are saying it is a Pinus. We need to educate to get away from historical errors in taxon naming in English, not perpetuate or promote them. We should stick to scientific evidence that it is not a pine, and therefore, should not be called one - MPF (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

To pursue a personal agenda, however well meaning, is not part of a wiki. Andyboorman (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not a personal agenda, it's just scientific fact - MPF (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Pine is a softwood timber used in carpentry and shipbuilding not necessary always from genus Pinus, hence common usage of the term in VN in Australasia. Denying cultural history because it does not fit your agenda is also Trumpist (you levelled the accusation first). Science is a method not a set of religious beliefs. Andyboorman (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

That was a long time ago. When the circumscription of the genus is changed (as it has since Linnaeus defined it), you change the vernacular names at the same time to match the new scientific data. - MPF (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

No the vernacular name is that which is now most commonly used in the country under consideration. That is the definition of vernacular, unless the dictionaries change this definition we have to go with this consensus not impose our own meaning. OK it does not have scientific precision, but facts are still facts and real life is real not an abstract of perfection. In my opinion we ought to dispense withe the whole section anyway. Andyboorman (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

How about Cordyline, particularly the Australian Palm Lilies or New Zealand Cabbage Trees? Neither palms nor lilies and neither cabbage nor trees. Incidentally the Maori for Cabbage Tree Cordyline australis - tī kōuka translates to an approximation of sugar cane in English. Not exactly "scientific", but very vernacular. Andyboorman (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

We need to stick to names that do have scientific precision, to avoid confusion, mixed messages, and misidentification. Cordyline should be hyphenated as 'Cabbage-tree', i.e., a tree with cabbage-like qualities (yes, it is a tree: "a woody, perennial plant which can attain a stature of 6 m or more on a single stem"). - MPF (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not a tree botanically, as the stem contains no wood - we prefer the more accurate term arboreal monocot, reserving tree for conifers and eudicots. Andyboorman (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear friend, on my experience, these indexed templates, used more when an article references multiple pages, work perfectly. No need for reverting my edits. Thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Hector Bottai: - it is not so much that the template 'doesn't work', more that the template is poorly formulated for this context, not well designed for indicating a particular page in the normal standard format "Book title: 123" or "Journal title 6: 123". The template has been designed more for a bibliographic listing of the whole book (including publication information, etc.), rather than the brief single page citation wanted here. - MPF (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear, unfortunatelly not in agreement. What is wrong in offering to the user of a page a full bibliographic reference of the autorship instead of a few words and a link? Lot of editors are using the reference template. In my thousands of editions you are the first in reverting one. I will respect your wikispecies seniority and your bureaucratic status and will not change what you have done, but I will respectfully ask you not to revert any of my editions unless there is a consensus and a policy established on a colective forum on how to use reference templates, that I am not fully aware. --Hector Bottai (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why have you removed the subspecies taxon as accepted by the references you provided on the page? Seems unscientific to me! Unless you can justify I am within my rights in reversing. Andyboorman (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: I've moved it to varietal rank within subsp. nigra; differences from typical (Austrian, Balkans) material are very small and inconsistent (e.g. cannot be reliably identified in cultivated plants), and there are no differences in ecological adaptation, so subspecific rank is not justified. - MPF (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

A source for this taxonomic concept is missing. --RLJ (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@RLJ: It's cited; Flora of Turkey 11. A book, not available online. I can add other references, too. - MPF (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry MPF and @RLJ: you can not just make up your own taxonomy differing from the "accepted", even if you have lots of experience and knowledge. WS is not a research site, but a mirror. I am not saying that WCSP, Farjon, The Gymnosperm Database etc. are perfect, far from it. It would have been better to continue to use and develop; Pinus nigra subsp. nigra, Pinus nigra subsp. dalmatica (Vis.) Franco 1943, Pinus nigra subsp. laricio (Poir.) Maire 1928, Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana (Lamb.) Holmboe 1914 and Pinus nigra subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco 1943 and use these as vehicles to point out differences in taxonomies and interpretations. There is no definitive monograph, so in its absence all that is left is taxonomic opinions with its overarching current level of acceptance. The database has a much more comprehensive list of references supporting the "accepted" taxonomy. Will you revert please? Andyboorman (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman and RLJ: I'm not 'making up my own' taxonomy; the genetic evidence (Scaltsoyiannes et al., Silvae Genetica 43: 20-30, 1994) is clear, that Pinus nigra is divided into two major components (eastern and western, separated by a substantial range gap), which match well-known, long-established morphological distinctions (Christ, Verh. Naturf. Ges. Basel (n.s.) 3: 541-557, 1863; Koehne, Deutsche Dendrologie, 1893; Delevoy, Trav. Sta. Rech. Groenendaal sér B. 12: 1-37, 1949 [this is a monograph, though not an easily available one]; Christensen, Taxon 42: 649-653, 1993); these two units are each further weakly divided into minor, barely distinguishable variants with much intergradation and overlap in both morphology and genetics. Farjon accepts (Pines, ed.2, 2005) that the 5-subspecies taxonomy (which originates in Flora Europaea [1993] and is just copied by most others subsequently without any critical review) "The distinctions remain slight and it is questionable that these should really merit a classification recognizing so many subspecies; it reflects a long-standing European tradition of endless splitting more than sound taxonomy". - MPF (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fine just make sure it is clear why WS differs from accepted practice. At the moment it is just too easy to justify a revert given even I can dig out peer reviewed papers using the 5 subspecies circumscription. In addition, clear it up with WCSP by emailing Govaerts with your reasoning and the source will be changed, if Kew accept your arguments. I know we have had this discussion before, but you really need to pluck up courage and go through peer review, in my opinion. By the way, arguments about lumping and splitting where the same evidence is used are political not taxonomy. FYI "Europeans" are busy lumping at the moment - see Global Flora (2018). Andyboorman (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: thanks; I'll see what I can do about contacting WCSP, though it'll probably take a while (I'm not too good at putting this sort of thing together!). Yep, I know about some other things being lumped; think I've mentioned before, Juniperus communis has surely gone too far in that opposite direction. I'll maybe put that in too. Do you have their contact details, please? - MPF (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

---

Hi I always email via R.Govaerts@kew.org very quick to reply, helpful and informative. Good luck -- Andyboorman (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please note the recommended citation here. I think it would be best if the WS citation was rewritten to follow this recommendation in the accepted WS format preference. It is also a web link not a reference, I feel. Andyboorman (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done (I think!) - MPF (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Look good to me, cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm making a series of edits to clear out several maintenance reports (e.g. see my most recent edits) and there's no reason for me to flood RecentChanges. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf: Apologies - not something I know how to do! - MPF (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Special:UserRights/Koavf, check the box for "bot" and have it expire in 1 day. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf: Thanks! Done :-) MPF (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Looks like it's not working how I expected and I don't want to overrun Special:RecentChanges. I'll have to go back to the drawing board. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf: Try asking on the Admin noticeboard - there'll be people who know more about this than I do! - MPF (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────────────────────┘ If you could make me an interface administrator for a day, that would be handy. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Justin: Sorry for my late arrival to the party, but I think it's usually possible to edit the settings of most automathingy-jobs so that your contributions are automatically listed as "minor edits". Many users have their RecentChanges settings set to hide minor edits, so that would dodge the issue to at least some degree. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: That's good thinking and I hadn't considered it: it's something at least. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wonder for what a reason I am spending my time creating Templates that you will soon revert. You a are a bureaucreat and you have the right to do so. You can spend all your time now reverting one by one my 20000 editions. Here is a guideline: go to Vieillot, Gmelin, Swainson, Sclater, Salvin, Gould, Bonaparte, Lafresnaye, d'Orbigny, Godman, etc etc, see each one of the created templates with a lot of search on the species affected and links to BHL and start reverting one by one. I am copying here @Andyboorman: because he took a conciliatory ( I hope) intermediate position in your edition of Leuconotopicus borealis‎‎. Apologyze if I am being a little ironic, but yours is not the expected behaviour of a bureaucreat with an administrator. You should had talked to me before acting just your way.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Hector Bottai: - they are useful templates in their right place; but that place is not suited to a single-page protologue citation, for which they give the wrong details in too complex a format: you only want the short title and a single page, not the entire book. I started a section in the village pump earlier this morning, with the details of what is, and what is not, wanted in a protologue citation. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi as well. I assume that you went to the Pump not to inform the community that you were going to impose your good faith opinions, but to stimulate discussion. Therefore, I have to be with @Hector Bottai: in that your edits on Leuconotopicus borealis‎‎ could be considered a peremptory imposition of these opinions and not community consensus. Your unfortunate wording "what is, and what is not, wanted in a protologue citation" is, at the moment, just a personal opinion. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hector Bottai and Andyboorman: MPF, I think you're totally wrong and Hector Bottai is totally right. I and a hundred more WS editors are editing exactly as Hector Bottai did. The protologue citation is the most important one in a species page, and the full template is the most useful and appropriate way to display it. I'm sorry but you're way off the WS way of doing things. I suggest you reset your basic conceptions and take a different editing path. Mariusm (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Mariusm: I was trying to be conciliatory through a partial revert of the edit by MPF! Next time I wont bother if this attitude bothers you so much. Andyboorman (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: But why be conciliatory when you think the other attitude was not the right one?? Why?? Mariusm (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Mariusm: Why be so opinionated and willing to offend?? Why?? Andyboorman (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: My God, I didn't intend to offend anyone, just got angry over a useless fight. Sorry, friend. Mariusm (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Mariusm: I so agree with this post. Apologies accepted, friend. Andyboorman (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello I noticed your reverts on the above genus. Parthenocissus inserta is noted as a synonym by three secondary sources, but with different accepted names, one of which is Parthenocissus vitacea. In addition, all of these sources indicate that the later is an accepted combination not a synonym. Do you have a definitive source that clears up the contradictions, as GRIN is not a taxonomic database? If so please could you place it on the reference section. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It has occurred to me that Pringle, J.S. 2010. Nomenclature of the Thicket Creeper, Parthenocissus inserta (Vitaceae) [6] is correct. We need to look at basionyms I guess otherwise priority still favours P. vitacea. Andyboorman (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andyboorman: - I did the revert on the grounds that (as far as I know) Pringle is correct in assessing Vitis inserta A.Kern. [1887] to be the same taxon as Ampelopsis quinquefolia var. vitacea Knerr [1893, raised to species as Parthenocissus vitacea by Hitchcock in 1894]; I'm not aware that anyone has seriously contradicted his study. As an aside, curious, why do you say that GRIN is not a taxonomic database? It certainly performs as one. - MPF (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Great just as I thought. I will contact Hassler and Kew, particularly as the species are used as ornamentals. To my mind GRIN is very good in parts, but hopeless in others. I thought is is more to do with germplasm not taxonomy and like all secondary sources I check, but it is not my resource of first choice. Andyboorman (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear MPF, thank for your reaction. I realized later that I made serious mistakes, because I made new articles for the Pampusana-species and replaced the old Gallicolumba-articles for redirects. By doing this the old wikidata-structure, and wikidata-links with articles in other languages is ruined. I had to rename the former Gallicolumba-species in Pampusana-species. I don't know how to repair these (stupid) actions. Maybe going back en restoring the redirects in species-articles? That is according me the greatest problem.--Hwdenie (talk) Pampusana" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">09:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hwdenie: Thanks! I'll see what needs to be done later - MPF (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Vernacular names are NOT taxonomy, so stop bullying please! I am so fed up with your bombastic and one sided attitude it reminds me of Thorpe. Your way or no way - looking at your recent edits you seem to be unable to use contemporary and consensual sources and you are content to cherry pick science to justify your approach. I will take this to the pump, of course. You may consider yourself an amateur expert in conifers, but I would much rather trust those operating out of professional academic institutes, such as RBG Kew. Andyboorman (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you are going to be consistent then you should remove all occurrences of Umbrella Pine or Fir irrespective of language. Andyboorman (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello MPF. Since you're one of the few currently active bureaucrats that didn't participate in the recent discussions regarding Interface adminship requests, could you please finalize the two Interface adminship requests at Wikispecies:Interface administrators? The votings has been going on for quite a bit longer than the stipulated seven days. Thanks beforehand! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC).Reply

Yes please sorry for the above rant as well. Andyboorman (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist and Andyboorman: - very embarrassingly, I have to confess I don't know how to close the requests! - MPF (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not embarrassing at all, I must say – had a hard time closing admin/bureaucrat requests myself at first. However, you can use the archive of past requests for examples. Basically a bureaucrat needs to state whether each request leads to promotion or not, based on the votes (see Ohanas' notes in the archive). Then you can click the "Interface administrator" user rights click box on the User rights page to add this particular user right.

Please note that there is no need to actually move the requests on the Interface administrator page to the archive just yet, as there are often quite a few late arrivals who wants to study the outcome of the voting, etc. Usually we archive the finalized requests within a week or so, but any admin or bureaucrat can take care of that part. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: - thanks! I'll see if I can work out how to do it :-) MPF (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Please note that I've already finalized the request by user TMenang, since it turned out that his user account was globally blocked from the entire Wikimedia two days ago. My request for Interface adminship remains, though. :-) Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist and Andyboorman: - Done! (and thanks for the tips!). I made Tommy's interface adminship permanent, rather than have it expire after a year like the previous occasion. Hope I got it right . . . MPF (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────────────────────┘ Thanks MPF! Yes, you got it right up to about 98% or so. :-) Good work! However, I took the liberty to change the time-limit to one year, as per Wikispecies policy stated on Wikispecies:Interface administrators. Quote:

"The promotion to interface administrator is time-limited to one year, after which the user is automatically demoted. If needed the user may then reapply their application for a new period. The time-limit is in place as a proactive measure due to the fact that this user right unlocks some powerful tools that may be potentially dangerous in the hands of a malicious user. This is also why interface administrator user rights are only granted to users who are highly trusted /···/ and use two-factor authentication for logins."

The simple truth is that a malicious user with these rights can do way more harmful things than "ordinary" administrators or even bureaucrats – and on a sitewide basis, at that. No, they can't block users, override blocks, upload/move/delete files or add/delete whole user groups as admins and bureaucrats can. But contrary to admins and 'crats they do have the ability change the whole look and interface of Wikispecies, change other individual users preference settings or the preference settings of whole user groups, and so forth. They can even add viruses and trojan horses to parts of the Wikispecies software itself. It wouldn't be easy and some of it would be spotted by Stewards almost immediately, but in the hands of a skillful user the tools can indeed be very powerful (and perhaps malicious). Sure, all of our previous Interface admins have all been experienced and well trusted Wikimedia users, but what if their user account got taken over by a hacker? That's also why the policy states that using two-factor authentication login (2FA) is required for Interface admins, since 2FA makes it a lot harder to hack a user account. (By the way 2FA is also recommended for administrator and bureaucrat accounts, but not strictly necessary by policy.)

But enough with the security rant already. Again: thanks a bunch! :-) Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: - thanks! I'd missed seeing that guidance, sadly! And hadn't realised the security implications. Glad that all's well now! - MPF (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello MPF. Since you didn't participate in the discussions/voting and the voting has been going on for more than seven days, could you please finalize the proposal regarding DannyS712’s administratorship? Thanks beforehand!

The reason I don’t finalize the request myself is that I was the one who nominated DannyS712 in the first place. Please note that I've sent this same message to all of the other uninvolved bureaucrats as well. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC).Reply

Here it goes bottaihector@gmail.com Thanks! --Hector Bottai (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Hector Bottai: sent! Enjoy :-) - MPF (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"not fair to call them synonyms if accepted by local botanists working with the genus!", but one of the combinations is an illegal name and so should not be used by competent botanists who are able to read IPNI! Just because SOME local botanists wish head down the species expansion route does not make it accepted. See Lu et al. (2022) for an alternative opinion from local botanists. Additionally Torreya dapanshanica looks like it is derived from Torreya grandis with micro-differences in morphology, so may not get wider acceptance, just a thought. But your edits are OK as far as I am concerned. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - it's a bit of a tricky one; Miao et al. 2022 (I'm guessing this is the one you meant when you put Lu et al. above!) isn't entirely inspiring either! If you look at their Fig.4, their phylogeny leaves T. californica embedded in their T. grandis s.l. So who is right? Fair enough about the invalid name (what reason?), I'd not checked for that. - MPF (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Definitely tricky. No I meant Lu et al. (2022) and their treatment of T. dapanshanica sp. nov. Also the use of T. parvifolia T.P.Yi, Lin Yang & T.L.Long (2006) by some Chinese botanists is confusing, as we do not actually know what taxon they are dealing with. The assumption of Torreya grandis var. grandis sensu WCSP & Farjon (2010) is just that - an assumption! - Andyboorman (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: thanks! I fear you've lost me a bit now; it was Lu's treatment I was adding, I'd thought you were changing to Miao's in subsuming them into fewer species ;-) MPF (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Definitely confusing!! However, the way I looked at it was, firstly, T. parvifolia is illegal and so WCSP/Farjon must prevail as the only legitimate treatments. T. jiulongshanensis at the species level has never been consensually accepted even within China and the recent paper by Miao et al. (2022) just tends to confirm the varietal circumscription. Finally, I am not aware that Torreya fargesii var. yunnanensis was ever controversial. But I am happy to be proven wrong as more evidence emerges. Cheers - Andyboorman (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: thanks! I've removed the invalid T. parvifolia from the genus page now. - MPF (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well you and I can achieve consensus ;-) Andyboorman (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I don't think that changing the map size pre-determined by the template is a good edition. I won't edit those articles again in respect to you, but I disagree. First, have you consider that the view of the page in other type of device may be different? That the "mobile view" have no influence on the empty space you mention? Finally, now the caption of the map is species name, going again the standard, and non sense caption. I kindly ask you not to continue with this type of edition without a consensus of the community. Same happened before the template creation with "image", some would use 350px, other 240px, and no visual standard. Why having a template standard if anyone does wathever seems to be the the best? Thanks. Hector Bottai (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Hector Bottai: - OK thanks, I'll set them back to no size specified. For me, they leave a large area of white space between the VN list and the Commonscat link, but yes, I guess they won't for everyone. What would be good is if the Commonscat link (and the Taxonbar) could be repositioned so they float left without being pushed down by images, but I don't know how to do that. - MPF (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I checked the two pages both at laptop screen and mobile phone and there is no empty space! But, yes, there are many pages with less content leaving empty space.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Just to let you know that I am having medical treatment, which will mean that I will not be as active here as I would like. I would like to continue looking through Yang et al., 2022 - I have misgivings as do you. I have had a look through Actinostroboideae/Callitroideae and actually I think that Saxton may have got it right - I have added a link on the reference section. Basically, his assumption is that this whole group of plants were considered at the tribal level, he was aware of Eichler' work and it seems that he might have been the first to propose stabilising the group at the subfamily. However, Koehne does note Unterfam. Actinostrobeae, hence I assume Yang's change to Actinostroboideae Koehne (no citation), but it seems that Saxton was not aware of Koehne or chose to ignore his work, as it dealt only with a single genus. It is also worth noting Yang in common with most others have previously used Callitroideae Saxton. Therefore, I advise that Yang's proposed name change can be challenged as disruptive and unnecessary, particularly as it is not formal or referenced and seems a bit of throw away. Before posting on the pump I wished to pass these thoughts for your consideration. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andy @Andyboorman: - sorry to hear about that and hope you're well soon! Yes, good points there; Koehne's Deutsche Dendrologie description looks dubious for a new name given its assumption of an earlier publication where a full list (including the genus from which the name derives) of included genera exists. And Eichler's name doesn't indicate a rank (does that automatically make it Sectio rank? I can't remember the rules on that offhand!). - MPF (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the well wishes and heads up. As Eichler's name appears as an unnamed rank at the end of the list Pinoideae-Cupressineae-Actinostrobinae, I would favour Unranked leaving the term Sectio for its conventional subgeneric definition. The spelling of taxa at that time, except genera and species, is confusing to contemporary readers and also not settled even in the community at the time and therefor we cannot assume his ranking without context or a defined statement from Eichler - Andyboorman (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - thanks! Yes; if I remember right, there are ICN rules about treatment of rank where it is not specified in the original work, which may invalidate Eichler's name at subfamilial rank if the default rank is not that. Unfortunately I can't remember the exact details, but it shouldn't be difficult to find out. - MPF (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Michael. It is also worth noting that according to ICN the principle of priority do not absolutely apply above the rank of family, but should be generally followed if possible. Art 37.3 also applies. As Saxton was clear in his definition of rank I would recommend that his name for the subfamily be used. Andyboorman (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - thanks; yep, sounds reasonable. On the subject of Art. 11, does 11.6 have any effects on Pinus subgenus Strobus: does it mean sect. Quinquefoliae would be a synonym of the subgenus's autonym Pinus sect. Strobus? Would certainly apply if/when Strobus is treated at generic rank - MPF (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Michael. It is highly unusual to have sections without an autonym which will include the type. Art 11.6 is explicit stating that the autonym has priority. In my opinion current practice of stating that sect. Quinquefoliae is the correct name over the antonym is an error. Andyboorman (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - thanks! I'm pretty sure that's a change from the old ICBN, which (IIRC) did state that autonymy didn't extend to subgenera, sections, etc., which always struck me as odd (sorry, I can't remember which article!). Certainly a change I consider for the better. Do you want to check with Kew before we move sect. Quinquefoliae to sect. Strobus? Sufficiently important that we should be certain of it, rather than just guessing from our own interpretations - MPF (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello MPF. Since you didn't participate in the discussions/voting and the voting has been going on for more than seven days, could you please finalize the proposal regarding Kaganer’s administratorship, and add the standard "Poll closed as promoted" note to officially close it? It's about a week overdue. I know you know the procedure, but otherwise use the poll for 1234qwer1234qwer4's adminship just above it as an example. Thanks beforehand!

The reason I don’t finalize the request myself is that I was the one who nominated Kaganer in the first place – that's also why I didn't vote in the poll. Please note that I've sent this same message to all of the other uninvolved bureaucrats as well, so when you read this some one may already have ended the poll.
Happy New Year! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC).Reply

This matter has been resolved. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC).Reply

Any thoughts on the Pinus californiarum-fallax-edulis-monophylla complex and its circumscription? There seems to be nomenclature problems as well as taxonomy. See notes on the Pinus monophylla page and the references. Andyboorman (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andyboorman: - my own past preference has been to have californiarum and fallax as subspecies of Pinus monophylla, but I'm open to Businský's and Montes et al's splitting them – it looks very reasonable given the likelihood of P. monophylla s.l. being polyphyletic. They are definitely distinct (I've collected all 3 in the wild), so cannot support Farjon's wholly unjustified lumping (he really does seem incapable of spotting differences that are obvious to everyone else!); the differences are in multiple characters (cone and seed, as well as leaves) and have a geographical and ecological basis, so they are more than just varietas, too. I've long been aware of the subspecific combinations made by Zavarin being invalid under a minor technicality (failure to cite the exact page reference of the basionym); I don't know how important that really is, as it is perfectly clear what Zavarin intended, there's no chance of ambiguity arising. If it is important, then better to go with Businský and Montes and split them. Of Pinus fallax, do fossil names affect priority? I have a memory (admittedly vague!) that names of extant taxa had automatic priority over homonyms based on extinct taxa, but I could be wrong there! I'm not aware of any other nomenclatural problems (what's the reason behind the 'nom. utique rej.' for P. californiarum?). - MPF (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks! Normally on reading these papers I would accept that we have a couple of additional species for the Pinyon Pines, but such is the adherence to conventional wisdom! I have asked Kew for their thoughts so that should be interesting. Calflora holds the line BTW. Andyboorman (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - thanks! Checked Lanner, he accepts californiarum at varietal rank (no mention of fallax, but it's outside California so not relevant to his book) - MPF (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rafael Govaerts got back and is aware of Montes' work. They are ready to make the changes, but unsure about distributions, before possibly adding species to PWO. Gymnosperm Database has a distribution map, but nothing for NW Mexico. I can not find the maps on the USGS site, however. Andyboorman (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - excellent! Commons already has maps sourced from USGS and including Baja California: File:Pinus monophylla range map 3.png, File:Pinus edulis & Pinus monophylla range map.png. Would Govaerts be able to sort out the nomenclatural problem with Pinus fallax with a nom. nov. if it is indeed needed? I'm guessing he'll have access to fast-track publishing that I for one don't have. Perhaps P. zavarinii to acknowledge Zavarin's chemical studies on the taxon (just a shame that as a biochemist, he didn't know about the then ICBN rules!)? Was there a problem with Pinus californiarum ("of the Californias", plural) too? I'm not aware of anything; Pinus californica Loisel. (1812, nom. ambig.) is not a homonym. - MPF (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Kew advise that both P. californiarum and P. fallax are fine to use. I am waiting for IPNI to get back to me regarding their nom. illeg tag on P. x fallax. Andyboorman (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

IPNI have got back to me - to quote Pinus × fallax (Little) Businský, Acta Pruhon. 88: 11 (2008), nom. illeg., is a later homonym of fossil name Pinus fallax Saporta in Annales des Sciences Naturelles Series 5, Botanique 4: 62. 1865. Andyboorman (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - good to know, thanks! At least that 'nom. utique rej.' can come off the Pinus californiarum listing on the Pinus monophylla page. That leaves what to do with Pinus fallax until a nom. nov. can be sorted; as above, is that something Govaerts can do quickly? Also, while I'm on, the Pinus wangii subspecies still need sorting from their current redirects to Pinus fenzeliana, and removing from the latter's synonymy list. And did you ever hear any more over sect. Quinquefoliae vs sect. Strobus question? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I will contact Govaerts re a nom. nov. for P. fallax. I did hear back about Quinquefoliae vs sect. Strobus and the opinion was that sect. Strobus autonym is 'more' correct, but common practice may resist change! Andyboorman (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - thanks! I double-checked, and Pinus fallax Saporta is indeed there, from the French Tertiary. If sect. Strobus is 'more' correct, I'd be inclined to say we should go with it; I reckon common practice will change fairly readily here, as an autonym is far more harmonious, rather than the cumbersome nuisance of having to remember that the name of one rank is out of line with the others both above and below it. - MPF (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was skimming through the above genus and have found pages where the circumscription is not supported by the Reference Section contrary to Wiki policy. An example is Abies durangensis where you treat the species as monotypic, but the references and many others including local flora, recognise varieties. Can you correct this by adding references, or is it a personal taxonomic opinion? Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: Hi Andy - per Abies expert Keith Rushforth (e.g. 1987, Conifers), and Debreczy & Rácz (2011, Conifers Around the World). Are there genetic studies that support inclusion of A. coahuilensis at infraspecific rank relative to other taxa in its subsection, or is it just repetition of Farjon's lumping ideology, which has so often proved to be seriously flawed? - MPF (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

At the moment I can not find any primary reference supporting either the species or its infraspecific rank, therefore it appears to be a pair of taxonomic opinions, yet again. I would suggest the usual solution! Andyboorman (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - thanks! Yep, I have to agree. The problem is (as with many other taxa in this region!!) two north-south aligned mountain ranges separated by a desert (for these taxa, uncrossable, even at glacial maximum); durangensis in the western range, coahuilensis in the eastern; the firs can colonise north and south, but not east and west. They likely have a common ancestor with the closely related A. concolor to the north. For Farjon's case to hold, it has to be proved that durangensis and coahuilensis are more closely related to each other, than either is to concolor; yet the palaeohistory of the area suggests it is far more likely that both derived independently from different populations of concolor colonising southward separately from each other. If Farjon really wanted a 'lumping' taxonomy, he could have treated both as infrataxa within a broad A. concolor; that, I could accept much more readily. To further complicate matters, the western range (Sierra Madre Occidental) has a wet west slope (temperate rainforest) and a drier east slope; on the wet slope, there is Abies neodurangensis, which is related to A. durangensis much as A. grandis (temperate rainforest) is to A. concolor (drier mountains inland). - MPF (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very interesting and informative analysis. I agree that it is simpler to accept differing species epithets for the taxa. However, in the absence of supporting evidence one way or another we are stuck with opinions, given the sources that have to be cited. Fortunately the situation is rare and getting rarer as the science improves! Andyboorman (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am having to disengage for a week or so from WS, but look forward to looking in due course. In addition, good work from @Fagus: for getting a lot of basic information filled in. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - thanks! Hope you have a nice week away. If you get a chance before you go, could you (and also @Fagus and RLJ: take a look in on Talk:Abies borisii-regis, please, where I've outlined the problems with this name. Thanks again, MPF (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

If Mattfield's original material is available then Article 9 of ICN applies and Farjon's description can be discarded. Am I right? Andyboorman (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - that's my thought, too. Mattfeld doesn't say where his #833 was deposited, but my guess would be Berlin, as the paper is in the Berlin BG Notizblatt. As an additional point, the very name of the taxon - after the then King of Bulgaria - demonstrates he intended the taxon to be based on the Bulgarian material, not the secondary Greek specimens. - MPF (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am very sorry that I recently forgot to contact Kew about the above taxon. Well I have at last and they have quickly got back to me and are adamant that Picea laxa has the correct epithet based upon the basionym Pinus laxa Münchh., Hausvater 5(1): 225 (1770) over Pinus glauca Moench, Verz. Ausländ. Bäume: 73 (1785) and Pinus alba Aiton, Hort. Kew. 3: 371 (1789). They maintain that the use of laxa by Münchhausen (1770) was not published at varietal rank, but species. As Govaerts noted from Hausvater;

• 6 Genus Picea Class Abies species laxa with the species epithets always in italic in this publication.

As you can see this can be checked on BHL. I do appreciate that this change can be disconcerting, but I am inclined to advise we follow Kew, as their taxonomy is clear and we use it elsewhere, for example Picea mariana. In addition, the speed at which Kew got back to me and the level of detail indicates that I was not the first to make this enquiry! Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - thanks! I don't see that Picea mariana sets any precedent here, as the name was previously published by Miller at species rank; all I see here is that Münchhausen has published the new combination Pinus abies var. mariana (Mill.) Münchh. Farjon also saw it so, and is far from alone in so treating Münchhausen's names. But even if Münchhausen did intend it at species rank, there is surely a clear case for conservation of Picea glauca (as a species of major commercial importance), with Pinus laxa Münchh. to be rejected? - MPF (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about using P. mariana, but it was the first I came across that had a species epithet recognisable today. But elsewhere in Hausvater, Münchhausen uses italicised text for identifiable species, I do not think we can assume that laxa or other epithets are meant to be at the rank of variety unless specified. Regarding conserving Picea glauca this may seem reasonable, but I am not sure the Committee would agree, particularly as P. laxa is also regularly used. I guess you could try. Andyboorman (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - thanks! Not for me to propose conserving Picea glauca; that would be something for e.g. the Canadian forestry authorities. I would suspect they are blissfully unaware of even the existence of the name Picea laxa and its potential use; currently, it is hardly in use at all - I've certainly not seen it used in any text anywhere (POWO cite a couple of texts, but unfortunately neither is readily accessible). I guess the real question is, why this sudden new re-interpretation of Münchhausen's orthography? It's not like it is an unknown publication; several other very well-known names are long known to date from it (e.g. Quercus palustris here), so there is a couple of centuries' precedent of botanists universally treating Münchhausen's laxa as only having priority at varietal rank (as in e.g. Ehrhardt 1788). - MPF (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have been dipping in and out of Münchhausen's Hausvater over the last few days and really can not work out why authors have been interpreting his final epithets as varieties. It is not as if this is stated by Münchhausen, so I can only assume that the authors were mistaken or had some other motive. Why should Quercus palustris be a species but Picea laxa a variety? Just a thought or two. I have cynically got used to my favourite plants being re-named! Andyboorman (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - I presume because the Q. palustris case, it just says Quercus palustris, whereas with the other, he had a trinomial, Pinus Abies laxa. That's certainly how Ehrhart saw it in 1788, he very clearly interprets it as a trinomial in his raising Pinus laxa to species rank, and everyone else since has followed him in doing so too (including Sargent, in first making the combination Picea laxa, he gives the Pinus laxa basionym author as Ehrhart, not Münchhausen, despite Ehrhart citing Münchhausen's trinomial name). - MPF (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am happy to take the advice of Kew in this one for now. It seems that Sargent could be citing an incorrect basionym. I am aware that in the eighteenth century Picea were thought of as a type of the genus Pinus. Would it not then be Pinus (genus) Picea (sub or secondary genus} finally laxa (species)? Otherwise all spruces known at the time would be a single species with numerous varieties [only for Münchhausen, not other early authors! - MPF (talk)]. However, I am sure Kew are aware of the IPNI citation as they are in the same building and often share personnel and resources. However, I can contact IPNI separately for an opinion, if you think it may help and if they decide to follow PWO/WCVP then they will quickly update the database. In addition, They do have people who are expert in accessing and interpreting the widest literature base from Latin to a wide range of other languages, including written German of the time. Andyboorman (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: Thanks! I just checked Koch too; he also cites Ehrhart, not Münchhausen, as the basionym author for his Abies laxa. While Sargent might not have had access to Der Hausvater, Ehrhart did and Koch presumably would have. Sargent getting the basionym citation wrong is not a problem, that's allowed for in the Code. While it may look to us now that Münchhausen was using the format of Abies as a subgenus/section of Pinus with laxa as a species epithet, clearly numerous other early authors from Ehrhart on did not think so. Personally, I think that is not something that can be ignored, given the importance of nomenclatural stability. I'd also be very surprised if (once this gets known about more) that there isn't a proposal to make Picea glauca a nom. cons. - MPF (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not sure this will be quite the can of worms compared to when Acacia was split and that required a mandate at conference to resolve it, but I know what you mean! Given that there are still outstanding issues in New Zealand with Nothofagus and in Australia with Melaleuceae. Given that conifer taxonomy is notorious for strong opinions, as we know! However, I have learnt to put my preferences aside and working with WS has made me appreciate that these are unimportant in the wider perspective, as it can never be a personal project. I will see what IPNI say and get back to you. At least WS has evolved to be flexible enough to accept two different taxon pages for one plant. Andyboorman (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

IPNI have got back to me and the reply is quoted verbatim as follows:

We can confirm that the epithet laxa by Münchhausen (1770) was published at species rank not variety. The evidence supporting this is that the specific epithets are usually given in italics; the species are numbered (6=Pinus laxa. 7=Pinus acutissima); the extra name in the middle (‘Abies’ in this case) is the section (see top of page 222: II. Abies); infraspecific taxa are indicated by lower case letters.

We have added a note to the record in IPNI to make this clearer.

However, note will appear when IPNI next updates.

I think this is very clear and if we want to use P. glauca then, in my opinion, a nom. cons. will be required. Andyboorman (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: Thanks! I'd think it highly likely that the Canadian botanical and/or forestry authorities will want to see it a nom. cons., once they become aware of the change; how long that will take, I've no idea. Farjon has also issued a fair few nom. cons. prop., and would guess he might for this as well; while I've been critical of his opinions at times, in this instance I'd support his view. I think we should hold fire here on the move until that becomes clear? - MPF (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not sure we should hold fire just because we do not like the changes or that a nom. cons. may occur sometime in the future. ICN is much clearer these days and does not make exceptions based upon stability or past usage of a name. In addition, a nom. cons prop. does not override priority. I would be more happier with a new page for Picea laxa and also retaining and linking to your existing P. glauca. The disputed tag will apply and explanations on the discussion pages to inform readers, including links out to the relevant ICN articles and BHL pages. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: I've no problems with an extra page, as long as both are cross-linked with each other; but I think having both linked from Picea as though they were two separate species (and well separated by their alphabetic positions) would not be a good idea. Unless it could be done in some way to indicate clearly they are different names for the same taxon?

I thought that name conservation was becoming much more widely used in recent years? That the presumption was to conserve unless the rediscovered name could be demonstrated to be in use in modern texts prior to a particular year (I forget when, I think maybe 2000)?

I mentioned the question to one of the botanists at the University of British Columbia Botanical Garden, and he was in favour of a conservation proposal, so I suspect it will come. - MPF (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

If we go for the single name on the Picea species list of its page, it will have to be P. laxa until conservation. P. glauca could appear as a disputed taxa, as P. laxa can not be disputed under ICN. Does that sound reasonable? Andyboorman (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: I see where you're coming from, but I think it would be wrong to do so; we never did with Pinus pseudostrobus nom. cons. prop., not even before the proposal for conservation was made (we don't even say what it would have become without conservation!). And that's a considerably less well known, less high impact, species than Picea glauca. I just now checked this at POWO and see there that conservation has now been made (they say 'nom. cons.', rather than 'nom. cons. prop.'). If this was granted so quickly and without fuss, then I am even more certain than before that Picea glauca will be proposed, and will go through, probably quickly. So we'd just end up having to undo all the changes to giving laxa as the correct name, and leave a lot of readers very confused in the meantime. My preference therefore would be to retain glauca in the Picea species list, and have coverage of laxa as an earlier name recently discovered to be technically valid, but likely to become rejected in the near future. I think a major problem for laxa would be widespread lack of acceptance: most authors are just going to go on using glauca regardless. Has any other similarly high profile plant species had its species epithet changed without conservation intervening in the last few decades? I'm not aware of any. - MPF (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I changed Pinus pseudostrobus as soon as I was made aware of the proposal and not before. I do think that WS must follow ICN otherwise it is not universal but personal. I have done my bit by researching and getting the required information. Andyboorman (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - a comment by someone from USA: "Members of the team there [POWO] have been coming up with a quantity of similar determinations for various taxa; in addition to associated details that I wonder about myself experts I know personally have remarked on the problematic nature of what they are doing with particular subjects or subject areas - as in conifers - when I have asked. So, it appears that instead of establishing a resource that is the last word - perhaps a pipe dream when the advancement of scientific knowledge is the arena - POWO is just another place where individual interpretations are being aired. Like when a taxonomic monograph or paper is published." - so it looks like POWO are not getting much traction on this one. - MPF (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Kew are just following the articles as presently published, as with Picea glauca and these have been recently tightened to prevent nomenclatural ambiguity. The principle of priority is well established and to run counter to it is unacceptable in taxonomy. Some people (non-taxonomists) do get very upset when their favorite group of taxa are altered. It is not a Kew personal project to update taxa in order to follow the articles, if workers do not like it then stop shooting the messenger and get involved in ICN or apply for nom. cons. prop. on the grounds of nomenclatural stability. Some researchers are not particularly good taxonomists, which is not just my observation. Finally I used to teach plant nomenclature to students of botany, horticulture, ecology and so on. It used to annoy me when there were a raft of name changes, but that is life. Finally taxonomists are pedants in the nicest possible way it comes with the territory. Good luck. Andyboorman (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: - not saying I agree; but their thesis appears to be that Kew are interpreting the ICN incorrectly, in a manner that is inconsistent with other botanists who have also followed the ICN in their treatments of the same taxa. I know in another (unrelated) instance, Farjon was very critical of their acceptance of Taxodium hugelii predating Taxodium mucronatum; Farjon had examined this himself and concluded that the older name is invalid as a nomen nudum. Who is right in their interpretation of the ICN? Of course priority applies, but so do other rules, and this is just POWO's interpretation of the ICN, not an exact unambiguous case of following the ICN. - MPF (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

May be you are right. Kew does admit to mistakes as I have proven through experience. In the case of Picea glauca a persistent misinterpretation of a source is just unfortunate, but it should be grounds for nom. cons.. I have re-read the source and actually I can not understand why the italicised epithets were sometimes treated as species and sometimes varieties and can only assume that this was personal interpretation only. Taxodium hugelii is a nom. rej. prop and along with Taxodium mucronatum are in the heterotypic synonymy under Taxodium distichum var. mexicanum (Carrière) Gordon & Glend.,Pinetum: 307 (1858) according to POWO and Adams et al. (2012). A taxonomist at Kew gave myself and my students a number of memorial phrases (for plants only). Firstly, all taxonomists are botanists, but not all botanists are taxonomists. Get 2/3 taxonomists in a room to discuss controversial taxa and you have a flaming argument. Another, you can call a plant whatever name you like, but I will use the most taxonomically correct name, according to my current understanding of the science and articles. Finally there are some groups of taxa that taxonomists dread - yes you guessed it one was conifers. The point being that like some locally important genera this is group where individual experts hold strong and intractable opinions. There were others. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear, sincerely I cannot understand why changing a good template by a text. In case you found something to improve, the way should be editing the template, and not just abolish the use. Greetings. Hector Bottai (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Hector Bottai: - because the template didn't apply to the 1841 protologue, just to a later (1844) reprinting, which only deserves brief mention (as it is not original material, but does give presumably the same description, and is available online). Unfortunately, the protologue is not available online, and (as far as I'm aware) no template has been made for it. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is the common name in the UK and much of the world. I used to teach the subject at college and unis, where we used the RHS as a common industry and well accepted standard. But have it your way, as usual, not worth a spat over a trivial non-taxonomic detail. Andyboorman (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Odd! I have seen it, but it isn't in any of my UK tree books (Mitchell, Rushforth, etc., and including the RHS's own Dictionary of Gardening), which all have Brewer's Spruce, or just Brewer Spruce (without the 's, as in US style). It's also Brewer's Spruce in sources like iNaturalist and Monumental Trees as well as IUCN. I'm guessing perhaps the 'Weeping' is added by those who are trying to sell it and want it to sound more special to potential buyers? - MPF (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Now that Govaerts and others are in line with Montes et al.(2022), can we not remove the disputed tags off of pages were it has been left? I notice you have been updating WS. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: Thanks! I removed the disputed tags from P. discolor and P. johannis; I left it on with P. cembroides (as orizabensis remains disputed), P. monophylla (as fallax is still a nomenclatural problem) and P. lagunae (as Businský isn't aligned), though this last one could probably come off. It was certainly nice to discover last night that Govaerts had updated, though depressing that it took over 30 years for Farjon's malign influence to be finally expunged here! - MPF (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rafaël will be the first to admit that he is no expert in conifers. I am not sure Farjon was truly malign, just opinionated and over confident in his views. 100 papers and 11 books he must have got something right. But as always time moves on. Andyboorman (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: Thanks! Certainly prodigious output, yes. I'll try to put some thoughts together, but it's not easy - MPF (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, in this edit, POWO was removed "superfluous, duplicates Taxonbar"; it's likely the distribution information came from POWO, which has the license info:

"Kew Backbone Distributions The International Plant Names Index and World Checklist of Vascular Plants 2024. Published on the Internet at http://www.ipni.org and https://powo.science.kew.org/ © Copyright 2023 World Checklist of Vascular Plants. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 Kew Names and Taxonomic Backbone The International Plant Names Index and World Checklist of Vascular Plants 2024. Published on the Internet at http://www.ipni.org and https://powo.science.kew.org/ © Copyright 2023 International Plant Names Index and World Checklist of Vascular Plants. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0"

Do you think it might be advisable to retain POWO in the references, as a link, where used for synonyms + references, distribution, etc...? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Hmmm . . ., not sure! But there is a definite problem with the link in the Links section on this particular page, because the page name (due to disambiguation from an animal) is "Comptonia (Myricaceae)" not "Comptonia" – and this breaks the link to POWO, because the link searches for the pagename at POWO, and that pagename of course doesn't occur there. But more generally, the link to POWO is also in the Taxonbar, so why display it twice? Could the license data be made to show in the taxonbar link? - MPF (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to push in here. @Maculosae tegmine lyncis:. I have re-added the links, as they seem to have been used in the page construction. taxonbar is simply an added extra, by consensus, although I will need to dig out the thread on the Pump archive. I have fixed the broken klink due to the disambig page name. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello MPF. I very much agree with you in regards to your comment at the Village Pump regarding Twitter and Bluesky, but in my opinion that question shouldn't be mixed up with the talks about our upcoming 20th anniversary. Instead it should be discussed at another time, as a separate issue of its own right. Also, I think we should try to advocate some kind of inter-wiki solution for this, involving the other sister projects as well. It wouldn't be ideal if Wikispecies alone moved to Bluesky, if @Wikipedia, @WikiCommons, @Wikimedia (i.e. the Foundation) and @Mediawiki etc. still remain on Twitter. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC).Reply

Thanks! Yes, agree fully 👍 MPF (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply