User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Fritzschia and the databases

GBIF lists 13 species in Fritzschia, most are very recently described. Flora do Brasil lists 12 including one not in the GBIF list. PoWO lists 4. The Plant List has 3 of those. Wikispecies has no entry on Fritzschia. My stub therefore has 14 accepted species and is sadly more up-to-date than any of the databases. So, who is to say who is obsolete? Abductive (reasoning) 23:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: again, don't use The Plant List for anything; it's not being maintained. Plants of the World Online has four species right now here.

You should include a secondary source as a reference for the authority. Just because X published a name doesn't mean it's the legitimate name; there may be an earlier name that has priority, for example. So the original publication by X can never be a reference for X's name being the legitimate one. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

When this was last discussed I was given a lot of conflicting information. Examples; don't do WP:SYNTH but if you do, blend a bunch of sources together. Each database has its strengths and weakness but there's no way for a non-omniscient being to determine which database to use for a given taxon. TPL is no good, but TPL is fine for Prunus. PoWO is great but they have zero entries for "selected" families such as Rosaceae.

There are approximately 320,000 plant species. Most of these do not have a secondary source and will never have a secondary source saying that it is a legitimate species. Take for instance the sources in Fritzschia. Even if some of the sources back up some of the earlier sources, they are all written by the same research team at the Universidade Estadual de Minas Gerais. In one hundred years, someone may take a look at their work and make some adjustments.

I think the underlying problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the readers are using Wikipedia for when they look up an obscure genus such as Forzzaea. Is this reader a graduate student looking to start a research project on the genus? And somehow taking Wikipedia's word for it, never to look up anything in the scientific literature? Similarly with List of Prunus species. It should be apparent to even the most gullible reader that there is some debate about which are the good species in Prunus. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. What that means is we are shooting for verifiability, not truth. My goal is to provide the reader a clue as to what is going on. So in Forzzaea, they will be able to figure out that Forzzaea is new, and is grabbing species from Cryptanthus because I snuck that factoid into the caption. Abductive (reasoning) 10:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: whatever may have been said before, TPL is not being maintained and should not be used now. PoWO has entries for Rosaceae; did you mean WCSP? PoWO and WCSP are being aligned to the same database, although presenting information differently. But the WCSP is "selected" plant families.

The problem with using multiple sources for species, which is not just theory but my regular observation, is that we end up with multiple articles on the same taxon, particularly species, under synonyms – e.g. when a species has been transferred an editor creates a new article instead of moving the old one.

Another problem with using multiple sources is mixing material relevant to a narrow circumscription with material relevant to a broad one. For example, there has been a problem with the two spider species, Brachypelma hamorii and Brachypelma smithi. Some sources treat them as one species, not recognizing B. smithii. You just have to decide who to follow for article titles and descriptions, although mentioning the alternative view. But at one time the material in our B. hamorii article was mixed up between the narrow and broad definitions.

So, yes, we must not try to present "one true view", but verifiability doesn't work for article titles if it means that every specific name mentioned in a reliable source gets an article. And a large part of the point of species lists in genus articles is to link to their articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, so where I have been using TPL to list the species in the genera stubs, I'll use PoWO. Otherwise I am pretty confident that the stubs will meet or exceed the databases in terms of usefulness to the incredibly rare actual reader. Abductive (reasoning) 21:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop

Peter, please stop reverting properly conducted speedy renamings of categories. This overturning of established processes is highly disruptive.

If you do any further such edits after this message, I will go straight to ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The following is a copy of a reply which I have just posted[1] to Peter on my talk. I am copying it here so that it's clearly visible if this matter goes to ANI:

---

@Peter coxhead, your objection was generic opposition to the entire WP:CFDS process, so it was removed[2] by the admin Good Ol'factory.
Category:Dracaena was one of a batch of listings processed later in this edit[3] by User:Ymblanter.

If you object to their admin actions, you should raise the matter with the admins involved. Sadly, you chose instead to engage in disruptive editing by reverting the moves made by the bot on the instruction of admin User:Ymblanter (here's a list of your contribs which reverted the move). I have reverted you reverts, to restore the status quo as implemented by Ymblanter ... and I have left a note on your talk warning you that if there is further such disruption by you, I will take the matter straight to ANI, with no further warning. You are a highly experienced editor, and you should know much better than to take unilateral action to overturn an admin's implementation of an established process, let alone do so without even attempting to discuss the matter with the admin(s) involved.

---

Please note that unilaterally undoing admin due-process actions is a fast path to a block for disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: how is it "due process" to carry out an opposed speedy renaming? I clearly opposed speedy renaming of categories involving disambiguated genera, as you are well aware. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead, this is very simple. If you think the admin acted wrongly, then don't just unilaterally overturn the result of the process ... go and discuss it with the admin ... and if you can't reach agreement, use a review process.

That is very very basic principle of conduct on en.wp. An editor of your experience should not need to have that pointed out to them ... just as an editor of you experience should know much better than to think they can simply oppose an entire established process without seeking a consensus. I really don;t know what on earth has gotten into you these last few days, but you seem to have lost the run of yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: we must disagree. I asked for discussion before the moves were made. Why do the principles of WP:BRD not apply? The move was made; I had already opposed it, so I reverted. Now we should discuss. Admins are not exempt from this process. Anyway, it's very clear that there will be no discussion, so you will get your own way. But it remains an abuse of process, in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead, it's a great pity that you chose to simply namecheck BRD instead of reading it. WP:BRD-NOT is clear:

BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.

In this case, you chose to impose your own view over that of the admin who administered the process. That's a path to havoc.

If you want waste everyone's time with a discussion, I have already pointed out multiple ways in which you can do that, including open a full CFD discussion, which Ymblanter has also suggested. But instead you have chosen to wander around multiple venues creating maximum drama.

And for goodness sake ... why on earth choose this particular hill to die on? Just look at the dab page Dracaena. It's a highly ambiguous term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: again you are misrepresenting me. I did not "impose my view". I merely asked for discussion of disambiguated taxonomic categories before the moves were made. I do not think this was unreasonable. You clearly do. We disagree. There's no point in prolonging this. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read before replying. You imposed your view by unilaterally reverting an admin action with which you disagreed. There are multiple paths by which you could have raised your concerns over procedure, but you chose disruption. That path will not end well for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I can only repeat again that the difference between us seems to be whether we think the main import of WP:BRD applies, i.e. whether there should be discussion before a revert to a challenged edit is undone again. When I tried to notify other editors of a proposed change I had asked to be discussed, I didn't expect that I would find that the change had already been made without discussion. I was, naturally I think, annoyed. I don't see that either admin status or the fact that this involves a category means that a challenged edit can't be reverted and then discussed. You do. End of subject. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Peter, it seems that after over a decade editing here, you really don't want to even consider how disruptive it would be if editors were free to act unilaterally and immediately overturn the result of an established process. That approach will not end well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Alsophila has been nominated for renaming

Category:Alsophila has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hoary old problem

Hello Peter, Thank you for your contributions here. Your opinion please. Do you think it would be acceptable to most editors of plant articles to leave the words "Latin" and "Greek" out of plant-name etymologies? Seems to me the problem lies with the fact that plant names must be Latin, but are often derived from Greek or other sources. So does something like oliganthus is derived from oligos meaning "few" and -anthus meaning "-flowered", referring to... and gynandrus is derived from gyne meaning "woman" and -andros meaning "man" referring to... (with appropriate references) avoid the problem? Or perhaps you have a better suggestion? Gderrin (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Depends which problem you are referring to!

I prefer (naturally I guess) to use one of the three models I put forward at User talk:TelosCricket/Draft Proposal#Greek compound (and have saved for future reference at User:Peter coxhead/Work page#Etymology notes). So for oliganthus without mentioning the originals, I would say one of:

1. oliganthus means 'few-flowered'
2. oliganthus is a compound of the Greek-derived elements oligo-, meaning 'few-', and -anthus, here meaning '-flowered'

with, of course, one or more appropriate references.

However, Wimpus appears to object to my models. So any hope of a consensus way forward would have to rest on a clear result at an RfC. However, so few editors appear to be interested (and willing to read the likely walls of text that would result), that I don't believe that an RfC would be of any use, at present anyway. So we are stuck unless and until an interested and knowledgeable admin is prepared to force the issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Which problem? I know what you mean, but there are four or five maybe six editors who are interested, having been hammered in the past. Is that enough? Gderrin (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please notice that those two examples of Gderrin

oliganthus is derived from oligos meaning "few" and -anthus meaning "-flowered", referring to...

gynandrus is derived from gyne meaning "woman" and -andros meaning "man" referring to...

differ from eachother and differ from what is proposed by Peter coxhead.

• Peter coxhead seems to suggest to use in both cases (first and second part of the compound) word-forming elements, while Gderrin seems to suggest to mention for the first part, the actual Greek word, while for the second part a word-forming element.
• In the first example a Latinized/Latin form is used, i.e. -anthus, while in the second example a Greek form, i.e. -andros is used.
• This can not be solved by replacing -anthus by -anthos as in ancient Greek, adjectival compounds derived from ἄνθος, end on -ανθής/ές (so-called e-ablaut).
• One can not replace -andros by andros, as gynandrus (or it predecessor γύνανδρος) isn't necessarily derived from a genitive case ἀνδρός. I doubt whether γύνανδρος is a syntactic compound.

Maybe, you should try to make eachother clear, why you would use a word or a word-forming element as first part, or refer to Greek or to Greek-derived word-formings elements. It seems there is some misunderstanding. Wimpus (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wimpus: I don't seem to suggest anything. Elsewhere, I explicitly proposed three models of how we could write about the etymology of scientific names, depending on the sources available, and showed above how the second model could be used in the example Gderrin introduced. I expect you to understand the linguistic distinctions involved. I do not expect most editors to have the same level of knowledge of linguistics and classical languages (nor indeed most contemporary biologists). If you are not willing to engage positively with the models I proposed, instead introducing and then criticizing text I have never proposed nor endorsed, there's no prospect of any useful outcome resulting. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your efforts on this. Since this debate started, (before September last year) many articles about Australian plants have been written or expanded without the meaning of their scientific names being explained, despite them being given in ordinary plant books or in external websites. In order to attempt consensus on this, I am perfectly happy to prepare a RfC with a simple, neutral question like, “How should the derivation of plant names be expressed?” (’d like to read your opinion about the wording of the question.) I would then start the discussion by outlining the problem (basically that plant names are in Latin, but are sometimes derived from Greek words), then proposing that the meaning of plant names should be expressed without the language (Latin or Greek) from which they are derived and the Greek or Latin words themselves being mentioned. For example "the genus name Rhadinothamnus means 'slender bush'"; "the specific epithet oliganthus means 'few-flowered'". William Stearn's "Botanical Latin" or a similar text would be an acceptable reference. Alternatively, I'd be happy to contribute to a similarly worded RfC prepared by somebody else.

I think there might be a sufficient number of interested editors. Maybe someone might suggest an alternative that a clear majority could agree on. Looking forward to your thoughts and help. Gderrin (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I would certainly adhere to a guideline that edits of etymology are ..... "without the language (Latin or Greek) from which they are derived and the Greek or Latin words themselves being mentioned". The use of Greek or Latin in the text seems to be the main crux of the matter. I can only assume then that all editors involved would be more than amenable to a "truce" so that the constant interruptions and time wasted on the dispute is resolved and those editors inclined to add etymology can do so without reverts/deletions. Allthingsnative (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

All this sounds rather a purist position - why would Wikipedia set itself above authoritative sources such as:

• Christenhusz, Maarten J. M.; Fay, Michael F.; Chase, Mark W. (2017). Plants of the World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Vascular Plants. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-52292-0. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Peter, I have gathered all the Kew related databases into the existing Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in order to serve as an umbrella page. It does not attempt to unravel the often confusing relationships between them! --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: a good idea, and a useful resource. I too am not sure of the exact relationship; there don't seem to be any public statements. All I know for sure is that when corrections I have suggested are made, they appear relatively quickly in IPNI and WCSP, but take longer to show up in PoWO. I believe that IPNI and the underlying "plant database" that feeds at least WCSP and PoWO are not yet fully connected, but will be eventually. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

M!x page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary

"‎Hair health: removed section; not compliant" Hi, it´s not clear what it means. Is the reference weak? If you go to Pubmed, there are plenty of studies citing Rosemary oil usage for hair health. M!X-Right (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)M!X-Right

@M!X-Right: you can certainly say, with sources, that rosemary oil is used in hair treatments. If you want to say that it has medically significant effects, then the sources you use have to comply with WP:MEDRS – please read it. The "page in a nutshell" section at the top makes the main point: to support medically significant effects, you cannot use primary studies, whether in Pubmed or not, but must use systematic reviews.

Zefr has some useful links at User talk:Zefr. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A few new salticid editors

Hey Peter, if you notice a bunch of newbies editing salticid articles all the sudden, they are mostly from the recent meeting of the American Arachnological Society. There was a collective decision among the salticid folks to work on genus articles on Wikipedia as a way of improving public access to spider science. They may need some gentle guidance on how to edit correctly, but their intentions are good and they have lots of expertise to offer! Kaldari (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kaldari: excellent! We definitely need more spider editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

oddity

found by simon ? seems odd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acragas_leucaspis JarrahTree 08:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I updated the ref, but it seems fine otherwise. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

ta - vast numbers of biota items that are not australian do not have qualifying country project tags on talk pages, and recently have found biota of oz on the main space/page, with nothing about oz or biota project(s) on the talk page - as the curse goes we live in interesting times... JarrahTree 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: there are some very strange ideas about geography among some editors; I've seen the Australian state of Victoria confused with the Canadian city, but then said to be in the US! I know that some Americans have difficulty recognizing that Canada is actually a different country... Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I maybe/maybe not should have been a bit more anal about keeping the links about the classics of the past like the editor convinced Tasmania was another country, (having lived there, yes), and similar transgressions of the borges-ian imaginary places and beings... but nah it felt like the horrible churnel ground of some eds who would use the user page as a record of craziness of others - had a particularly nasty streak - I say forget and forgive, where ever possible... JarrahTree 08:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

:-) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Salvia yangii

Were you intending to work on the cleanup of Salvia yangii (now mentioned at WT:PLANTS)? Also Perovskia needs work as well - I'd do the move to Salvia subg. Perovskia except that I'd don't know the template to format the article title. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: probably I was, but I've got into sorting out Plectranthus/Coleus for now, which turns out to be more work than I thought (there are some very odd cases), so do go ahead. See, e.g., Scilla sect. Chionodoxa for the relevant template to format the title. (I stopped watching WT:PLANTS because I was so fed up with BrownHairedGirl's rudeness and aggression. I guess I should start again.) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made a start of the subgenus, but I've run into an issue with the automated taxobox. I could go ahead and attempt to create a new one, but I'm guessing that's not the proper way forwards. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: there are different ways of handling botanical subgeneric ranks, but I think the easiest is to create a taxonomy template, as I've just done at Template:Taxonomy/Salvia subg. Perovskia. Then in the Speciesbox for the species in the subgenus put |parent=Salvia subg. Perovskia along with, e.g. |taxon=Salvia yangii. See, e.g., Scilla sardensis (formerly Chionodoxa sardensis). Peter coxhead (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've completed reworking the subgenus, except that I seem to be doing something wrong with the title, even though I did a copy/paste/edit from Chionodoxa. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: not your error. {{Automatic taxobox}} adds {{Italic title}} by default for ranks below genus, but that template doesn't work correctly for botanical infrageneric names with a connecting term, so you have to both (1) add "DISPLAYTITLE:" (2) turn off adding {{Italic title}} by including |italic_title=no in the taxobox, which I forgot to mention. Sorry. (I've been meaning to try to get the italicization of this kind of title corrected for a while, but there aren't many articles with titles like this, so it's not a great priority, and I didn't write the code in Module:Italic title which actually makes it work, and I frankly can't follow it. I'll pursue it with the author of the module.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

{{Italic title}} takes a |string= parameter to determine what to italicise, but would need two for the plant names. However, I think a string of the form Salvia </i>subg.<i> Perovskia would work as Module:Italic title uses string.format('<i>%s</i>', s) for the formatting.

So in Module:Automated_taxobox the line ItalicTitle._main({}) needs to be replaced by something like

ItalicTitle._main({ string ="Salvia </i>subg.<i> Perovskia" })

You have to code for handling |name= so it might be as simple as ItalicTitle._main({ string = name }). —  Jts1882 | talk  16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: or, as Mr. Stradivarius suggested, just pass the value to DISPLAYTITLE. Obvious once someone has pointed it out! Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

One further issue is that {{Italic title}} handles any disambiguation in the title, e.g. ''Salvia'' (plant) only italicises the genus name. Passing "name" to {{Italic title}} would retain that. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: disambiguation is an issue, I agree. The problem is that {{Taxon italics}} assumes that a parenthesized term is a subgenus, since taxon names are not disambiguated in taxoboxes. So {{Taxon italics|Salvia (plant)}} → Salvia (plant). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Btw, my experiments show that {{Italic title|string=...}} doesn't work, i.e. doesn't format the article title as per the string. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

In my tests it seems to work as expected, but the string must match the title exactly. Any HTML tags or wikitext formatting breaks the match. So my suggestion above with the italics tags fails. Using wikitext italics (e.g. |string=Salvia ''subg.'' Perovskia) also breaks the match. So it looks like the only way {{Italic title}} would work if it could take a second string parameter. The advantage of DISPLAYTITLE is that it can be formatted by wikitext and you'd have full control. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was my experience.

I now remember that I have thought about this before (getting forgetful in old age!), and decided that it's not worth it because of the disambiguation issue – there are many more taxon articles with disambiguators than ones with botanical infrageneric names. One possibility at the time I wrote Module:TaxonItalics was treating parenthesized terms starting with a lower case letter as disambiguators and those starting with an upper case letter as subgenus names, but I found there are (or were) articles with the Commons method of using families as disambiguators, and any change should not affect existing articles. So (1) it would need somewhat different code for titles and for names within taxoboxes (2) the code for titles would have to handle "Genus (Subgenus)" differently from "Genus (Disambig)". (2) would appear to be possible, given that we know the rank from the taxobox, but I didn't think it worth the extra complexity. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orchideae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Satyrium, Bonatea and Sirindhornia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I dealt with this while passing by. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Being systematic

I don't know if anybody noticed, but I am creating genera stubs on ones that have lots of species. I just wrapped up all genera authored by Linnaeus, so now there are no redlinks at least for him. But I worry that I am messing things up, so maybe I'll try looking for a way to create stubs on genera that are uncontroversial. Abductive (reasoning) 10:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: I'd noticed some of them. Can you say more about why you think some of them are not "uncontroversial" or that you may be "messing things up". Such stubs are a good idea, provided there are good secondary sources to show that the genus is currently recognized – or is that your concern? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

No, everything is drawn from PoWO, but moving articles, especially where people seem to favor the older names, is a bit scary. Abductive (reasoning) 11:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: well, I apply WP:BRD to this kind of move (rightly or not), i.e. where there's a reliable secondary source like PoWO (for seed plants) – be bold, make the move, it can always be moved back. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Vernonthera

Do you know if there is a Vernonthera part for the species box? I used it in a species box for User:Starzoner/Vernonia angustifolia, but it was not created. Starzoner (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Starzoner: I corrected the spelling of the genus name (it's Vernonanthura) and created a taxonomy template.

For the taxonomic hierarchy of Asteraceae members, I would look at the Global Compositae Database.

I made a few more edits; it can be moved to main space as Vernonanthura nudiflora now.

There can also be an article on Vernonia angustifolia Michx., which is a different species: see PoWO. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sitticini

Very nice job on the Sitticini article, especially explaining all the recent changes. Kaldari (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kaldari: thanks, I'm glad you think so; always nice to know that someone actually reads what one writes! Having created articles on Prószyński's "Sitti..." genera when they were accepted by the WSC, only for them to disappear into synonym redirects, I was interested in trying to understand what had been going on. On a strict application of WP:PST, it could be said there's too much use of primary spurces, but as the WSC limits itself to families above genus level, there's really no choice.

There seems to have been a lot of churn in spider taxonomy lately, including all the family changes in the Mygalomorphae – it's hard to keep up. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kaldari: species:Sitticini puts the tribe Sitticini into the subfamily Sitticinae, citing Maddison et al. (2020), but Maddison (2015) replaced Sitticinae by Sitticini, putting the tribe in Salticinae, and I see no evidence that this was changed in the 2020 paper. I set up Template:Taxonomy/Sitticini with |parent=Salticidae, but we could use the full Maddison (2015) system. Any thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikispecies is rampant with errors when it comes to jumping spider taxonomy. My personal policy is generally to ignore it, as whatever time I spend there would be better spent improving Wikipedia. I wouldn't be opposed to adding Maddison's subfamilies to the taxonomy templates, but managing the tribes and subtribes would be a huge maintenance burden, and as you know we already have a difficult enough time keeping up with spider taxonomy changes. If we started including all the tribes, we would also have to create articles for them and maintain the articles (as well as all the relationships in Wikidata, Commons, etc.). If we had about 5 or 6 more regular spider editors I would feel comfortable taking that on, but right now, it seems like it would be a nightmare. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree about tribes. The only reason I created Sitticini, as I said above, was to have somewhere to explain the muddle over Prószyński's names, having spent time on them in the past. Generally, I would agree about subfamilies too, but Salticidae is such a huge family, I do see some benefit in breaking it down one level. However, there's definitely an editor resource issue. (I'm not sure everything is fixed for the mygalomorph changes.) So it definitely needs some thought. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Peter, thanks for the 975458654 reversion re: Ilex glabra - at first glance it seemed informative, and though it might be, on checking the main page just saw the Amazon, etc. association. Cheers, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem: I've been caught out before myself by advertising websites. Sometimes businesses seem to deliberately create a separate "informative" webpage with much less obvious selling links. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Thanks for your diligence. David Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Maxillarieae page

Hi Peter coxhead, I've noticed that the Maxillarieae page is a bit of a problem for a couple of reasons:

1. I don't think Maxillarieae is an accepted tribe; it's supposed to be subtribe Maxillariinae (within tribe Cymbidieae). 2. The page lists several "subtribes" of Maxillarieae, some of which are actually sister subtribes to Maxillariinae, and others which are nonexistent.

There is a Maxillariinae page, which currently exists as a stub. Would it be possible to look into merging the two pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JadeSpire (talk • contribs) 08:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@JadeSpire: not an area I'm really familiar with, but I see that Maxillarieae is supported by only one source – Whitten, Williams & Chase (2000) – but the content is not consistent with that source, which says "we recognize six subtribes: Eriopsidinae, Oncidiinae (including Pachyphyllinae, Ornithocephalinae, and Telipogoninae), Stanhopeinae, Coeliopsidinae, Maxillariinae (including Lycastinae and Bifrenariinae), and Zygopetalinae (including Cryptarrheninae, Dichaeinae, Huntleyinae, and Warreinae)", yet the article lists 10 subtribes.

Do you have a source that says that Maxillarieae sensu Whitten, Williams & Chase (2000) is now subtribe Maxillariinae within tribe Cymbidieae? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I found an article that talks about Maxillarieae sensu Whitten being subsumed into Cymbidieae. Here's a quote: "Traditionally, Zygopetalinae have been placed in tribe Maxillarieae; however, as molecular data indicate that Maxillarieae sensu Whitten et al. (2000) is sister to a paraphyletic grade of cymbidioid taxa, Chase et al. (2003) lumped Maxillarieae together with Cymbidiinae, Eulophiinae, Bromheadiinae, and Catasetinae to create a broader and monophyletic Cymbidieae" (https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/443/44339808001.pdf). Whitten also has another paper which accepts Maxillariinae as a subtribe of Cymbidieae (https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3732/ajb.94.11.1860). JadeSpire (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@JadeSpire: seems convincing to me. So how to proceed? I don't have enough interest to write the article, but I do agree that:

• Maxillarieae should become a redirect to Maxillariinae.
• A very little of the text of old Maxillarieae can be moved to Maxillariinae, but not the list of subdivisions, obviously.

I'll do this, and then leave it to you to sort out Maxillariinae – ok?

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! JadeSpire (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: One last thing – is there a way to see all taxon templates with Maxillarieae as the parent? JadeSpire (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@JadeSpire: Yes. You search with Template:Taxonomy/ insource:"parent Maxillarieae" in the standard search box. There seems to be only one result. Also interesting is to search for the parent Maxillariinae. (These more complex searches are documented at mw:Help:CirrusSearch.) I'm always happy to try to help. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help!JadeSpire (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@JadeSpire:, there's also a script that you can use to see all child templates of a specified taxonomy template: User:Jts1882/taxonomybrowser.js. You'll need to create a common.js subpage for yourself to use it. See the first line of my subpage: [[[User:Plantdrew/common.js]] (subsequent lines are other scripts I've installed). Once you've installed it, there will be a link to it at the bottom of the "Tools" section of the left-hand sidebar. Plantdrew (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this approach has the advantage of letting you see lower ranks, but it does need setting up. Be aware that searching either way often doesn't find recent changes until the database updates; right now I don't see Template:Taxonomy/Neomoorea which I've just fixed (it was at the species name). Peter coxhead (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Zuniga (spider)

With your edit on Zuniga (spider) you stated that you corrected about template. I hope you did not do that too often as the effect is less then desired. The link "Zúñiga (disambiguation)" fools the bot that maintains the maintenance pages about links to disambiguation pages. With the link "Zúñiga (disambiguation)" the bot thinks everything is okay. But a link to Zúñiga is a link to a disambiguation page. The bot registers that and adds the article to the maintenance list. By now, I have corrected several instances of your unlucky corrections. Could you please in the future refrain from such "corrections"? The Banner talk 17:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Can the bot be made to ignore links to disambiguation pages in hatnotes such as the About template? Disambiguation links are expected there. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

By using a link like "Zúñiga (disambiguation)" the bot thinks everything is okay, while you still link to the desired disambiguation page. The Banner talk 19:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Right, but it adds some unnecessary text and need for extra redirect pages. It seems more like a problem with the bot than a problem with Peter's edits. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Peter removed the "(disambiguation)"-part, making the bot recognise the link to the disambiguation page. As is stated: with that part attached to the link, the bot thinks everything is okay and ignores it. So partly, it is a bit stupid from the bot but with a little trick the problem is solved. Peter undid that trick what added to the listings of pages with disambiguations pages (now more than 22 000 pages). No need for that. So no, it is not unnecessary text. The Banner talk 19:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant the additional text and redirect are unnecessary aditions to the article and project, not that the text is unnecessary for the bot to function as preferred. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: at the time, I did not understand the poor coding of the bot – and as Hyperik notes above it is a problem with the bot, which should be coded to recognize that templates like {{about}} can legitimately link to disambiguation pages. I may well have changed more cases in the past. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

suggestions re: persistently inappropriate editor?

Hi, Peter. The person presently using the identity "Nickafro-latino" (formerly Southamericannick, formerly Nick Falcão) is proving to be largely immune to education regarding proper editing, and even ignores messages posted to his talk pages in Portuguese. He consistently adds content without supporting sources, from large chunks of text to small subjective superlatives ("highly", "extremely"); he plagiarizes many of the sources he DOES cite; when he cites, he duplicates the same citation every time he uses it instead of using "ref name" conventions; when he does not copy and paste, he very often mis-quotes or mis-cites the sources he uses. His latest favorite link appears to be this DoD document, and again it looks like essentially all he is doing is copying and pasting text from this document into corresponding Wikipedia articles for all sorts of venomous animals. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how best to handle someone who seems to have no regard at all for proper adherence to WP editing policies, and unwilling to interact with anyone in a constructive manner. His constant changing of user IDs (including anon IPs) suggests a level of deliberate avoidance of oversight, and in itself hovers very close to a WP:SOCK violation, which could potentially result in a block or ban. Interested in your opinion on how to proceed, because it's increasingly frustrating just playing "whack-a-mole" with his edits; for every one constructive change, he makes a dozen that need to be reverted. Dyanega (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dyanega: yes, I too have tried correcting some of his edits and creating proper references in the hope that he would notice and learn, but with no success. I would support a block. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Update - he has created yet another new alias, "Afrolatin", and is continuing to edit. Still no response to any comments on his previous alias' talk pages. As it is looking more and more like a call for a sockpuppetry block may come into play, I'll also add that his initial IP-only alias - 177.73.47.6 - started in January ([4]) and seems to contain the earliest of his edits. The lookup for this IP places it in Bahia, Brazil, which is consistent with his editing. Dyanega (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dyanega: a block seems entirely justified (for the use of sockpuppets is simpler to argue than for the bad edits). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Phylogenetic trees are not "speculative"

Not sure what your friend Ed Smith, the creationist, has told you, but phylogenetic trees are NOT speculative when they are based on DNA (or RNA) data as in this case. You can speculate (sic!) that phylogenetic relationships are flawed by an erroneous algorithm, but a phylogenetic tree is simply a representation of similarities. You can also argue that they are not representing the "true" phylogeny when too little sequence was used etc. But there is nothing speculative about a tree per se as any biologist should know. Hence I reverted your reversion again. I hope you are not making yourself an accomplice of a notorious creationist. Feel free to discuss further on the Talk page of Phylogenetic Tree. Greetings from Ottawa. Peteruetz (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peteruetz: see that talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Re:Red links in Brunsvigia

Yes, I had in mind the species section with the list where it can be seen more clearly which species has an article and which hasn't. Including species in the genus description, IMO, helps understanding the variability of a trait because you have in one place several species compared for this trait.

BTW, thanks for all the encouragement. It pushes me forward for more reading and editing. Lantonov (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomy/ Pycnothelidae

Template:Taxonomy/ Pycnothelidae has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

About my past categorizations from last summer.

Hey, it's me again. After you last interacted with me on my talk page, I went ahead and removed the "Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus" categories from almost all of the plants that are titled after their common name. I also added the same category to a few redirects that did not already have it.

However, I also noticed that we interacted in 2018 a couple times. I was not very receptive to what you were saying because I did not understand what you were referring to and I did not have a good grasp on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also did not understand the concept of editing a redirect until you linked one to me. I now wonder if I should remove the "Described in YEAR" categories from animals that are titled after their common name and put them on the scientific redirects. You did mention that animals were an exception in some cases, but I'd like to know how to proceed from here. Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: this is an area which isn't covered by any site-wide guidelines, as far as I know, so I've tended to be guided by logic as well as practices in different WikiProjects. As we discussed before, logic says that since it was the scientific name that originates with Linnaeus, then what Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus should contain is a list of scientific names. (Just to take one example, Anise appeared in the category when I looked. The name "anise" long predates Linnaeus; he used the specific epithet anisum because the name already existed, not vice versa. As this is a plant, and members of WP:PLANTS seem to agree with my view, I've removed it from the category – the scientific name redirect was already there.)

But I don't know whether WP:MAMMALS agrees that Saiga antelope should have the category moved to Saiga tatarica. You could ask there, I guess. However, the overwhelming majority of article titles in the category are now scientific names, so I personally would just do it. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Candidatus

Looking around for stuff that might be missing from MOS:ORGANISMS, I ran into this, and am not sure it's correct (or that it describes a codified standard rather than something proposed by someone, or a style used in one discipline but not another): Candidatus#Usage. Thought you might know more about it. The claim is that the entire thing is enclosed in quotation marks, the term Candidatus is italicized, and the bi- or trinomen after it is not, thus: "Candidatus Genusname speciesname". I'm skeptical, because there's no other circumstance under which the Genusname speciesname formula would not be italicized; because other interpolated elements (like subsp., ×, phagovar, Gp, etc.) are never italicized; and because it's not being used this way (at least not consistently) in our articles, e.g. at Methanogen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: it's not my area, but this seems to be correct, based on the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, which is now held to govern bacterial names, rather than the old "botanical code". If you download the PDF from the link I've given, it's in Appendix 11, p. S92: "A name of an organism in the status of Candidatus consists of the word Candidatus, followed by a 'vernacular epithet' that consists of either a genus name with a specific epithet, or only a genus name, or only a specific epithet. Examples: Candidatus Liberobacter asiaticum; Candidatus magnetobacterium; Candidatus intracellularis. Note that the word Candidatus, but not the vernacular epithet is printed in italics." Actually, I think that "magnetobacterium" should be capitalized because other sources show it's a candidate genus, and the logic of the text is that the example is of a genus. Since when was the actual stylistic practice of editors either here or elsewhere a guide to what the style should be? :-)

doi:10.1038/ismej.2014.94 is an example of a Nature article that uses the style, although with added single quotes.Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

There could be a question of whether to follow the ICNP in italicizing all Latinized scientific names regardless of rank, I guess (there's been a bit of spat recently about such italicizing in other groups, based on style guides elsewhere which differ from ours). However, unlike the virus code, which mandates italics, the ICNP only says "words or abbreviations in Latin are usually printed in italics" as far as I can see, so I believe we should apply our normal rules to non-Candidatus names. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, so the ICNP standard does de-italicize Gen. and sp., but does not call for quotes. I wonder where the quotes came from. Maybe an older draft of it? And you're saying ICNP wants to do things like Cyanobacteria? That would probably confuse a lot of people. I think MOS:ORGANISMS is already addressing something like that with regard to bacteria or viruses (I don't recall if it's this or some other field-specific quirk), saying to do it in articles pertaining to that field but not elsewhere (e.g. not in a article about diseases of cattle, which is primarily about cattle not about a specific micro-organism or type thereof). PS: Yeah, I would not normally base anything on what other editors are doing, but this is obscure enough it seemed probable that details were being copied directly from source material; i.e., it hinted that the sources might not actually be doing "Candidatus Genusname speciesname".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's just viruses that we currently say should have all ranks italicized; the special template {{Virusbox}} handles this. I'd strongly oppose another variation to italicization; for one reason, it's tricky to handle within existing taxoboxes – it's partly why viruses need a separate taxobox template. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hokey-dokey.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering about this leading-question-mark style: Nuclearia. Also not botany, but enough of the alleged algae and alleged fungi micro-organisms have had their taxonomy changed to other kingdoms/domains in recent years, maybe you know about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Re the question mark, there are various styles about, used for slightly different purposes. The automated taxobox system supports one style via /? taxonomy templates. I don't think it's worth adding to a style guide.

Re kingdoms, this interacts somewhat with your question below. There simply is no agreement on what kingdoms to use, or even whether to use them at all. The three traditional kingdoms (plants, animals, fungi) work ok for multicellular organisms, but for unicellular eukaryotes chaos reigns, as far as I can tell – each new paper leads to more complexity. Taxonomic databases either don't go up to this rank or use different systems. All we can do is to provide a flexible range of options via variant taxonomy templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alpine Garden Society logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alpine Garden Society logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Phoneutria fera page

Hi Peter,

Can you check my addition on the P fera page. I’ve tried to word it as best I can... but I’m having problems adding the citation? If you view the page notes it’s on there. Please feel free to have a review. I’m fairly new to the editing side of wiki (as you can probably tell)!

Thanks

Martin Martinbell87 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Martinbell187:  Done properly now. A good source you found. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I’ve just sent an email to you bcs.org account if you still have access to this? Martinbell87 (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum wording change

Hi! I saw you changed the wording from "circumscribed to" to "accepted by". I see that it is clearer. I was trying to use the official taxonomic term for this, though. Do you think there would be a better way to word it and still keep the use of "circumscription"? Or perhaps a link on "accepted" to the Circumscription (taxonomy) page would meet both needs. --Eewilson (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eewilson: well, Circumscription (taxonomy) is rather thin and not well sourced, so not all that helpful in my view. "Acceptance" and "circumscription" are not the same. "Circumscription" refers to the composition of a taxon. "Acceptance" refers to not treating the taxon name as a synonym.

• Two taxonomists could agree that if a given taxon is accepted it would have the same circumscription, but differ as to whether it should be accepted (at least at the same rank).
• Two taxonomists could agree to accept a taxon but differ over its circumscription.

To take some examples from ferns, both Plants of the World Online (PoWO) and the World Ferns accept the genus Blechnum, i.e. they don't regard it as synonym of another genus. However, their circumscriptions could hardly be more different: PoWO includes about 250 species in the genus, World Ferns includes 23 (plus a few hybrids). The Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group classification of 2016 (PPG I) accepts the family Blechnaceae, whereas PoWO does not, subsuming it into a much more broadly circumscribed family Aspleniaceae. On the other hand, in the approach PoWO is based on, the subfamily Blechnoideae has essentially the same circumscription as PPG I's family Blechnaceae.

In the case of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum, the FNA reports on varieties accepted by other sources, but declines to accept any itself, saying that "a thorough study is needed before a coherent taxonomy can be achieved." If, as an example, a taxonomist treated one of the varieties accepted by other sources than the FNA as a distinct species, than that taxonomist would both be using a different circumscription of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum from the FNA and accepting a taxon not accepted by the FNA. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I learn every single day, and you have educated me on this. Thank you! --Eewilson (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eewilson: glad to know it was helpful! It would be good to put stuff like this into article(s), but it's hard to find reliable sources; it seems to be just "background knowledge" you're meant to know. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Between what I'm learning from botanists on iNat and on Wikipedia (sometimes the same people!), I'm getting quite the education this summer. Thank you again! --Eewilson (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: Molinia caerulea

Thanks fot reverting the edit, I was writing an article about this specie on it.wiki but I did some confusion.--Pampuco (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pampuco: no problem! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox glitches

I'm seeing some "protozoan" weirdness with taxoboxes:

• Aconchulinida has a taxobox that lists — Clade: SAR; Phylum: Cercozoa; Class: Proteomyxidea; Order: Aconchulinida
• SAR supergroup has a taxobox that lists — (unranked): Diaphoretickes; Clade: TSAR; Clade: SAR
  • TSAR just redirects back to SAR supergroup
• Diaphoretickes redirects to Plants+HC+SAR megagroup, the taxobox of which lists — Domain: Eukaryota; (unranked): Diaphoretickes

So, something is breaking the "chain" here. It appears that Aconchulinida should have a taxobox listing — Domain: Eukaryota; (unranked): Diaphoretickes; Clade: TSAR; Clade: SAR; Phylum: Cercozoa; Class: Proteomyxidea; Order: Aconchulinida. Likewise, SAR supergroup should have one that lists — Domain: Eukaryota; (unranked): Diaphoretickes; Clade: TSAR; Clade: SAR. (In both cases I'm assuing that TSAR should remain included at all.) I'm not sure how widespread this issue is. Myself, I'm going to blame it on some kind of amoebic infection. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC) PS: Aconchulinida's t-box is also missing subclass Filosia (mentioned in text, but we don't have an article on it yet).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. Because we don't show Eukaryote with animals, plants etc there is a separate taxonomy template ({{Taxonomy/Eukaryota/displayed}}) to force the display of the Eukaryote level. I set |parent=Eukaryota/displayed for Diaphoretickes and it now displays. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

There were a few more of these high level eukaryote taxa that were not showing Eukaryote as the top level. I've changed these to use {{Taxonomy/Eukaryota/displayed}} on the assumption that we want to display Eukaryote as the top level except when it is the animal, fungi or plant kingdom. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: yes, that's my assumption too: keep using the traditional three kingdoms for multicellular eukaryotes (unless there's ever a broad consensus on an alternative set in reliable sources). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Best approach for subsumed parent taxon

Hi Peter, a query, suppose there is a tribe Aini under which we have genera A, B, C etc set up with automatic taxoboxes, what is the best option to make Aini redirect and rename to Bini (assuming Aini is fully subsumed into Bini)? I am hoping there is some easy way to fix this at a single point (Aini) instead of having to fix entries at A, B, C, etc. Shyamal (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It can be done in a way that makes the taxoboxes look ok, but the taxonomy templates for the genera will look wrong, and eventually they should be changed.

For a quick fix, set up a full taxonomy template for Bini at "Template:Taxonomy/Bini", including a reference please. Then change the entire content of "Template:Taxonomy/Aini" to just |same_as=Bini.

This will fix all the article taxoboxes. However, "Template:Taxonomy/A", etc. will have |parent=Aini but will actually link to and display the taxonomy for Bini, which will be confusing. So ultimately I think the taxonomy templates for all the genera do need to be changed to have the correct parent, Bini. Then "Template:Taxonomy/Aini" will be unnecessary and can be blanked and put in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, it might be good to have this on an advanced usage section of the template documentation. Shyamal (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)