User talk:Andyboorman/Archive 3

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Andyboorman in topic Chloantheae

Appeal to WMF edit


Stephen did not treatment me, but he have block me, but I don't have proof. PeterR (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Peter, I can find no evidence of a block either, perhaps he protected a number of pages you were editing to prevent you changing things. By the way I agree with your decision to not go to WMF at this time - it was just a thought. Andyboorman (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry found it - silly me. If an admin goes to block user he/she can find a record of past blocks there as well. Marcus has sent you a record! Andyboorman (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

How to proceed edit

We need to be patient for a week or two. I suggest you mark yourself the offended pages to be settled down once the crisis is over. It is useless to further make more reverts, protect pages, etc. This is the spell of time when the best strategy is to stay calm and composed. Mariusm (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi edit

Just passing through. You seem to be doing good work here, but what a mess as to inter-user-relationships. Good luck! - Brya (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tetraclis edit

Hi, I happened to look at Diospyros and noticed your impressive list of synonyms. As far as I can see these are fine, except Tetraclis which is marked "nom. illeg.": you may want to revisit that. - Brya (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments. Tetraclis is a synonym (Schatz & Lowry, 2011) and is nom. illeg. under superfluity (Art. 52) I assume I ought to qualify this? I have added a ResearchGate link to the full text as well. Andyboorman (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for adding the paper. However, I do not see this marking Tetraclis as being superfluous or illegitimate; instead it indicates that Perrier de la Bâthie had accepted it for a recognized genus. A name is superfluous if it "included the type (as qualified in Art. 52.2) of a name that ought to have been adopted, or of which the epithet ought to have been adopted." In the original publication (very clean and workmanlike) I see no trace of this. - Brya (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ok will remove qualifier, which I got from WCSP anyway. Andyboorman (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Fine. In general WCSP is to a very high standard, but still there is the occasional odd slip. -Brya (talk)

Listing authors in references edit

You have new messages
Hello, Andyboorman. You have new messages at Peaceray's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wrong block edit

Dear Andyboorman. I saw you blocked MoiraMoira, but you blocked the wrong person. In fact, she was the who posted the delete tag on a spambot page an IP address created. See the diff via Special:DeletedContributions/MoiraMoira. Could you please unblock MoiraMoira (an established editor)? Thnx. Trijnstel (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Done, I unblocked @MoiraMoira:, thanks @Trijnstel: for putting the attention to this!
Andyboorman, you are not the first on Wikispecies to block the wrong person, and probably not the last one. Still, maybe you would be kind and write some lines of apologize on MoiraMoira´s talk page, just as a polite excuse from you and on behalf of the WS community? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot, all well! :) Dan Koehl (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just suggetions... for consistency with other articles,

1. for notes... use:

Notes edit

2. For authors, use {{a|}} {{aut|}} Uleli (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Uleli: I always do and usually I change [[Author]] <nowiki> for the first occurrence of an author to <nowiki> {{a|}} and subsequent occurrences to {{aut|}}, as long as a category has been established for the name in which case it is just {{aut|}} - I normally do not do categories preferring original taxon contributions and updates - see Bignonieae, which I will work on updating etc.. However, my older contributions just followed what was already there usually by some very established editors! Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Blanked pages edit

Dear Andy, can you please explain why have you blanked Misopates orontium, Luffa quinquefida, Luffa saccata, Marah guadalupensis, Marah inermis, Trichosanthes bracteata, Trichosanthes pubera. Please do not blank pages as it's doing us much damage in lowering our reputation. Mariusm (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mariusm: I am sorry for these historic "mistakes" I am going through deleting those that are not needed. I take the point about reputation and stubs - see also Dan's message. I am not the only one @Uleli: @PeterR: and Thorpe are also "offenders". In hand! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Blanked pages edit

Andy, you seem to have blanked a number of pages, which I guess should be deleted, but I cant be sure, so I remind you about them, so you can delete them yourself. You can find them in the beginning of the listings, with files 8 Kb, at short pages. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks in hand Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Help edit

Dear Andy,
I would first like to thank you very much for your heavy, but successful work in recent times. You know what I mean everything. Thank You !!
You know my weakness in your language.
For several days, a new user from Brazil is active here. I think, he is expert in orchids and an asset to the WS and WP. I greeted him. Now he asks me for the manufacture of templates. I have seen, that you are perfect in these matters. Could you please take a look at this page: User talk:Meneguzzo ? I've wrote Meneguzzo , that I'm going to ask you for help.
See you soon and all the best. Orchi (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Orchi:,
I have noticed @Meneguzzo: has made contributions to some orchid pages, but have not looked at them in detail. I am more than happy to help with templates if needed. If there are differences in classification then they can be handled with notes either on the main taxon page or the talk page if more detail is needed without having to use {{disputed}}, although I have had to use this mechanism at times.
Orchid classification and taxonomy is a rapidly evolving enterprise, but I feel that our approach is much better than Wikipedia, which is way out of date!
WS is a happier place to contribute these days and we hope to attract more people to add their expertise.
All the best Andyboorman (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Orchi, thank you very much for introducing me to Andy, and also for Andy helping me. Would you mind telling me how to create new templates when the same first author published two or more papers in a year? In a regular journal adding letter after publication year solves it, i.e. Chase et al., 2001a, Chase et al.m 2001b, Chase et al., 2001n.--[[User:M{{ping|Meneguzzo|Meneguzzo]] (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Meneguzzo: Have a look at this template from Mimulus; titled {{Barker et al., 2012}} full text is
* {{aut|Barker, W.R.}}, {{aut|Nesom, G.L.}}, {[aut|Beardsley, P.M.}} & {{aut|Fraga, N.S.}} (2012) A taxonomic conspectus of Phrymaceae: A narrowed circumscription for ''Mimulus'', new and resurrected genera, and new names and combinations. [[ISSN 2153 733X|''Phytoneuron'']] 2012-39: 1-60. Available online [] {{subst:reftemp}}.
The {{subst:reftemp}} is a bit of code which automatically picks up on multiple pages that use the template. Something like this will be fine. As your specific question I tend to use {{Chase M, 2015a}} to make the template where the single author has written multiple papers in a single year. Not applicable of course where she has written papers with other authors. Use the conventional (2015a), (2015b) within the template as you would in the papers themselves. Andyboorman (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Andy,
Thank you for your quick help. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Acanthephippium edit

Dear Andy, could you please contact Rafael Govaerts to clarify the following question:
Almost all institutions and the first description say: Acanthephippium. Only KEW says: Acanthophippium. Best regards. Orchi (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Orchi, yes I have just spotted that one as well. I will contact him as I think that it is a typographical error as well. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Orchi: I have had a reply from Kew. According to them Acanthophippium Blume, Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind.: 353 (1825) is the correct combination. Acanthephippium Blume ex Endl. Gen. Pl. [Endlicher] 200. (1837) is an orthographic variant (ortho. var.). See also IPNI. Tropicos has records for both spellings, but does not explicitly state that Acanthephippium is an ortho var. eMonocot and Flora of China use just the ortho var. I do not have a copy of Pridgeon so cannot comment for this source.
Given the dates, if Kew is correct, then Acanthophippium has seniority. However, there are complications; the accepted species from WCSP are a mixture of those found from both variants with synonyms noted. In Tropicos both variants have their own lists and synonyms. Those species accepted by eMonocot under Acanthephippium show Acanthophippium as their spelling! I suggest we go with Kew with some simple annotations against those sources that differ and adding Acanthephippium as a homotypic synonym and noted as ortho. var.. What do you think? Regards and I look forward to the pictures. Andyboorman (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Andy, thank you for your effort. The whole matter is a bit confusing. I agree with you, to follow the way of KEW (as almost always in the orchids). I suggest, that I change the names in WS, Commons and Wikidata to Acanthophippium. It would be very good, if you could give the annotations. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Orchi, I will add annotations when you make the changes and probably add notes on the discussion page as the use of the "e" is so common. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

.....o.k. I'll soon start. Thanks and best greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Greetings edit

Dear Andy, thanks for your permanent assistance. Today I say: to Su. (I hope to make some new orchid photos). Cheers. Orchi (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Formalia edit

What do you say... in the name section. Should the info be presented as:

Name edit

Selenicereus grandiflorus (L.) Britton & Rose........?

  • Type: Lectotype : Herb. Clifford: 182, Cactus 10 (BM-000628597), vide Lourteig (1991).


  • Selenicereus grandiflorus (L.) Britton & Rose........?
    • Lectotype : Herb. Clifford: 182, Cactus 10 (BM-000628597), vide Lourteig (1991).

I have started to follow the page Panthera leo in this regard (with a asterix), which would be as in the second example. I have discussed this with Orchi, with reference to the template Spage. Do you have an opinion? Uleli (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Uleli: @Orchi:. I have a had a good look through pages using Random Page and have found that the two formats are more or less equally used with a slight bias towards the first example you presented. I originally used the second but was "asked" by a fellow admin (not Thorpe!) not to use it in future. I agreed but said that I would not go through past edits deliberately. The argument was that the Name itself did not need highlighting by an asterix, but subsequent details such as Type Species, Type Genus, Lectotype, Holotype and so on "needed" it, as well as being indented, even though Panthera leo shows differently as to the first asterix. Personally I have no strong preference either way, however, if we are to move to option 1 then Panthera leo will need changing, as it is the exemplar! In addition, if we are to move to uniformity then is it possible for a bot to be created that will do this automatically - I do not know if this is possible? I think we need to raise these issues on the Pump and perhaps ask Dan if a bot is possible. What do you think?
Now as to the use of Lecotype! I rarely use this, as I have not had the time to chase the origins where they are required. I am not against its use, but for plants it tends to be relatively rare, IMO and so I have side stepped - lazy? However, I also think that the abbreviated circumscription used in Name will need to be expanded on in the reference section to make it clear, as we do with the origin(s) of the name itself. Andyboorman (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, let's ask on the Pump, could you write? Your English is probably better for this matter than mine.
About different types, as lectotype, iconotype etc. I use them when the info is right infront of me. I don't chase for this, if I don't know anything else I simply use Type. To me, lectotypes seems to be rather frequent for many plants published before 1930 (or maybe 1935) as all plants of Linnaeus, Miller and many of the earlier authors. As I recall, Britton & Rose was among the first to clearly state type specimens.... but I could be wrong here. I don't know when the code first required a stated type. Maybe I am lazy too, but I this of this project like other Wikis. Maybe/probably someone will come after me and add info. Uleli (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear @Andyboorman: @Uleli:, some times ago, probably I've something not translated correctly. Therefore, I started, to bring the orchids in a unified form. I hope we have not a big deal im pump. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear @Orchi: @Uleli:, I have added a topic to the Pump. Hope it reads OK. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Chloantheae edit

As per your kind message, you're right. No thoughts and I'm reversing now all Prostantheroideae text edits, as you suggest. Best regards.--Philmarin (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

All Prostantheroideae editions -absolutely all- yet reversed : Dead dog, rabies is over.... Rgds.--Philmarin (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Probably for the best. I will deal with the Discussion pages as needed. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Just a comment prior to settle Prostantheroideae issue : as far I know, nobody challenged B.J. Conn -a top Prostantheroideae authority, perhaps The Authority- 2011 Pityrodia s.l. break-up; 2012 Lamiales Synopsis by Olmstead is -as titled- «a working document»; Govaerts compilation is -as indicated in the Checklist- «NR = not yet reviewed»... In despite of this, is evident Barry John Conn might be wrong...! Case closed! Regards.--Philmarin (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
So, issue settled until further notice...! Best wishes for the new year.--Philmarin (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
You are right; I contacted Rafaël Govaerts by email and his today answer was fast and positive: have a look to Dasymalla, Quoya and Muniria at . So, reverses in Wikispecies will be welcomed...! Best regards. --Philmarin (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
PS : Govaerts answer copy: Dear Philippe,Thanks for pointing this out. The publication seems to have been overlooked. I amended that. Regards, Rafaël Govaerts, Senior Content Editor - Plant & Fungal Names, Biodiversity Informatics & Spatial Analysis, Herbarium, Library Art & Archives, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, TW9 3AE, United Kingdom, tel: 020 8332 5274, fax: 020 8332 5278, email:,

I have made a number of corrections! Thanks for the information. I am glad that Kew were so prompt, that is my experience as well. Sorry for all the fuss, I feel very humble, but Happy New Year and regards. Andyboorman (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Greetings edit

Dear Andy,
I thank you for your excellent work here in the past year.
With your help Wikispecies has become better and more peaceful.
Thank you and for you all the best for the new year 2016.
Kind regards! Orchi (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Return to the user page of "Andyboorman/Archive 3".