User talk:MILEPRI/Archive 5

Latest comment: 1 year ago by MILEPRI in topic WCVP

APC template edit

See the edit history for Jacksonia alata for a couple of improvements you may wish to follow. All the best for the new year. Andyboorman (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Vernacular name of Iris florentina edit

Hello MILEPRI! I saw that some time ago, you added the Spanish vernacular names "Betulia" and "Lilio morado" to the Iris florentina page. However the Wikispecies guideline say that we should only add one vernacular name per language. Could you please edit the page again, and only include the one (1) most common Spanish name? The flowers of this species are normally white, and in many languages the vernacular names include the words "white" or "alba" (for example "White iris" in English and "Giaggiolo bianco" in Italian). However they can be blueish, and perhaps the purple/violet in "Lilio morado" added by you is the correct Spanish name? I don't know, but I'm sure you do.   Thanks beforehand! Kindly, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC).Reply

Trimezieae edit

Hello. Be very careful with Trimezieae, as the synonymy is not at all settled. It could be seen as legitimate for WS to have two names for the same taxon, if it is a disputed circumscription! See this Discussion. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman:. I'm done updating the tribe. When they reach a consensus, I will update this tribe again. Saludos. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MILEPRI (talkcontribs) 09:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC).Reply

World Checklist of Vascular Plants edit

Good morning. The printed material linked here {{Govaerts et al., 2021}} has been replaced by the online {{WCVP}}. You can use this instead. Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman:. OK. --MILEPRI (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Clerodendrum glandulosum. edit

Your edit has been reverted as it resulted in a non-standard page format. Andyboorman (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kalaharia edit

Not sure how useful is Govaerts, R. (2003). World Checklist of Selected Plant Families Database in ACCESS: 1-216203. The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew as it is nearly 20 years out of date. Hence my note removal on Kalaharia. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think it is not useful. It is a 19-year-old version of WCSP, a Kew-internal Access file, unavailable to the public, indicating that they accepted the name some years ago or not. Nothing else. --RLJ (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Taxonavbar edit

Hi I thought the community had decided not to use taxonavbar after a discussion as it does not appear to function correctly in all instances. Do you know something we do not? If so please let the community know via the Pump. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman:. While updating the genre Stachys I noticed that RLJ had included a very interesting novelty for page visitors, the taxonbar, since instead of the usual 2-3 references, it adds 8-10 or 20 new references that expand the data on what was consulted. I think it is very interesting to return to this topic because it seems like a good option. I have tried the taxonbar on insects and bryophytes (where it is very difficult to find references) and it adds data that an editor would have neither the time nor the patience to find. After your reminder I am in doubt whether or not to continue using it. Please guide me so as not to make the mistake of doing what the community has agreed to.Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman:. I just made the Synandreae tribe, in which there are no direct links. With taxonbar would appear: Wikidata, ICBI & Vascon. Those data will not be able to see those who enter the page. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I would like to remind us of this vote [1]. as the use is banned for now. May be it is time to revisit the discussion? In the meantime it should not be be added and could be removed. Andyboorman (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stop adding this template you are acting out of consensus. If you want to use it then start a Pump Discussion with a view to vote. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

This template has been removed from all taxon pages. Please do not use it anymore. However, feel free to restart the Pump Discussion. Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Do you know of a way of making this template look like the Wikipedia versions either the Spanish or English? Also can we get rid of the Plant List and say replace it with Hassler? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman:. It is a very good idea to replace Plant List with Hassler. Saludos — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MILEPRI (talkcontribs) 08:22, 14 April 2022.

nadi edit

Thanks for adding distributions on some taxon pages. However, I would suggest that its use on pages where there is a wide distribution, such as Callicarpa is not very helpful. Going from an incomplete continental list to a very large country list is not that useful for the reader. It would have been better to break this down into regions then countries as per the citation on nadi. For example, the distribution for Madagascar would be Africa - Western Indian Ocean - Madagascar. See this Orchid page as an example Agrostophyllum. Trying to be helpful! Andyboorman (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Again some nadi sections are not conforming to WS standard. I may have to silent delete if they are not corrected, as this gives a bad impression of WS, given the high quality of the rest of the page. Thanks
@Andyboorman:. ¿A que página se refiere?. Unicamente no diversifico las regiones en los géneros que tienen muchas especies. En las especies siempre las divido por regiones. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Era Lycopus (Lamiaceae). Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Govaerts 2003 edit

Not sure adding this unavailable source to all of your edits is helpful. The data is available elsewhere on the reference list after all and it is not accessible. Please note that all of its data has been added to the continuously updated online and freely accessible source World Checklist of Vascular Plants. Adding it to taxa that have been extensively emended since 2003 is an error. Not sure what to do about this. However, if you can justify its inclusion I would be very grateful. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: Only include this reference if it appears in POWO. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
So it is a duplicate and not required, in my humble opinion. POWO and WCSP are updated from WCVP which is the base database and has replaced Govaerts 2003. Andyboorman (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman: I take note not to include this reference in the pages I edit. Saludos --MILEPRI (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do not remove links from Reference List edit

I notice that you have started to remove links from the Reference Section. I assume as you are adding Taxonbar, the consensus is we do not do this. Andyboorman (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: I had understood that only those from which the data had been taken for the creation of the page would be left in the references, since the rest would appear in taxonbar.

An error that I appreciate is that when two data of species appear in taxonbar, there is a solution, I put taxonbar|from=Qxxxxxxx, and only the indicated taxon should appear, but this does not happen and both continue to appear , has this solution or I make some unknown error. Greetings.--MILEPRI (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • OK, not an expert on taxonbar, are you saying that the template taxonbar automatically deletes the duplicate sources from the Reference Section? If so then we need to alert somebody more knowledgeable, if not and there is a duplicate then we will live with this. Do not manually delete from the Reference list, as to a reader this is a key section that indicates the sources used to construct the taxon page. Taxonbar is just another added non-essential extra like nadi, image, vn, categories and so on. Andyboorman (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • My key reference links are WCSP/PWO, Catol-Hassler, IPNI (essential for genera and species) and Tropicos (plus its offshoots) and occasionally APC and APD. Deleting these from pages I create/edit will automatically lead to a roll back - sorry. Andyboorman (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman: Este texto aparece en las recomendaciones antes de la votación: @Thiotrix: by default Taxonbar retrieve the identifiers of the item linked to the Wikispecies page, e.g. for Halimione portulacoides it is Q888227. However you can force the display of the identifiers of your choice, e.g. Taxonbar|from=Q17244388 would have retrived only the identifiers from Q17244388. And you can force the display of identifiers from several synonyms as I did in example in Halimione portulacoides, Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC) the relative documentation is availaible in ENWI en:Template:Taxonbar#Multiple_Wikidata_entries Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Saludos

Orphans edit

Hello. I have just noticed that you have been creating a lot of orphan pages. These have no connection to other taxon pages, for example a species page whose name does not appear on the list of species of its genus page. It usually happens when updating a species list and we remove blue link species, but without either deleting them or placing into their correct synonymy. I also did this in the past but no longer as it creates a lot of extra work. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: I assume you are referring to Cinnamomum which has recently updated the species and removed the ones not listed in POWO. I will look at the links to correct this, although when making the pages with an image I am already changing them to their new reference, I will look at the ones that do not have an image to do the same. Thank you for your warning. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Still coming across orphans, for example Hedysarum are they yours? Andyboorman (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Citation formats. edit

Will you be standardising your citations to bring them in line with WS guidelines? For example, Rodrigues de Moraes, P.L. (2012). The Lauraceae collected in Brazil by Ludwig Riedel - I Harvard Papers in Botany 17: 185-216. This is just a cut and paste at the moment and is available from JSTOR as well. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: I don't understand what you mean, specifically, because I'm putting the reference as you. says, see Dicypellium caryophyllaceum. Saludos. --MILEPRI (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
You have to rewrite the citation as we use them on WS, which is not the same as the original source, because we require consistency using the modified Harvard system. You do write templates so you must know what I mean. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I have made the template as the reference might be useful elsewhere. Andyboorman (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Homonyms edit

Just to let you know that a homonym is not a synonym and therefor does not belong under the synonym section. See my correction in Oryzoideae. I would be grateful if you could edit similar occurrences. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK. MILEPRI (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Erianthus (Poaceae) edit

¿Repararás los enlaces? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman:. Estoy en ello. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Gracias amigo Andyboorman (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Abeillia edit

Hello friend. It looks that the eponym category is not correct. See here, p.29 Jobling The Abeille you refer was born in 1843 and the generic name was created in 1850. Apparently all the specific names abeillei (for birds) refers to certain M. Abeille, a "colector and naturalist from Bordeaux", not the entomologist you related. Cheers. Hector Bottai (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Gracias por la correccion. Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Por nada! Hector Bottai (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

WCVP edit

This resource now redirects to PWO and probably should not appear as an additional reference, as it is superfluous. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman:. Gracias por el aviso. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "MILEPRI/Archive 5".